Re: [photo-3d] 3D is the image

["Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike Kersenbrock wrote:
>>
>> 3D-ness only allows the image to be captured "better".
>> "3D" isn't the image, it's only an attribute of it.
>>Adding the 3D attribute to an image's recording will
> > improve some images
>>
and
>Let me explain where my concept is different.  My concept is that
>the image *is* that which occurred in real life as modified by (or invented
>by) the mind of the photographer.  Things like "3D" and "2D" photography
>are technological terms describing physical means to express that mental
>image (which in the typical case contains no modification to real-life).
...
>So call my "theory" not the "additive" one, but the "minus theory".
>I start at the mind's image and see that different "technologies"
>have various attributes "minus'd".
>


I'm still having some difficulty understanding Mike's concept.  It appears
that he might be defining "image" as what I would call the photographer's
vision of a real scene.  I usually think of the image as what is ultimately
captured by the medium.  But let's take "image" as something existing prior
to the taking of the photograph.  Being unimaginative, no image exists for
me until I see it I see it somehow framed.  For a 2D photograph the frame I
use is the frame of the camera's viewfinder.  For a 3D photograph I cup my
hands in front of the scene to create a window to look through.  Until I
actually see the subject thus framed I have only the vaguest idea of how the
photograph might look.

Having observed thousands of scenes through my viewfinder and/or my cupped
hands (and actually photographed some of them), I have to say that there is
very little similarity between the way a particular scene looks in 2D versus
3D.  It takes two entirely different mindsets for me.  3D does not seem
superior to 2D nor 2D to 3D.  When it started out with it, 3D seemed to open
up a world of new possibilities.  Everything seemed photographable.  Now,
two years later, I'm finding good 3D photographic situations every bit as
rare as with 2D.  But these two different ways of seeing do seem to
complement each other rather than to overlap or conflict with one another.

Oleg Vorobyoff