P3D slides v prints

["ron labbe" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ronald Beck says:
>IMHO, slides are for
projecting, prints are for viewing, whether 3D or 2D. <

For my money, no photographic visual experience can match a quality original
slide in a quality viewer (naturally I emphasize the stereoscopic aspect). I
see sharpness and detail and color I have NEVER seen in any print... In
addition, the image in a viewer is totally uncompromised by distractions of
the outer environment: it is PURE image, the vivid colors are the emulsion
that was struck by the very light that was reflected off the image that my
brain is having the pleasure of processing.

That slides can be projected is nice additional feature.

Prints, alas, are for convenience.
(Although I do enjoy good quality prints now and again, both 2D and 3D- but
nearly always B&W).
{Well, actually I do love the color reproductions in National Geographic...
they use the highest quality photo-gravure presses... I still wish that
those incredible photographers has shot their slides in stereo! But, alas,
how would one ever be able to SEE them? Certainly the chances of seeing one
of those original images- if any existed- in a high quality viewer is
miniscule... perhaps high-end digital imaging will help wide distibution of
quality stereo imaging.}
Prints, alas, are for convenience.


ron


ron labbe
studio3D 30 glendale st maynard, ma 01754
978 897-4221 fon/fax
mailto:ron@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.studio3d.com


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