P3D Re: Good Old Henry

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>I think I agree with old Henry.  But in saying that, I don't mean that
>replicating reality is the ONLY goal or even an acheived goal.


"Old Henry" had a rather limited imagination if the best application he
could think of for stereography was to replicate reality.  This is like
saying that the "perfect" motion picture is an un-edited documentary,
because it is the closest approximation to having actually been there.
Limited to a single point-of-view at eye level.  No "Citizen Kane" for
old Henry!   Or that the "perfect" style of painting is photorealism.
No abstract expressionism, no pointilism.  And the Cubists are RIGHT
OUT.  I think old Henry was small-minded.

>Goals of artistic expression can be done with or without stereography
>while stereography has the golden differentiating function
>of "replicating reality".


As has been pointed out here countless times, stereography only comes
slightly closer than conventional photography to duplicating reality.
It adds the element of depth from a single perspective.  I won't bore
everyone with a list of the possible distortions that most popular
systems introduce, not to mention those introduced by them medium of
film itself.  (Would old Henry have approved of Fuji Velvia?  "Reality"
never looked so good!)  That's hardly my idea of "replicating reality".
If that's your only goal, you're practically doomed before you begin!

>Stereography is reality-reborn even if the reality being replicated
>is an imaginary one.

An imaginary reality?  Talk about oxymorons!  I think you are the one
taking liberties with old Henry's intent.


>P.S. - The last line sounds like a joke, but it isn't one.  I think
>       the original quote is being interpretted too literally.

I don't think the quote is being read too literally at all.  The man
expressed a pretty strong opinion that copying nature was his idea of a
perfect stereo picture.  That, to me, means no distortions, no time
exposures, no macros, no hyperstereos, no infrared photography, and
certainly no imagination.  It is simply a recording function, a
snapshot.  Certainly that's one possible application, but it is an
artless one.  I think (I hope) most of us aspire to more than that.

 Ray Zone took exception to that.  I'm not surprised.  I do too.  You
are promoting what seems to me to be an engineer's point of view, and he
is taking the artist's perspective.  I can see both sides (so to speak),
but I prefer the artistic bent.  Anyone can point a camera, 3d or
otherwise, at an existing scene and click the shutter.  Finding creative
elements to use in the scene, finding interesting framing elements,
looking for unique perspectives, juxtapositions, making statements with
the things you find already there-- that's the creative part of
photography.  Is it harder?  Sure, but it's also more rewarding.

But unlike old Henry, I won't presume to say my preferences define the
"perfect" stereoscopic picture.  They're just what I prefer.

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



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