P3D Re: Focus and Depth

[Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxx>]

Sorry to have been out of the loop the past couple of days. Thanks to
those who jumped in on behalf of some minimal level of decency on this
list...

OLE HANSEN wrote:

> You have brought my patience and respect to an end by your posting.

It is not like Ole Hansen to respond so. I can't recall any of his
previous posts being so ill mannered and inappropriate. I'm going to
chalk it off as a bad day, and suggest we move on...

There are a number of points Ole made which I disagree with, including
his definition of depth as being solely the domain of stereopsis. It
seems to me that our fundamental difference lies in the question of
whether stereopsis or parallax-based depth is the only relevent cue
stereo photographers should concern themselves with. If I'm
understanding him correctly, Ole seems to say it is, and I completely
disagree. Why would we exclude other depth cues, such as convergience
and/or shading, as useful tools when we shoot stereo?

We know that distant mountains are not flat, yet parallax (with normal
lens spacing) does not allow us to perceive the depth in them. Other
cues do. Why then would they be irrevelent to us in creating our stereo
images? Another example would be the lighting for depth. With good
lighting, I can greatly enhance the perceived roundness of foreground
object beyond what parallax provides. Aren't there creative
opportunities to make us of this in the stereo photographer's work?


Eric G.


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