P3D Re: Good Old Henry

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> >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

It's true that I may be bending backward excessively to give the man
the benefit of the doubt, but I think others are being a bit harsh on
him, particularly taking into account when he said it and what the quote
would mean in the context of his day.

Most of the objections you mentioned are aspects of stereography
implementations (like using Fuji film).  But good Old Henry probably
was using and talking about black and white images, so I think 
interpretting his statement so literally (like having to be EXACTLY
as nature provides) is being excessively harsh on the guy.


If my non-joke statement is taken as an oxymoron, then I obviously
wasn't clear as to what I meant.

Stereography is an optical-tool of sorts, and that which particuarly 
distinguishes it from other tools -- even more than adding color, IMO -- 
is it's presentation of "reality".  Since the days of cave-wall 
drawings, non-realistic images have been created.  Until stereography, 
one didn't frequently say "gee, looks like real" and actually mean it.  
Stereography provides that sense of realism (that is, like nature).


> 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.

I actually agree with all you say, and further, it doesn't conflict
with anything I said although your tone would suggest that it does.

I know of some of Ray's work, I've even bought some of it and enjoy it.
But from a single "customer's" perspective, his use of stereo provides a 
sense of reality to his images.  In other words, it makes it *more*
like nature even though it clearly isn't natural.  In other words, if
he did the same work w/o stereo and w/stereo, what's the difference?  To
me the one with stereo is given more substance and reality relative to
the same images w/o stereo.  In other words, appearance of reality (nature) 
is being generated for something imaginary.  The ultimate in this
*concept* is the Star Trek Holodeck where everything appears to be real 
in all four dimensions and is interactive as well.  Even though the holodeck 
environment is completely imaginary, it appears to be full-immersive 
reality. Holodeck implemenations aren't real, but it's concept sounds
reasonable (to me).

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

I don't recall him using the word "perfect".  I recall him saying that
its ultimate function was (re)creation of the appearance of reality
just like nature (which is a way of defining "reality").  And in my view 
that's what Ray uses it for too.

Generous interpretive engineer and rank-amateur artist,

Mike K.


P.S. - Okay Ray, tell me I'm all wet.  I'm in Portland, Oregon so I'm
       used to being all wet.  Maybe Old Henry *was* "full of it".  :-)


> 
>      -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)
> 
> 
> 


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