P3D Re: A Few Good Men

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is a red-letter day!  I finally drew some (very mild) fire from
the Mighty Themelis!  Observe:

> McKay is my personal hero... Apparently he was more interested 
> in the final results that the theory behind them.  You have his 
> book Bruce.  Now read it! :-)

Well, re-read it is more like it.  Read the library copy a year or so
ago, and selected chapters more recently.

> "The stereographer was once very proud of his theoretical knowledge,
> whether it was accurate or not, and he used stereoscopy only as a
> stepping stone to elementary, very elementary stereogrammetry,
> and to him 'stereo' was far more grammetric than scopic.

(Here follows the parable of the foolish beginner...)

(then the moral of the story:)

> He simply
> could not understand that stereoscopically the invisible is
> non-existent.  He was delving into the realm of stereogrammetry.
> 
> ... In this volume we shall deliberately disregard all of these
> fascinating mathematical complexities and treat our subject from
> the only rational, stereoscopic point of view; that is, with the
> visual appearance as the standard.  IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT, IT ISN'T
> THERE."

Or if you can't see it, maybe you aren't looking?

McKay, George's hero, is an interesting character.  I also read a lot
of his columns in the old photo magazines some time back and the one
thing that really stands out in my recollection is his cantankerous
scorn for anyone who disagrees with his stereo philosophy.  His
writing is suffused with anecdotes and diatribes about other people's
foolishness.  Fortunately, George does not emulate McKay in this
respect. :-)

In the case above, does McKay want us to believe that the young man's
foolish use of the math constitutes an argument against math use?  No,
he is merely making the point that what appears to the eye is the
final measure of photographic success.  You can't calculate your way
to artistic glory. And the ability to make a precise calculation
doesn't mean that you are doing anything meaningful with that level of
precision.  Well, I never disagreed with that in my life.  Haven't
seen anyone on the list disagree with that.  We all agree that eating
the pudding is the proof, and that wallowing in numbers at the expense
of hands-on trial and error is for geeks and control freaks.

But, what I don't get in all the previous, contentious discussion is
the rather patronizing and overbearing assumption that all us
beginners are a bunch of dizzy yokels who are going to get dazzled by
the math and start taking pictures by the numbers, ignoring what our
eyes see in the end.  Or, alternatively, that we will run away
screaming in terror at the sight of an equation.  The fellow in
McKay's story may be a ninny (though we haven't heard his side of the
story) - but that doesn't mean anybody who picks up a calculator for
purposes of quantifying depth is heading down the road to ruin. 
Nobody seems to have any trouble accepting the mixed approach - math
*and* fudge - in the other elements of this craft.  So why the hang-up
when it comes to base?  Do we worry that people will stop taking good
pictures if they get into studying camera construction, or viewer
optics and modification, or the resolution and contrast of various
lenses, or the qualities of various films?  Nobody seems to balk at
those discussions of the stereo "variables", even when the "visible"
results are just as elusive or practically non-existant.

McKay doesn't provide any pictures to show us what can or can't be
seen - he just tells us what we can see.  Well at some point
variations in base can be seen, do affect the impression a picture
gives, and can be controlled with forethought and experience.  If I
want to learn the limits of the math by reasonable experimentation and
the evidence of my own eyes, rather than simply accepting arguments
from "authority", is that foolish?
Is it a waste of time?  My instincts tell me there are reasonable and
useful lessons to be learned here - so why spoil my fun?

So enough false dichotomy.  I'm interested in the final results *and*
the theory behind them.  It's not an either/or choice.  No one except
the anti-base-math folks has ever suggested otherwise.  And the
subject belongs on P3D as much as, or more than, many others I have
seen go unquestioned here.  I just hope it can evolve into a balanced,
practical discussion of all approaches, instead of an attempt to
stifle inquiry among those who are interested.

In my perhaps not very humble, but very weary and earnest opinion.

Bruce. 
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


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