Re: [photo-3d] Digest Number 321

[Cmax522769@xxxxxxx]

i think i will respond to this one at the risk of writing a novella and 
upsetting everyone...(if you don't like novellas, please continue pressing 
the scroll down button.)

i don't think that it is really the subject matter that counts in three 
dimensional photography, but rather, the composition! 

i can think of too may times when i brought my nishika to highschool (about 
10 years ago) .fellow students would see my camera, see a picture, request 
that their picture be taken, and run and jump flat against a brick wall as if 
they were wearing velcro! after alot of explaining, i was finally able to get 
my subjects to a more suitable environment.

nishika once gave a small brochure on compositional instruction. in short, it 
stated that the best(?) compositioned pictures had a foreground object at 
about 6 feet from the camera, the subject 12 feet from the camera, and a 
background at about 25 feet from the camera.

this method produced a decent depth perspective, however, one still must 
compose a picture well to end up with a well composed 3d photograph with good 
depth perception.

some of my better photographs involve people in an activity where there seems 
to be a general theme, and the "rule of thirds" is used. however, neither of 
those rules neccessarily apply. my favorite 3d photograph is my (of course 
scale model) rendition of "earthrise". it looks fairly real because of 
careful attention to lighting.

as for looking for ideas for photography, i would recommend looking at alot 
of advertisements, and taking ideas from those.

well, i think i'll wrap it up there...

max

ps you said they include all three "unsuitable subjects"??? what was the 
third?



In a message dated 26-Oct-00 4:49:42 Central Daylight Time, 
photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

<< Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:52:23 -0700
    From: Rory Hinnen <Rory.Hinnen@xxxxxxxxxx>
 Subject: Suitable subjects for 3d....
 
 
 Hello, all.
 
 I was reading "The World of 3d" the other day, and I came across a
 paragraph that I thought somewhat controversial under "Choosing the
 Subject".
 
 "Moving objects are an other matter that should be avoided in a stereo
 photo, because viewing a well-presented stereo photo gives you a feeling
 of seeing reality, and it is a pity if this feeling is disturbed.
 Subjects attractive in a photographic sense, like waterfalls and
 peacefully waving water surfaces, but also moving people and animals are
 not suitable stereo subjects. People with little stereo experience prove
 this with remarks like: 'That water looks like ice', 'Madams Tussaud's'
 and so on."
 
 Okay, I haven't been involved so long (less than a year at this point),
 and frankly have seen very little of other peoples work, but I find that
 water, fountains and moving people are fascinating (I have one of my
 better pictures that includes all three "unsuitable subjects").
 
 Comments?
 
 .r. >>