P3D Re: Depth police, please back off!

[Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx>]

Dr. George A. Themelis wrote:

> I just about had it with the "depth police" telling me what to do with
> my stereo camera.  Sure, at the end they tell me that it is my film
> and I can do whatever I want, but only after they try to convince
> me that having very little depth in a stereo pair is a bad use of the
> medium, deceiving, immoral, cheating, and I don't know what else!

(Note: The following discussion does not apply to snapshot photography)

In one paragraph, George has distilled what in my opinion is the
greatest deficiency in stereo photography as it is practiced today...
namely that the overwhelming majority of the stereo shots I've seen and
the stereo photographers I've met are far more concerned with the
depiction of depth than the creation of a fine photograph.

I have seen many, many really beautiful stereo photographs dismissed by
the cognisenti, the gurus, as being "flat." Then, they will proudly show
you their prized slides which by any normal measure are nothing better
than ordinary, but which contain a train track running into your face,
or a hand beaconing you hither, or the sexual orgins of a flower looming
large before your eyes, and really have no redeeming artistic value
whatsoever. I have seen technical photographs (flaties) which show more
skill and imagination than most of them!

There are of course many exceptions, but for me whether it's flat,
stereo, b/w, color, hand-tinted... the question is not "does it have
depth" but does it captivate? Does it intrigue? Does it have impact?
Emotional resonance? Facination? After all is said and done and the
novelty of the reconstruction of depth is behind us, are we creating
images which will endure the test of time and still be worth looking at?
IMO the answer has very little to do with how much depth the shot
captures...


Eric G.


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