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

["Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've only been doing 3D for a year but in that time have taken lots of
pictures.  Sure, there are lots of neat things to photograph, and the
pictures look great, but each individual 3D picture is sort of a dead
end.  It always takes you back to the same spot, frozen in time.  You
cannot walk around it like with a sculpture.  It is very difficult to
look at color, shape and line in it abstractly like with a painting.
Art needs to be capable of transporting one (mentally) to a separate
world.

That said, I have not stopped taking 3D pictures.  There is something
compelling there, and I'm not quite sure what it is.

As for computer 3D, Larry, how long do you think before video
monitors/displays and associated hardware/software will match the
sharpness and depth of slides in hand viewers?  When that day comes,
you've got a convert.

Oleg Vorobyoff

>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Oleg Vorobyoff
>>
>
>
>****   Interesting comments. Only someone who hasn't tried to do
>something with 3D pictures could complain there was nothing available
>to be done with them!
>
>Getting the pictures is only the beginning. The fact that so much can
>be done with them after getting them is a big part of the basis for
>my passion for stereo images!
>
>However the portal to this enticingly immersive realm is the
computer...
>
>Freedom in the medium is obtained with a good pair of eyes trained
>in the fine art of freeviewing. Thereafter only your imagination can
>limit you.
>--
>Larry Berlin
>