Re: [photo-3d] Digest Number 321

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

The Nishika (as well as the Nimslo) instructions were based on limitations
of the cameras rather than recommendations for best composition, although it
was so stated so that they would not draw undue attention for the real
reasons.

These cameras, as supplied, were not capable of close-ups.  And the lens
interaxials were so small that there was very little depth perceptible
beyond a few feet.  This left a fairly small range within which credible
stereoscopic images could be made.

I still maintain that stereoscopic images are very subjective.  Certainly,
composition is also very important, but the images must be composed in three
axes, not just two as in flat photography.   Remember, your subject(s) are
part of any composition; a very important part.

JR

----- Original Message -----
From: <Cmax522769@xxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Digest Number 321


> 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. >>
>
>
>
>