P3D good 2D = good 3D

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

Boy, you gotta love this list.  It is such effortless fun, sometimes.

All you have to do, is send out a few of your opinions, then step (rapidly)
back, and enjoy the ensuing riot!  You don't even have to go back in to
defend yourself, if you don't have the time (and I didn't today).  Others
will jump in and start slugging for you!

So, maybe I misunderstood Mr. Hatfield's original suggestion regarding the
importance of 2D principles in the taking of 3D pictures.  But it did seem
he was suggesting that no bad 2D shots/compositions could make good 3D
shots.

Greg Wageman's replies in this thread made my point better than even I
could have.  So what more can I add?

>From: "Gregory J. Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>
...
>Mark Hatfield writes:
...
>>For myself, as I said before, the resulting image should be a good photograph
>>first and foremost.
>
>I've seen very effective stereophotographs in folios which decidedly do NOT
>work as two-dimensional photographs.  One which comes to mind appeared in
...
>shot.  It is one of the best uses I've seen of the third dimension used as
>a compositional element, and it wouldn't have been taken if the photographer
>had adhered to your "must work flat" rule-of-thumb (assuming that's what
>you mean by "good photograph first").

Thank you for clarifying, Greg.


Boris

"Eroticism is using a feather; pornography is using the whole hen."
- Isabel Allende - Aphrodite

Boris Starosta            boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
                          http://www.starosta.com
usa 804 979 3930          http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase



------------------------------