Blurred elements in a stereograph is always a curious visual phenomenon,
as is out-of-focus areas. Stereography is, to my experience, the one
form
of photography where you definitely want to remove blur / OOF areas
completely,
relying on composition / lighting only for artistic statement.
I am still getting to know my stereo realist, have not used it enough
yet. So I may be wrong, but this has been my impression thus far.
On 05 Aug 2009, at 10:58 AM, Ian Nichols wrote:
> 2009/8/5 DrT (George Themelis) <drt-3d@xxxxxxx>:
>
>> There was a couple of well-known stereo photographers (two
>> brothers) who
>> synchronized two mechanical cameras (not Olympus) using relays
>> which were
>> electrically activated and mechanically pressed the camera
>> shutters. They
>> claimed perfect synchronization and, to prove it, took pictures of
>> action
>> sports events in the Winter Olympics many years ago.
>
> Closer synchronisation is always going to be better, and worth
> pursuing, but I wonder just how good it needs to be? There's a shot
> in one of my galleries of a car travelling at about 30 mph going past
> a cottage, which seems to have worked well without any tweaking, and
> no panning was involved. Few athletes will move that fast, and any
> objects that might (balls, discus, javelin etc) will often be allowed
> to blur to convey their motion.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|