Hi All,

I am writing a short work on MF3D. In one part I want to identify at
least 10 common problems or mistakes that are made by people just
getting into MF3D, issues that are evident in the viewing stage
through an optical viewer. I am not including any mounting errors, as
this is a separate issue chapter. I am looking for issues UNIQUE to
MF3D, or at least to stereo

Briefly, here are my own personal concerns, not necessarily in order:

1. Too much depth. Easily one of the most common mistakes made with
photographers beginning stereo photography. There is a tendency to get
carried away with the amount of depth in your images. In most cases,
more is not better....

2. No Depth. It is very common for those with prior planar photography
experience to use the same techniques and subject matter they are used
to in one-lensed photography when they switch to stereo. In this
particular case we have a beautiful sunset. While there is not wrong
with taking a pleasing picture like this, the lack of depth gives no
advantage over shooting this with a regular camera. ...

3. Tilted Horizon

4. Far off-center subject. This has a lengthy explanation, however it
is based on viewing through an optical viewer with limits to viewing
clearly in corners, as well as compositional concerns.

5. Lack of mid plane depth. Again lengthy, but in general the issue is
two extreme depth planes, one in the foreground and the other at
infinity, with nothing in between.

6. Limited Depth of Field. An obvious one.

7. Lack of detail due to camera shake.

8. Lack of highlight and shadow detail.

9. Wide expanses of no depth. In particular, this is meant to address
scenes where half the image is blank sky without depth

10. Distractions

11. Too Boring! Lengthy

12. Follow your eyes. This is probably the most obvious but most
difficult rule to learn. As this is a special medium that is strictly
visual, how your eyes and brain perceive the image will determine if
the experience is pleasurable or a failure. Take the point of view of
the spectator who is viewing your slide, rather than your own unique
position of the creator of the image. You may remember the image as
you originally saw it, which may prejudice how you see it...


I actually have 16, and may expand or reduce this. "Choosing the Wrong
Film" is another obvous one. Using a cable release or tripod is
covered in 7. Exposure problems are general photography knowledge, so
I didn't include it (but could).

Anything obvious I missed? Feedback appreciated.

Thanks, Sam

The problems that you have listed actually apply to all types of stereo
photography, not necessarily MF.

I see you are mixing some technical issues (depth of field, camera shake)
with mostly compositional issues. I think it is better to separate the two.

I have written a Tutorial (which also exists in the form of a DVD, taped in
one of the NSA conventions and as a pdf file:
http://home.att.net/~sales3d/PDF-Composition.htm) on "Taking better stereo
pictures via good composition". Some of the topics you are discussing are
covered there. I see that you are not covering the Stereo Window, as I
assume this is being covered in mounting. One can see it as part of the
stereo composition.

Here are some that I have found useful:

1. Avoid putting the most important item at the center of the picture.
Usually it is better off center, about 1/3 from the edges (there are
exceptions of course).

2. Problems with people shots: When taking pictures of people, it is a very
common mistake to put the eyes at the center of the pictures. This relates
to #1, considering that the eyes it the thing that grabs the attention
first. Putting the eyes at the center usually cuts the legs and leaves
unnecessary empty space at the top. This is extremely common in candid
people shots. It is almost a disease. Another problem with people pictures
is to have them stiff facing the camera (this composition also leads to
cardboard cutout effect), instead of a bit turned and engaged to come
activity. Finally, when putting people into a scenic shot, they must be
small enough to add a scale to the shot and not become the focus of the shot
(unless if this is not a scenic shot but a people shot.)

3. Avoid compositions that draw attention out of the picture. This includes
moving items moving out of the picture, people looking out of the frame or
roads/paths leading out of the picture. Also, avoid "blocks", like a fence
photographed face on.

4. It is better to use depth (stereoscopic deviation) in harmony instead of
competing with other 2d depth suggesting factors. This affects the way a
picture is composed, for example, a high perspective is better than a low
perspective. Related to this, I think it is better to have smoothly varying
depth than depth jumping in a small number of discrete levels (a situation
which also leads to cardboard cutout impression).

George Themelis

Sam Smith writes:

> Anything obvious I missed? Feedback appreciated.

This might fall into one of the other catagories.

Framing your subject. What you see in the viewfinder is not what you get
in the final mount. All mounts will mask down the original image and if
you do not know where that lies in your view finder you run the risk of
"under shooting" and cutting off some part of your subject whether that
be on the sides or top and bottom or if you "over shoot" your subject you
may get unwanted distractions such as something too close in the
foreground.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Smith" wrote:

>
> Hi All,
>
> I am writing a short work on MF3D. In one part I want to identify

at

> least 10 common problems or mistakes that are made by people just
> getting into MF3D, issues that are evident in the viewing stage
> through an optical viewer. I am not including any mounting errors,

as

> this is a separate issue chapter. I am looking for issues UNIQUE to
> MF3D, or at least to stereo
>
> Briefly, here are my own personal concerns, not necessarily in

order:

>corners, as well as compositional concerns.
>
> 5. Lack of mid plane depth. Again lengthy, but in general the

issue is

> two extreme depth planes, one in the foreground and the other at
> infinity, with nothing in between.
>

I think there are many instances where a lack of mid plane depth is
not an issue. I certainly wouldn't avoid taking a scene from a
spectacular lookout for instance where you may only have a little
foreground to work with combined with the distant view from the
lookout. I have just showed such a slide to a large group of
tourists who loved it and all demanded a second look.

>
> 7. Lack of detail due to camera shake.
>
> 8. Lack of highlight and shadow detail.
>
> 11. Too Boring! Lengthy
>

These three would seem to apply to any photography, and are maybe
not specific to 3D. Am I being too picky?

It's a good list Sam. You've covered it well. I mount slides on
behalf of some other club members who have trouble with it and a lot
of the problems you've outlined are very evident among the newer
members.

regards

Harry Calderbank
hcalderbank@bigpond.com

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Smith" wrote:

>
> Hi All,
>
> I am writing a short work on MF3D. In one part I want to identify at
> least 10 common problems or mistakes that are made by people just
> getting into MF3D,

How about failure to center the depth in the depth of field. Many beginners will focus on
the nearest object and allow the distance to be out of focus as is often done by 2-D
shooters.

How about too much time between left and right images. Movement of objects and people
in the view, wind moving grass or branches, even clouds, can add confusion.

Chuck

Happy New Year Folks!

Thanks for all who took the time to read and comment on my Top 10
list. As that particular section is currently 10 pages long, I think I
presented the concerns too briefly on this list, thereby not making
all the points clear.

In response to some comments:

Harry Calderbank wrote:

> > 5. Lack of mid plane depth. Again lengthy, but in general the
> issue is
> > two extreme depth planes, one in the foreground and the other at
> > infinity, with nothing in between.
> >
> I think there are many instances where a lack of mid plane depth is
> not an issue. I certainly wouldn't avoid taking a scene from a
> spectacular lookout for instance where you may only have a little
> foreground to work with combined with the distant view from the
> lookout. I have just showed such a slide to a large group of
> tourists who loved it and all demanded a second look.

I think there are instances where almost any of these concerns can be
ignored and pleasing images obtained, however when they are done
repeatedly I tend to believe the stereographer may not understand the
concern in the first place. A little more from that section:

"Another common problem is lack of attention to depth planes. In this
example, there are only two planes of depth in the image; one in the
extreme foreground, and one in the extreme background. Although it is
true there is a perception of depth, not having any mid plane detail
makes the progression from one plane to another difficult. This will
cause undo strain on the eyes. "

>
> > 7. Lack of detail due to camera shake.
> >
> > 8. Lack of highlight and shadow detail.
> >
> > 11. Too Boring! Lengthy
> >
> These three would seem to apply to any photography, and are maybe
> not specific to 3D. Am I being too picky?

Not, I'm just being too vague! 7 and 8 are two of the main causes of
cardboarding and lack of depth. A round rock in shadow is a flat rock:

"In contrasty situations where the sun is very bright and the shadows
are deep, the finished slides tend to have washed out highlights and
black shadows with no detail. Without detail there is no depth in
these areas. Typical examples are snow and underbrush"

#11: Too Boring "When someone new to 3D photography starts taking
pictures with depth, they usually get so excited about their new found
medium that they take everything they see in 3D. They are attracted to
the novelty of stereo, not as much to the art of stereo. Just because
a picture has depth does not make it a great image. Imagination,
creativity, skill and luck are what makes a particular stereo image
outstanding. Seek out something different and experiment as much as
possible. Subjects with a lot interesting detail captivate the viewer."


Charles F. Holzner wrote:

> How about failure to center the depth in the depth of field.

Absolutely. I actually had this under #6, limited depth of field:

"Find the optimal point of focus. This is the spot where both the
closest foreground and farthest background are equally out of focus.
Do NOT focus on the subject if it is not in the optimal focal plane.
Use a small aperture to bring the foreground and background into sharp
focus"

I think it needs more importance, so I will include this as a separate
concern. I may also use a chart in the "how to take" section.


David Kesner wrote:

>Framing your subject. What you see in the viewfinder is not what you get
>in the final mount.

Interesting point. I'll have to give this one some thought.

George Themelis wrote:

>
> The problems that you have listed actually apply to all types of stereo
> photography, not necessarily MF.

True, however some are more pronounced or noticable in MF3D than in
lower resolution forms.

> I see you are mixing some technical issues (depth of field, camera

shake) with mostly compositional issues. I think it is better to
separate the two.

I disagree. Concerns are concerns. It is to understand particularly
how your images effect others, not just the shooter. I have observed
the comments from 10 years of folios and applied many of the concerns
addressed in them. Some may appear by title as compositional, such as
lack of contrast, however they have consequence on the illusion of
depth and are more a technical issue.

> 1. Avoid putting the most important item at the center of the picture.

Yes, I have covered that in #4.

> 2. Problems with people shots: When taking pictures of people, it

is a very

> common mistake to put the eyes at the center of the pictures. This

relates

> to #1, considering that the eyes it the thing that grabs the attention
> first. Putting the eyes at the center usually cuts the legs and leaves
> unnecessary empty space at the top.

This is common with all amatuer photography. I don't consider this
primarily a stereo issue.

> 3. Avoid compositions that draw attention out of the picture. This

includes

> moving items moving out of the picture, people looking out of the

frame or

> roads/paths leading out of the picture. Also, avoid "blocks", like

a fence

> photographed face on.

I agree with the first sentence, although again this also is a planar
rule. Avoiding have people looking out of the frame I'd question.
Having people looking across the frame to the other side is a
perfectly acceptable method of drawing attention to other details of
the image, like a person looking across a valley.

As for the "blocks", I believe this is the same as the "barred way"
rule from Kaiser. He writes "never to place any impediment in the way
of the spectator which can stop or retard him on projecting himself in
to the picture". In my years of shooting I have yet to see a single
example of this to justify this "rule". In fact, I use this to enhance
my images many times. For example, In folio 17B I currently have a
slide titled "The Fence that Divides". It shows a street person in
Little Cuba in front of a chainlink fence. His face mirrors a
billboard ad of a rich man in a suite in the background. The fence
enhances the effect, cutting the poor man from the rich world. It has
received only good comments so far. Voyeuristic images would also
benefit from blocks. This sounds like a wacky 50s rule that is no
longer valid, but would love to see an example.

> 4. It is better to use depth (stereoscopic deviation) in harmony

instead of competing with other 2d depth suggesting factors. This
affects the way a picture is composed, for example, a high perspective
is better than a low perspective. Related to this, I think it is
better to have smoothly varying depth than depth jumping in a small
number of discrete levels (a situation

> which also leads to cardboard cutout impression).

I agree with the first sentance again, but not the second. I cannot
state a high perspective is better than low, as every composition will
have a unique mood or idea, and rules like this do not apply to all.
As for smoothly varying depth, absolutely.

Thanks again for all the feedback. I will make a few revisions!

Sam

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Smith" wrote:

>
> Happy New Year Folks!

If you are looking for problems particular to MF3D, the fact that MF
cameras have longer focal length and so have less depth of field and
also may need a faster shutter speed. so you generally need to close
the aperature a bit more and tweek up the shutter speed, but still
need as slow (fine grained) film as possible. This makes that
tripod/monopod more important I think for MF. Also the fact that MF
cameras have a slightly narrower lens separation than a standard 35mm
stero camera. Tilted horizons particularly bug me in stereo and I
can't think that bubble levels are very common in MF cameras.

Rod S