P3D Re: Depth

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>From: boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)
>Subject: P3D Depth

>>From: roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)

>That's because presenting the two media is done largely in the same way.

And also because of the infrastructure available - it's generally easier to
take color photos and have them processed than B&W photos.

>>Similarly, I wouldn't
>>feel compelled to select subjects for stereo photography that show (or
>>emphasize) depth, though I enjoy the ability to portray depth. In other
>>words, the stereo photographer shouldn't be limited in choice of subjects
>>by a perceived need to emphasize depth.

>But because stereo is a more difficult medium to present and view (the
>costs to the audience are considerable: glasses, goggles, viewers,
>headaches, or whatever...) I think you have to make it worth the trouble.
>When I go to the extra effort to look at a stereo photo, I do NOT want to
>see flat scenery - I can enjoy that much more in a large fine print!

A good point. (You also made further clarification in a later post.)

Did you happen to see the Hitchcock 3D movie at the NSA convention? One thing
that has tended to irritate me about classic 3D movies has been the emphasis
of depth to the extent that it distracts the viewer from the story line.
This was parodied on the old SCTV television series in the "Dr. Tongue"
"3-D movies". But the Hitchcock movie had very little of that - the main
exception I noticed was when the woman was reaching for the scissors. For
the most part, the stereo imagery was "just there", adding to the realism
but not calling particular attention to itself. I found that at times I
became immersed in the story line, and forgot that I was watching a *3D*
movie. Far from being a weakness, I felt that this was a situation in which
subtlety in the use of 3D paid off.

For still 3D photos, I value different photos for different reasons, and they
don't *all* have make the depth the dominant theme of the photo.

A few other comments:

- A lot of the stereo organization meetings emphasize the presentation of
  a series of photos, often telling a story of some sort. If part of the
  "story" involves (for example) a very distant scene, which is important
  to the story but doesn't photograph well in 3D, I'd rather the "flat"
  images be included, rather than leave a gap in the story.

- If 3D photography were as popular and widespread as some of us would like,
  some of the issues you brought up on the greater difficulty of
  presentation, etc. would be less relevant. So these issues are at least
  partly a function of the "niche market" characteristics of 3D photography.

- I tried to make some note that I was referring primarily to the *taking*
  of the photographs, more than to the mounting, presentation, etc. Since
  I most often use twin SLRs, generally it would take a certain additional
  effort for me to take a 2D photograph as opposed to a stereo photo - so
  in some cases I decide not to bother to reconfigure the cameras, and go
  ahead and take a stereo photo of a scene that's pretty flat. (That
  doesn't necessarily mean I'll go to the trouble to *mount* it in 3D -
  I might just use it for 2D photos. :-)

John R


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