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

[Peter Davis <pd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:39 AM 02/23/2001, you wrote:
>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.


I don't agree with this at all.  That's like saying that for a photograph 
to be successful in color, it must be successful in black & white.  Color 
adds a whole new set of parameters to the mix, and many *MANY* brilliant 
photographs are totally dependent on color for their effect.

This is true of stereo also.  While it's certainly possible to make stereo 
photos which also succeed in mono, that's certainly *NOT* a 
requirement.  I've seen many images which depend on stereo for their 
effect, and are, in my opinion, extremely successful photos.

-pd




--------
                                 Peter Davis
                  Funny stuff at http://www.pfdstudio.com
                  "The artwork formerly shown as prints."
            Resources for children's writers and illustrators
                    http://www.pfdstudio.com/cwrl.html


 

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