P3D Re: Sticking with beamsplitter

[SHIELDS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

I read the responses to Dr. T's request for beamsplitter information.
As always, I have learned something from them. I do have some more
thoughts to share.

I wouldn't call the beamsplitter format "great," but it's very good
and very useful. I see it as being between the 5/7/8 perf format
and the View-Master. I did ask about a month ago why some people
perferred a format as small (and difficult to use) as the View-Master.
They have their reasons. I have mine.

The time and money angle is acutely important for me. My work requires
12- 14-hour days and the pay is low. I do it for love, not for money.
So film economy and fast mounting are critical. I can't afford the time
it would take to mount some other way. I have chosen to accept the
limitations of a beamsplitter (and it does have them) so that I can go
on taking stereo slides (I like slides better than prints, and think
that as a whole they take less time than prints). I do also find that
because I shoot quickly changing subjects (read: kids), auto exposure
is absolutely essential. I also find _accurate_ auto exposure to be a
film-saving item--less bracketing that way. Hence the Olympus OM-10,
which has stepless shutter speeds via a cell that reads the light off
the film itself.

I do find that I can obtain excellent results. There are ways of
minimizing the black band. What is still there, is still there,
and I accept it. A quality splitter with front-surface mirrors and a 
good lens does not have a problem with softness in the corners, at 
least in my experience. My style of shooting before stereo was to have 
simple subjects with a minimum of clutter, shot rather close up with a 
short telephoto lens, with good but not unrealistic color 
saturation--in short, I would say, "punchy." My style has not changed--
I just find that stereo enhances the effect. I know it isn't the same
as what the majority of stereo shooters aim for, but it works for me.

A vertical format can be challenging, and sometimes I really want
horizontal, but that doesn't keep me from taking good pictures.
I often find the vertical format makes me see things I might otherwise
have missed. All other things being equal I would choose square, but they 
aren't.

I have no interest in entering competitions. My pictures are to enhance 
the relationships in my life, and the people who view them are
enormously pleased. Maybe they would be more pleased with 8-perf, but
I can't afford it timewise, moneywise, or equipmentlugwise.

I would love to have a larger film area. I spent a _lot_ of time this
past summer considering a FED, which has auto exposure, but I 
determined that its sensitivity to light on the lower end of the
scale was not good, and that it does not, so far as I can tell,
have stepless shutter speeds. I also considered twinned OM-10's--two
are available to me--but rejected that idea as too heavy and bulky,
besides the increased film use and having to get another viewer.
Too, I considered twinned XA2's since I have one of them already.
To get the larger film area, I would have to sacrifice several other
things besides the increased cost. I chose not to. I've definitely
noticed grain more since I went from 24X36mm flat slides to 18X24 stereo.
So I've gone back to using slower film for some shots. It isn't perfect.

I'm a collector by nature and if I could afford it would have one
of each FED Stereo ever made, a Kodak, a Wirgin, etc...such fascinating
stuff is out there!

As for trying something else, I do shoot a lot with a Nimslo, which
has its own disadvantages, doubled film useage being one of them.
(I've considered the "Teco" modification but it is costly in time
or money and I really do think there is a risk of frame overlap.)
I do look at the clear, sharp edges of the images, with no black
band, and wish all of my slides were like that. It has its place,
especially for a wider angle than a beamsplitter can give (with its
30mm lenses it is like my "wide-angle beamsplitter"--I've learned how
to mount the pairs in 2X2 mounts like beamsplitter pairs, and they
mix very nicely); it also has stepless auto shutter speeds. I've owned 
enough different cameras (a dozen or so, including a Minolta-16II, a 
Voigtlander Ultramatic CS, a Kodak Retina Reflex S, two Olympus Pen-FT's)
to have a feel for what works for me and what doesn't.

All other things being equal, I would certainly get an RBT SLR with
geared linkages between the lenses--hang the cost. Get a topnotch
viewer and mate it with a Biax fluorescent light box for illumination.
But they aren't. I tune pianos on the side, and it's good money, but
there isn't time to tune enough to buy an RBT. If I have "spare time,"
I'm out on the bike trail with some of my kids.

This is not to say that if you are using a Realist or anything else
you should switch. If you are happy, keep shooting! 

Finally, thanks again to all the list members, beamsplitter and otherwise,
who have helped me to learn about this fascinating dimension of photography!

Mark Shields

   |\	   _,,,---,,_
   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_
  |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
 '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)
shields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.netcom.com/~northws1/stmatt.htm
"Let the little children come to Me," Jesus said, "and don't keep
 them away. The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
  -Matthew 19:14