P3D Re: Alternatives to "insufficient depth"

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


>>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.


I personally happen to somewhat dislike hyperstereos because of this
"liliputian" (c.f Swift's "Gulliver's Travels") effect, but this
sentiment isn't by any means universal.  That's why my original post
said "If this isn't your cup of tea...", which you conveniently edited
out.  Some people like hypers.  I prefer a hyper to a flat so-called
"stereograph", at any rate.

>>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.


It could be.  It could be historically interesting, it might even be
photogenic on its own.  You wouldn't want me to prejudge something I
haven't even seen, would you?

Perhaps a counter example would help.  The trash can at the "scenic
overlook" probably isn't interesting (unless there's litter all around
it AND you're doing a public service announcement-style
ecologically-minded stereograph).  [Is there enough CYA in that example
for this group?  I feel like a lawyer <shiver>.]

>>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.


Disagree away.  This is food for thought, not a demand for consensus "or
else".

>>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! :-)


Like *any* of us have that power.

[What do you think, folks?  Maybe I should refer to George as the
"mounting police" (gee, I like the sound of that) whenever he rails
against common mounting errors.  After all, I'm in this for my own
enjoyment, not yours.  Who cares if I twist your eyeballs with vertical
displacement, rotational error, window violations, etc.  They're MY
slides.  Etc.]

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



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