Re: [photo-3d] House of Wax / why 3d

[Rory Hinnen <Rory.Hinnen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

William Gartin wrote:
<snip>
> 
> My personal feeling is that each side of the stereo pair should be good
> images in 2D, or 3D becomes the gimmick which "saves" an otherwise mediocre
> photo. 3D should no more be the "subject" of a photo than the name on the
> camera or the brand of film used.

I agree with you to a certain extent, a good 3d shot should probably
also be a successful 2d shot.

But I think that attitude is partly in place because 2d photography is
our "Big Brother". We're a smaller group, and consequently, a good part
of our aesthetic is strongly influenced by the 2d crowd. We're looking
for acceptance.

A parallel could be drawn to the first photographers and their big
brother, painting. Those early photographers spent a huge amount of time
trying to make their pictures look like a painting, in subject matter,
composition, and in apparent technique. At that time a good photograph
was considered to be very painterly.

As photography grew, it gained it's own aesthetic. In time, painting was
sometimes trying to copy photos (the photo realists).

If 3d ever takes off and becomes the primary means of viewing images
(meaning good, cheap autostereoscopic display devices become
ubiquitous), 3d would gain it's own aesthetic. Maybe the idea will be to
dress everyone and the set in one color, so that the only way to
differentiate objects is by 3d. Or tangled masses of trees will become
popular images. Or 3d disappears as just another aspect that we take for
granted, like color, and every so often you get an artist who
capitalizes on the 3d effect (I'm trying to remember the name of a
director, used to shoot very monochromatic movies, but the main subject
would be a saturated color....oh well).

.r.

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/