P3D SI - the review pt. 3

[boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Boris Starosta)]

>From: Tony Alderson <aifxtony@xxxxxxx>
...
>Making anaglyphs is an art of compromise. This is especially true of
>color anaglyphs, and painfully true of process color (CMYK) anaglyphs,
>whether line art, grayscale or polychromatic... There are politics,
>personalities, agendas and priorities. And commercial art is just
>that--commercial--and hard-nosed business sense reigns. The
>stereographer navigating this minefield is on a perlious path indeed.

Tony goes on with an excellent review of the technical challenges in
anaglyphs due to the nature of color and color filtering.  Good reminders
all.

>From: Bruce Springsteen <bsspringsteen@xxxxxxxxx>
...
>Put another way, the figures fill more of your field of view when seen in
>the magazine, at typical reading distance, than they would if you were
>standing where the photographer stood, looking with unaided eyes.  They

and Bruce goes on to somewhat touch on the issue of recreating the correct
perspective using lens focal length / print size / viewing distance, which
is technically important to the viewing experience, to the recreation of
orthoscopy (or is that "tautoscopy?"), among other relevant factors (such
as taking stereobase).

Closing with:
>idea of good stereo.  But in an SI issue promising that "Estella, Daniella
>& Heidi bust out in 3D" (Please, I could write *that* kind of obvious
>drool when I was 13, but I was too adult.), the cardboarding effect can
>only be seen as a shortcoming.  The readers expect bumps, not planes, and
>pay good green for the pleasure - as the editors know so well.

And this certainly is _very_ important, and leads us finally into what I
consider my field - artistic stereo composition.  It leads us into my long
promised detailed review of the issue, the focus of which will be
stereo-artistic, though I will tangentially involve myself with the
technical variables, as they inevitably support the artistic purpose of the
photography.

Before I get further along, let me introduce myself (for the benefit of
newer readers - and for covering my butt).  Although I sometimes talk like
an expert (especially when I am trying to sell my images), really, most
people that have weighed in on this discussion are far more expert than I
am.  Which is great, because I get to learn from them!  I have been
shooting stereo for about three years, and have done a very few (two)
commercial 3-d jobs in the past year.  Most of what I learned about stereo
came from this list, from email and other correspondence with members of
the list, and from participation in folios of the NSA, and exhibitions in
the PSA.  Into this limited 3-d experience I mix my background in
computers, the sciences, and the graphic arts.  A volatile brew!

That said, there are some things that I feel very strongly about.  These
are things having to do with how stereo is shot, and WHAT is shot in
stereo.  They involve the ART of stereo, and the ART of composing for
depth.  Bruce said it best with "readers expect bumps, not planes."  Stereo
art is about showing the bumps!

I very much appreciate Tony reminding us (and also Ron Labbe reminding me,
in private communication) of the political situation in which something as
big as this SI is produced.  A situation in which precious little room
exists for artistry, regardless of who the artists are that may be involved
(i.e. Klutho and Labbe, who are excellent artists).  Nevertheless, I think
political considerations are a poor excuse for publishing less than the
best, and economic considerations (at least in the case of this SI) are no
excuse at all.  That is to say, as I hope this review will show, it would
have cost no more to produce an outstanding 3-d swimsuit issue, than it
cost to produce a merely good one.  (And I do think it is good.  It is
certainly the best 3-d I've seen in print.  The dog can talk!)

For those who wish to skip my page by page review, following shortly, the
whole of it can be summed up with two words: lost opportunity.

There is one image in the magazine that sums up the lost opportunity
perfectly: the spread of Noemie on pages 36-37 modelling a Calvin Klein
bikini.  This is the most perfect 3-d shot in the whole magazine.  Only
rarely does one see a shot this good, this well suited to 3-d!  It is a
GREAT 3-d shot.  It is a FANTASTIC 3-d shot.  But guess what?  It's not
shot in 3-d.  It is flat.  It is a picture outside of the 3-d section.

The picture shows Noemie reclining in a spa or pool of some sort, with
flower petals floating in the water and a flower in her hair.  It is a
medium close up.  You see her figure pretty much from the thigh up.  She is
partially submerged, there is water on the skin that is not submerged.
Windows outside of the picture are reflected in the water's surface.  Thus
the picture includes image elements that cannot be fully rendered except in
stereo: the reflectivity and transmissivity of water, the shine and texture
of wet and dry skin.  Additionally there is the structural complexity of
the flower in her hair, not to mention her figure, etc.

For readers who are not understanding why this particular situation is so
great for stereo, I just happen to have (totally by coincidence, honest!) a
somewhat similar picture in 3-d on my website.  Warning, mine is a nude.
Go to:

 http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase/inude04.html

(Of course, it's not quite as good as the SI shot, but for something shot
in a bathroom of total floor dimensions around four by five feet... wherein
we fit my strobe kit, camera with tripod, photographer, toilet, sink, tub
with model - I think I did okay given the situation!)

Not only is the situation of the Noemie pool shot perfect for stereo, but
the technical variables are favorable, as well.  The taking lens f.l.
appears close to "normal" - more accurately stated, the perspective of the
two page spread image size appears normal (which is requisite, in my view,
for good stereo effect in portraiture).

Honestly, I would trade this one shot, done in stereo, for all the others
in the 3-d section!  It's that good, and it would illustrate the beauty of
stereo that much more effectively.  More people would have gotten turned on
to stereo, if they had just published this one image in 3-d.  I really
think so.

So why was this picture not taken in 3-d?  It probably started with the
first decision that was made: where to do the 3-d shoot.  So the editor
gets on the phone, and not knowing anything about stereo, calls Klutho and
Kluthmeier to say they will be flying to the bahamas (or where ever), and
to get their gear together right away for beach photography!  That means
long lenses and suntan oil...  No matter that if you want to capture the
"bumps" on girls in stereo, you are better off doing close ups with a
normal lens.

Additional decisionmaking by persons unfamiliar with stereo followed in the
planning of the situations for the models (i.e. where and how to pose
them), and finally in the shooting of those situation (i.e. how close to
get, what lens to use, and what stereobase to use).  Some of these
decisions are very artistic (the former), others more technical (the
latter).  My guess is that due to politics and the inherent creative
structure of this project, precious few people with stereo expertise got to
make these decisions.  (And I didn't even mention editing.  Who knows what
stereoscopic gems among the 25,000 frames shot are now lying on the cutting
room floor.  Perhaps Klutho's NSA show in Mesa will enlighten us!)

Okay, I'm ranting again.  This does not give an accurate impression.
Remember (my new mantra), the SI is pretty darn good.  I'm just talking
about missing that last 5% in a 120% effort.

I'm going to close now.  It's getting late again.  Page by Page review due
tomorrow!

Boris

- Science is the part of culture that rubs against the world.
-
-                                     Stanislaw Lem, _His Master's Voice_

Boris Starosta                        boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Stereoscopic Art & 3-D Photography    http://www.starosta.com
usa - 804 979 3930                    http://www.starosta.com/3dshowcase