P3D Alternatives to "insufficient depth"

["Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

OK, a bit more serious discussion here... Greg proposes the following
alternatives to little depth:

>So, what are the alternatives?  I see the following:
>    
>1. Take a hyperstereo.  It will at least utilize the third dimension. 

At the expense of the other two dimensions.  People might think that
you get more depth without sacrificing anything.  A hyperstereo makes
your subject look *smaller*.  You take a grand view and reduce it to
a miniature view.  Yes, you added depth but you took away the grandness
of is.
    
>2. Compose the shot differently; don't make the distant mountains the
>   *subject* of the stereograph, but merely include them behind something
>   interesting and close-by.

How do you define "interesting"?  Is the airplane wing in my previous
example, "interesting"?  I think foreground helps do more than just
be interesting.  It frames your subject.  Even if it is secondary, it
is still important.  This, IMO, is the best suggestion, only I am much
more flexible regarding the choice of foreground.  It does not have
to be interesting to the point that it distracts to your background,
if the background is really what you want to photograph.
    
>3. Find a different subject!  Not every subject is suitable for producing
>   good stereo.  Learn to live with this and move on;

So, not take the picture?  I certainly disagree with this.  Take a 
sharp and properly exposed picture even if it has very little depth.
 
>4. Take it anyway.  No one's stopping you.

That's what I will do, thank you!  But, please, don't take away my 
medals! :-)

-- George Themelis


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