P3D R: Why is 2d photography better than 3-D?

["Sergio Baldissara" <winter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

May be I'm not converted, but 3d isn't a religion. (is it?)
anyway, in "fine arts" questions about "superiority" (peinture vs sculpture,
song vs poetry...) are seldom posed, and usually dropped as "not relevant"
(nobody cares).
THE QUESTION should be: why 2d overcame 3d? (How popularity of 3d can
increase?)
 I tried to give MY answers: the luck of a medium is related in a direct
ratio to the quantity of information it provides, and to the easyness of the
processes needed to produce and see (enjoy) its results.
3d provides more information, but still needs goggles or viewers, & in most
cases it's more difficult to do.  When viewers or stereoscopes are needed,
viewing remains an individual, hard to share, experience.
In the past 3d knew periods of popularity; each period ended when a luckier
2d medium has been introduced: VM reels give depth, but TV provides motion
and voice.  Stereo cameras where produced until Instamatic made
2d-colour-snaps cheap & easy for everybody. Nimslo (& clones) just gave fair
results, but they gave anyway easily-done free-viewed 3d pics.  They
couldn't succeed because the processing-printing facilities were rare, so
one had to wait for weeks before seeing his lenticular pics, when 2d
1-hour-service labs were already spreading around.
Holograms are still more expensive than 2d, and lack versatility.
In the last years computer  tecnologies helped making 3d easier (anaglyphs
in traditional darkrooms were quite a tricky business) & added new 3d media
(interlaced). The internet provides information, & helps 3d fans to get and
keep in contact worldwide, thus breaking our lonelyness...
But the struggle again indifference is still hard to be won. In my country
(Italy) there are about a dozen photo magazines , but none reserves pages to
3d.      I don't know elsewhere, but I'm not too hopeful. May be new media,
as polarized or goggle-free  monitor screens could increase popularity of
3d, but hardware producers are still proposing such devices for professional
users (in medicine or air traffic survey, mean great money!).  3d
enthousiasts are simply considered an unrelevant, uninteresting audience &
market share.
Sergio
> At 05:08 PM 12/03/1999 -0700, you wrote:
> >--- Lme Kbee <jet_lk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Why is 2d photography better than 3-D?
> > > It's not.
> > > I just wanted to preach to the converted for a second.
> >
> >And what would you say if someone (unconverted) asks "Why is 3d
> >photography better than 2-D"???
>
> Well, that's obvious ... more D's!
>
> -pd