P3D Re: Alternatives to "insufficient depth"

[jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Gabriel Jacob)]

>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.

Not necessarily, if you don't overdo it, most people won't even notice
the slight hyper shot (increase from 70 to 110mm for example) especially
for scenic shots. In alot of cases that's all it takes to transform a
backdrop such as a city skyline. In other more distant cases even this
won't be enough of course. Sharpness in this case is paramount.

>So, not take the picture?  I certainly disagree with this.  Take a 
>sharp and properly exposed picture even if it has very little depth.

I agree BUT the problem is.. EVEN a properly exposed picture that
is sharp doesn't capture reality. This is because of the limitations
of film. Alot of distant scenic shots that supposedly look like
backdrops in real life don't look like backdrops to me except on film!
Now it can be claimed this is because of my limitations as an amateur
photographer BUT it seems everyone claims those distant mountains
(or whatever) don't "look" 3-D in real life, which I claim otherwise
(unless of course it's hazy).
 
Gabriel


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