Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D
|
|
Notice |
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
|
|
Re: [photo-3d] Re: Proselytizing Stereoscopic Photography
- From: "Dr. George A. Themelis" <drt-3d@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Re: Proselytizing Stereoscopic Photography
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:04:49 -0500
I have been the official Amateur 3d photographer in at least
3 weddings. In all cases, everyone, including the professional
2D photographer were stunned with the results.
I have seen the couple carry their stereo viewer around showing
stereo slides to friends and relatives, instead of the 2d album.
The wife commented on how 3d shows all the details of the
wedding dress, which are lost in 2d. The husband got a stereo
Realist and start shooting 3d.
A 1950s manual camera is not a problem for a wedding because
most pictures are taken with a flash and an automatic flash takes
care of the details. Basically, all pictures are taken at f8 and 1/100s
with a Realist and a flash set at f8 auto mode. OK, maybe the focus
needs to be changed for some close ups. Yeah, OK, there might
be some outdoors pictures too. There, I would ask the professional
photographer with his very professional light meter to tell me what
to use.
Things went so well in one wedding that I got hooked with
the professional photographer and worked out an arrangement
where I offer 3d slides as an extra service in addition to his
2d prints. I went to a "bridal show" where I shared the table
he had, and showed stereo pictures to prospective customers.
I could see how this new service could be added to a wedding
with great success. Unfortunately, I did not have the time to
pursue this line of work. I still don't have the time, but if I retire
early or lose my job, I will seriously consider it.
I remember this lady (mother) at the bridal show. She looked
at a wedding picture through my Realist red button viewer
and she was very impressed. Then she looked at this HUGE
2d enlargement hanging in the wall behind me. It was a great
2d print, several feet tall and wide. And she asked me this
question: "can you make this picture (points to the HUGE
2d enlargement) look as good as this one (points to the red
button viewer)?"
Imagine, she was comparing the 24 square feet wonderfully
framed print from a medium format camera, with the 1 inch
square film taken with a Realist and she was asking if we
could make the professional print match the Realist snapshot.
I tried to explain that the big difference was the depth and
the feeling of "being there" she was experiencing from the
stereo image, and, no, we could not put that feeling into
the 2d print easily.
The bottom line is that I agree with Geb about the difficulties
associated with equipment and viewing stereo, but I still
think there is a lot of room for successfully marketing that
service. People will not bother to pull out their 3d wedding
slides often (who bothers to watch the video either?) but
they will pull them out if they want to experience a magical
moment. I wish I knew stereo when I got married. Still,
I was lucky to discover it one year later. My children's
births and growing years are documented in stereo. I don't
look at the pictures too often but I am happy I have them.
For my daughter's 10th birthday I showed a stereo slide
show with pictures of her from age 0 to age 10. I think I
will do it again when she gets to be 18.
George
>From: Gerrard M Burnell <circle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I was honoured to be the official Amatuer 3D photographer at my
> Cousin's wedding about 10 years ago. Of cause her professional
> photographer was in 2D only! They were impressed with the results.
> However, several years later I asked if she ever viewed the 3D slides
> and showed them to friends. Basically her reply was that they were
> too much hassle swopping slides in and out of the viewer and only one
> person at a time could view them. 2D print enlargements in an album
> were much better!
>
> And that is where I think part of the problem lies,
> 1. You need equipment to view them, ie. Glasses, viewers, projectors,
> etc.
> 2. No one makes an affordable stereo camera, (except the beam-spitter
> variety.)
>
> Ged
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|