P3D Re: What did I learn last night...

["Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Themelis wrote:


>What we like and
>don't like is very personal so there is no point trying to
>change each other's likes and dislikes

Sorry, I did not mean to challenge anyone personally.  What I have been trying
to do is change myself - into a stereo photographer.  I've been at it for a
year, ever since getting slide bar under recommendation of a certain Dr.T.  What
I have learned so far is that an exceptional stereo photograph is very different
from an exceptional 2d photograph.

>> Most of my best sunset pictures have the sun right smack
>> in the middle.
>What is around them?  Are they framed by anything else?

Yes there has got to be lots around the sun.  Most difficult part is below the
sun since that area is so dark.  I do not like to use flash - too unnatural.  So
out comes the graduated neutral density filter.  One other thing I still (think)
I need is a reverse grad to cool down the sun, which is, of course, in the
middle.


>>If you need to follow rules to "improve" a composition you
>>probably do not have adequate raw material to begin with.
>>When the material is right the picture snaps into being in
>>the viewfinder...
>I don't understand this point.  Can you please clarify?


This may simply be a lack of talent, but it seems that very rarely do things
come together sufficiently to allow an exceptional photograph to be taken.  So
mostly I look, taking an occasional photograph when I am not quite sure how what
I see in the viewfinder will translate to what will be on film.  But when things
do come together there is no doubt - you see it right there in the viewfinder.
Biggest problem is getting too excited and making some stupid technical error.

>Wth a little experience or training
>you move the camera around,
>studying the various elements via the viewfinder.

This is where I think 2d and 3d diverge.  2d is sensitive to things around the
border, so moving the camera up, down, left, right makes sense.  But 3d is
sculptural, so the composition is sensitive to camera location.  I tend to keep
the subject in the center and move my body around until the composition clicks.
But not while looking though the viewfinder - I cup my hands in front of my face
to approximate a stereo window.  I tried building a blinder box to facilitate
composition, but found that it would need to be too large to be practical.
Biggest compositional problem I've had is to predict how hyperstereos will look
when viewed.  Anyone know where I can get an affordable rangefinder that will
work in the 50 foot to one mile range?  Accuracy is not important - 30% would be
fine.

>> the conventional 2D rules are yet more useless in 3D
>> since the stereo window is a much weaker frame of reference
>> than the border of a 2D photograph.
>Weaker in general, yes.  Much weaker, no.  "Watch your borders"
>applies for 3d too  ...  Some conventional 2d rules
>might not apply with equal strength in stereo but they are far
>from being useless.


The difference is that a 2d picture can be scanned by the eyes like a printed
page, whereas a 3d picture must be moved through by the mind.  You know how a
ski racer while preparing for his run uses his hands to rehearse his turns from
top to bottom?  Looking at a stereo photograph is in fact a rehearsal for
entering the scene.  The important consideration is how one's (virtual) movement
will be channelled.  Objects in the scene have a much more powerful channelling
effect than the border (window).  In my opinion, it is not a matter of degree -
3d requires a different approach.

>> Accordingly, a 3D photograph should not be composed in a
>> viewfinder at all, unless it is a twin barrelled one like on
>> some RBT cameras.
>I could say I strongly disagree, but let me just say that I
>disagree.  The stereo picture has the extra element of depth
>... everything else falls in the realm of 2d
>composition.  Leading lines, rule of 3rds, odd number of
>objects, when to center, when not to center, fill your frame,
>watch your borders... apply equally well to 2d and 3d.


I'm agruing that depth is fundamental to a good 3d photograph, not an
afterthought.  So instead of leading lines you want containing planes.  Instead
of offsetting key pictorial transitions you are usually better off centering
them.  I think I can take a list of 2d rules and come up with a 3d analog to
each, but 2d or 3d, it seems that the best pictures transcend any rules.
Looking at them rationally is rather futile since they are so much more than the
sum of their parts.  For the novice, I suppose it is possible to make the leap
to intuitive photography after internalizing a set of rules, but that was
certainly not my path.  In fact, I can hardly bear to look at pictures of mine
that have a rational basis and nothing more.  I just think to myself, "Never do
*that* again!"

>Many good 3d pictures (but certainly not all, not even the
>majority) can make great 2d pictures.  Depth is eliminated but
>all the compositional strengths are maintained.


This is the exact opposite of my experience.  I just rifled through a box of my
best 3d slides.  Only one of them am I tempted to print as a conventional
photograph.  And most of my 2d pictures would lose it in 3d.

>Are you working on the book of 3d composition rules?
>I would like to see it!

No you wouldn't!  My writing is ponderous enough as it is.  But I do enjoy the
discussions in this forum, almost as much as I enjoy going out and taking stereo
pictures.

Oleg Vorobyoff