P3D to Charles Pflanze & to Teri (Rehotshots@xxxxxxx)

["Sergio Baldissara" <winter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 02:10:37 -0500 (EST)
> From: Charles Pflanze <cwpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> In a previous post, "Sergio Baldissara" <winter@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
>
> >May be I'm not converted, but 3d isn't a religion. (is it?)
>
> Not now, but think of the possibilities if somebody had somehow
> miraculously produced 3D in say, 400 BC.
>
well, ancient cultures where hassled by supernatural & used to see godnesses
hidden everywhere but...  incidentally, they had 3d (sculpture)... they
lacked photography!

> >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 don't know about the general public, but I can see it becoming a lot
> more popular among cave photographers,

when younger, I've been a speleologist too, & I believe that in cave photos,
depth info is even more important than in aereal photos. Cave photography is
just an example of one of the fields that saw 3d under-evaluated for too
long time.
> >In the past 3d knew periods of popularity; each period ended when a
> >luckier 3d medium has been introduced: VM reels give depth, but TV
> >provides motion and voice.
>
> Maybe I'm strange, but I hardly ever watch tv and I find it annoying.
>
Yes, you may look strange. So do I, but I'm aware of it... proud? I can't
find any reason for pride or shame.

To Teri: there's no reason for 3d photographers to denigrate 2d
(conventional) photography .  It's obvious that the enemies of 3d aren't
other photographers. The main enemy are marketing policies and indifference
of mass media: I just wonder how many people know how to enjoy their 2 eyes
in frontal position...
Sergio