T3D math vs intuition

[john bercovitz <bercov@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

RM writes:

> I think the technical discussion is great, and I am glad to see it here,
> and not on P3D. However, and please no one take offense, but I still
> maintain that a generation of stereo photographers got by without relying
> upon math formulas to help them. I believe it was Dr. T who posed the
> possibility that even though many do not follow formulas, they have some
> inner instinct about what they are doing and that is based upon past
> experiences that are based on some fundamental rules.

Definitely no offense taken; obviously none given.  I agree 100%, and 
I would extend it to "generations" who have gotten by without math.  I
think any experienced stereographer can make good macros without math.
I think there are two advantages to the math (but they're only advantages
if you enjoy the math).  The first is that it won't cost the neophyte as 
much in film to learn what's going to happen.  He will develop more quickly.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)  Secondly, when he reaches a certain level,
he may want to expand into new areas and the math will provide guidance
and even "suggest" ideas as it did for me.  I do not claim any advantage
for a person at Andrea's or George's level.  I think they could shoot 
good pictures by sense of smell.  So could others on this list.  But 
then there's the rest of us....  

When it comes to MAOFD in particular, if the math is a problem, I would 
highly recommend taking a look at Tom Deering's chart.  It is bright, 
colorful, and intuitive to use.  Take a good look at it and let me know 
what you think.

John B


------------------------------