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

["Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fact is, 2D is better than 3D, at least in terms of economic Darwinism.
The image consuming public has firmly settled on 2D despite availability
of 3D.  2D is more convenient, of course, but I think it has prevailed
also because it is better at two key photographic functions: at
documentation and as an art medium.

The problem with 3D for documentation is that a 3D image cannot be read.
A 2D photograph has an objective quality.  You can skim it and do not
need to get involved in it if you decide you do not want to.  But a 3D
photograph demands involvement of at least your stereo imaging faculty,
which is absorbing, mysterious and subjective - not exactly documentary
qualities.

Absorbing, mysterious and subjective - sounds like 3D should be perfect
for art.  Well, not exactly.  Once you image a 3D photograph, there is
not much farther you can get into it.  It is just too literal.  Objects
in a 2D photograph, on the other hand, have ambiguities as to size,
distance and shape that can be put to the service of art.

Having completely swallowed Lincoln's bait, I'm now bracing myself for a
bumpy ride.

Oleg Vorobyoff


Lincoln  <jet_lk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>Why is 2d photography better than 3-D?
>
>It's not.
>