P3D good 2D = good 3D

["Andrea Blair" <asblair@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>Boris Starosta wrote: 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.<<<<

I'm not sure what Mr. Hatfield's original implication was, but IMHO 
comparing 2-D to 3-D is a lot like comparing B&W film to color.

1) Some compositions look good as both a 2-D (or color) or a 3-D (or 
B&W) image
2) Some compositions look better as 2-D (or color) only
3) Some compositions look better as 3-D (or B&W) only 

Each format or medium adds a unique set of traits to make the final 
image pleasing (again, subjectional). In some cases, these traits 
overlap, or work well in conjunction with the traits from another format 
or medium.

I have some stereo shots that work exceptionally well as 2-D shots as 
well (this is where my 3rd shot in my series of three from sliding one 
SLR is not wasted). I have others that do not look well at all as 2-D 
images. I have others that look better as 2-D because the scene is too 
*flat* for my preferences for stereo.

Dr. T and Boris discussed removing *flat* images from a stereo 
competition. I don't think you should do this any more than you should 
remove a *busy* 2-D image from a competition. Leave it to the judges to 
decide if they like it. We are trusting the people we pick to judge to 
at least have a good idea of the concept of stereo photography! Depth 
perception and appreciation, IMHO, is just as subjectional as any other 
element of a stereo image.

Andrea S. Blair
asblair@xxxxxxxxxxx

p.s. A heads up to everyone considering entering the Potomac Slide 
International or the Chesapeake Card International - Boris is one of the 
judges!

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


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