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

["Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

William Gartin wrote:
>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 once "strongly disagreed" with this notion on this very forum and was
rightly reprimanded for being confrontational.  But I do feel strongly
that 2D and 3D are two entirely different experiences and that it is a
mistake to judge them under the same criteria.  Now let me simmer down
and see if I can summon what powers of persuasion I have available to
me.

For a start, look at a black and white reproduction of an impressionist
painting.  Sure you can see the "subject" of the painting, perhaps
Monet's cathedral or Van Gogh's cherry blossoms, but the soul of the
picture is gone.  That is because color is required to bring out the
real subject of the painting:  the impression of light coming from the
ostensible subject of the painting.

I believe that there is a unique quality to 3D that can likewise be
treated as the primary subject of a composition.  Such a composition
would likewise lose its soul when viewed in 2D.  Conversely, a 2D
composition that makes clever use of the picture plane would suffer if
viewed in 3D.  The 3D window is simply not as compelling a reference to
abstract shape and line within the picture as the original 2D picture
frame.

So what is 3D's strength?  You may have noticed that you cannot flip
through a series of 3D slides like you would a series of prints in a
portfolio.  I believe this is because 3D activates a more primal aspect
of our psychology.  We need some time to adjust to the spatial
environment being presented.  It is almost as if our body is rehearsing
how to navigate through the scene or to manipulate objects within it.
So I propose that a worthy subject for 3D is the beauty of the yearning
to enter a scene.  Of course, it would probably help if the scene also
had beautiful light, beautiful color, a beautiful "subject," etc., but
those might just come off better on a 2D slide.  We are looking for
some special beauty unique to 3D.  I suppose it is the fact that I
cannot really put my finger on it that keeps me going out taking
more 3D pictures

Oleg Vorobyoff


 

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