Re: [photo-3d] Re: [3D-Glamourphoto] A Profound Statement

[Mike Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

boris@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Lincoln wrote:
> 
> >>An image shouldn't
> >>be interesting just because it is 3-D.
> 
> But some images do not work at all in 2d (because of their 3d nature), and
> these can be superb in 3d (because they are rarely seen or inadequately
> seen in 2d).

This is totally true, but it isn't in conflict with Lincoln's statement
which is also totally true (as you suggest with the leading "But...").

3D photography certainly allows some images to be captured in an enjoyable manner
while 2D photography might not be able to.  However, it still isn't the 
3D-ness that *makes* the image "work", 3D-ness only allows the image
to be captured "better".  "3D" isn't the image, it's only an attribute of it.
"It" isn't 3D done in image, it's image done in 3D.

Adding the 3D attribute to an image's ("image" in this sense is that which
was seen by human eyes "real-time", not the recording of it) recording will
improve some images more than others like the classic nest of branches/weeds
that 3D helps tremendously, vs. a photo of the Grand Canyon's far wall that 
is helped little if any.  

"3D" is an attribute of the recorded (and real) image much like "color" is.

I myself like 3D+color better generally speaking than B&W+2D, but I'll take
one of Ansel Adam's 2D-B&W's over most any of my 3D Color pic's.  :-) (or is
that :-( ?  )

IMO

Mike K.