Re: [photo-3d] Re: Proselytizing Stereoscopic Photography

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

George wrote:
> 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.
> 

There were other factors involved in the perception of quality between
the two photos.

The Realist slides shown in a viewer were at a much lower
magnification than the print.  Assuming that 24 square feet isn't an
exaggeration (and at a trade show it probably was that big), and an
aspect ratio of 1.25:1 (8x10) that would be about a 53x66 inch print
(48x60 (20 quare feet) is a fairly standard size), or a 24X
magnification from a 6x7 frame.  This gives the MF camera the benefit
of the doubt.  Chances are that it was from a cropped 6x6 frame (about
6x4.5) and the magnification is even higher (29X).

You can make really good prints that size, but you really need a much
biger camera to do it.  I would think that 4x5 is a bit small (14X
magnification).  8x10 would be better (7X) and 20x24 (3X) would be
great.  Of course there aren't very many 20x24 cameras available and
the cost of renting the camera (and assistant) and materials would cut
into your profits.  On the plus side, since the most common cameras
that size use Polaroid film the guests could see the pictures before
leaving the reception.  :)

You can get a three dimensional (not stereoscopic) effect from good
prints from very large cameras.  My first real experience of this was
the Carlton Watkins exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art a while
ago.  These were contact prints from a camera that was probably about
20x24.  The one that really blew me away was a triptych (image the
"modern" technique of taking a panorama by taking separate exposures
and swinging the camera between exposures, but without trying to join
the pictures at the edges) overlooking a valley.  It was as if I was
looking through a window with the picture frame and matting being the
window frame.

At my wedding I gave a friend of Liz's my twin Lubitels to take some
pictures.  Unfortunately although he does some photography I don't
think he was used to manual cameras and most of the pictures are
poorly exposed.  At some point I'll try and print them in a darkroom
(B&W negatives) and make stereocards.  If we had known anyone in the
area doing stereo photography we would have tried to get them to take
pictures.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"

 

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