Re: [photo-3d] Suitable subjects for 3d....

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Right on!

Some of the best stereoscopic images I have seen have been of moving
subjects.  The cardboard-like wax museum effect actually is most obvious
with static subjects.  It is unnatural for people to hold still to "pose"
for a picture, and this discomfort shows through very obviously in the
image.

As far as blurred water vs. "frozen" water, I like them both, and have seen
prizewinning stereoscopic slides of both versions several times.  If they
are well done, I like them all.

The advice you quoted from "The World of 3-D" is almost exactly the opposite
of what I would advise.  The stereoscopic views of skydivers doing aerial
acrobatics that Blue Sky Studio in Sweden has exhibited are truly astounding
for the fluidity of motion captured in still images.  Just because you are
shooting still pictures does not mean that the subject has to be still.

One of the reasons that real early stereoscopic portraits looked so rigid is
that they were.  The long exposure times required by the extremely slow (low
sensitivity) photosensitive materials

 before 1900 literally required neck and head braces behind the portraitee's
head (if you look carefully, and the photographer didn't, you can sometimes
actually see parts of the brace in the photograph or stereograph).

Subject motion usually improves stereoscopic imaging in all media (stills,
motion picture, video, Internet, whatever).

Thank you for catching this.  Your logic and sensibility show that you
probably understand the medium better than some people who have been
shooting stereoscopically for several years.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rory Hinnen" <Rory.Hinnen@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:52 AM
Subject: [photo-3d] 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.
>
>
>
>