P3D Prints, Slides & the Rest of Stereo

[Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, Brother Bill Walton effectively "outed" me a couple of days ago
as the derelict guy with a zillion dusty film chips in his living
room, who enjoys making stereocards more than mounting transparencies.
 It's true.  The good news is that most of those neglected chips are
underexposed, or over contrasty, or just plain boring.  Meanwhile,
Brother George Themelis has had an apocalyptic millenial vision of a
slideless - and perhaps filmless - future.  Panic in the streets may
ensue.

But I am calm.  I believe slides will live forever; they are radiant
and gorgeous and serious photographers will never tolerate their
demise.  Card making will prosper too - it is blissfully tactile,
flexible, nostalgic *and* modern, and makes the perfect "gateway drug"
for hooking new aDDDicts.  Computer-based imaging methods, like young
"prolific" posters on P3D, sound clever but have eternity to go before
matching or replacing fine old standards.  So Chairman Apples and
Doctor Oranges needn't make fruit salad of each other this year; we'll
love and need them both for a long time.  Oh yes, we will have
bananas.  Senior Experienced Stereographer Bill, having espied a
likely lad of merely 41 years (that's "baby" in stereo years) with an
itch for making cards, envisions the First Milwaukee International
Stereocard Exhibition.  But it would, if it came to pass, be the First
Milwaukee Stereo-Imaging Love-In.  I enjoy all formats too well to
become a booster for any one.  For now I shoot slides wholesale, while
cards are a more contemplative low-volume craft. (But it could be the
opposite just as easily.)  And anaglyphic phanto-bananagrams beckon
just over the horizon.  (Who is Boris?) 

By the way - I have somehow become the coordinator for the *original*
Stereocard Exhibit/Competition at NSA Green Bay in '99.  The
discussion about viewers for print competition is most apropos.  I
would like to hear suggestions as to how the NSA judges could best
view entries while they are mounted in standing frames (the views, not
the judges).  I dislike the plastic lorgnettes very much - suggestions
for reasonable alternatives would be most welcome, on or off list. 
Seriously.

I have come to believe that any grown-up stereo image must be made
with a solid idea of how it will usually be viewed:  slide viewer,
projection, Holmes, free-viewing, ortho-phantogram, VR goggles, etc. 
My impression of a stereo image is dependent on the viewing method
employed.  For example most "free" viewers are introducing
considerable stretch into a scene, not seeing what nature invented or
photographer intended.  (There's no such thing as a "free" view. ;-) )
 Weird lighting, very-non-ortho viewing positions and focal lengths,
poor reproduction, conversion from format "A" to format "B" and other
such perversities play havoc with fair evaluation of the stereo
artist's efforts.  And any such artist who shoots not knowing or
caring or planning what the likely viewing conditions will do is
neglecting the ABC's that make stereo *un-flat* photography.  Such
heedlessness warrants stern discipline, in my uppity opinion.

Your Most Obedient Servant,

Bruce (A chip on my shoulder, a chip in my hair, a chip on the sofa, a
chip everywhere.) Springsteen
  





  


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


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