P3D Depth, again. And motivations for taking pictures.

[Project3D@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 4/9/98 9:12:15 am, Greg Wageman nearly 2 days after I
posted my bit about enlarging images to reveal depth clues refutes my argument
with:

<<I'm sorry too, but this is factually false.  Take a picture of the clear
night sky with a normal stereobase, and the only differences between the
two images will be due to the differences in the film grain structure
and the slightly different aberrations in the two optical systems.>>

and, of course, he is right! But I think I made my point (he even acknowledges
that his riposte is a little extreme, as was my suggestion :->  )

Greg later writes following my suggestion that the audience would think it
strange if we stopped a 3-D show to insert the flat images:

<<Indeed they would.  But then if you came to see a show of ostensibly 3D
images, and every one were of a sunset from the top of  a mountain or a
distant mountain range taken from the edge of a cliff, no matter how
glorious the image, wouldn't you be a bit disappointed?  You had been
told, after all, that you were going to see 3D.>>

But now Greg is REALLY being extreme! Who ever suggested that anyone would
ONLY take flat subjects, and pass them off as 3-D? Emanon? :-) 

No. Our differences stem from the fact that I make 3-D SHOWS - where I see
absolutely NO PROBLEM with the inclusion of an OCCASIONAL flat image if it
helps the story, whilst Greg is concerned with entering individual images in a
competition where they are expected to stand alone. I don't wish to
deliberately go out to make that kind of images - I wish to make a collection
of images that will hang together as an entity. (Of course, occasionally, I
"get lucky"!!!)

Greg, is the exact reverse - if I am reading between the lines correctly, he
DOES go out looking for that prize-winning image. He writes:

<<It is true that I don't plan my images when I'm taking them in the
context of  a show or presentation.  I would tend to do that kind of
selection after the fact.  If you can do that in camera, then you are
godlike in your stereo prowess and I am not worthy of cleaning your
lenses.>>

Well, I'm certainly not worthy of cleaning YOUR lenses if you can see those
prize-winning individual shot whilst out in the field! I tend to select THEM
after the event! So, it seems, we are are opposite ends of the spectrum. Both
striving to provide our audiences with a satisfying 3-D experience. Two
individuals, two individual approaches. And plenty of room for both, and all
the shades of colour in between!

Greg, again:

<<Most competitions limit the number of images one can present, and mix
them with other peoples' images.  Could you count on the preceding image
being just the right one to offset the lack of depth in yours, or
shouldn't you plan on your image standing on its own?>>

Why on earth should I do anything at all? I'm very happy with the way I do it,
you are happy with the way YOU do it. I wouldn't presume to tell ANYONE else
how they should plan their artistic endeavours!!! Now, if they want TECHNICAL
advice, I'd be happy to bore you to tears! :-)

Bob Aldridge


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