Conversations

Photos

Files

All groups

About

<< Previous Thread how many of us? Next Thread >>

Subject: how many of us?
Date: 2009-09-15 21:03:34
From: amuderick

How many people do you think exist worldwide that are actively taking MF3D photos?

I'm curious since I've never met another MF3D user, aside from friends who have Sputniks I've refurbished for them.

Subject: Re: how many of us?
Date: 2009-09-16 04:16:29
From: jeremy3843

I've wondered this as well. It seems the MF3D has been getting a bit dormant lately- but here in the Northern Hemisphere the fall season is coming so that should give people the incentive to start shooting more, sharing more, and of course complaining more. (Sorry for the run-on sentence)

If anyone is feeling in need of some stereoscopic conversation you could try this group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/photo-3d/

They do also talk about medium format on occasion. Come to think of it I should attempt to do some MF3D group proselyting over there and see if we can open some eyes to the wonderful world of medium format stereoscope.
(as it stands now the poor souls are in a tizzy over some $700 digital 3D toy coming out of Japan- oh if they only knew what they were missing!)

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "amuderick" wrote:
>
> How many people do you think exist worldwide that are actively taking MF3D photos?
>
> I'm curious since I've never met another MF3D user, aside from friends who have Sputniks I've refurbished for them.
>

Subject: Re: how many of us?
Date: 2009-09-16 09:11:44
From: DrT (George Themelis)

> How many people do you think exist worldwide that are actively taking MF3D
> photos?

That's a 3-step question:

1. How many people take 3d images?
2. How many of these people take 3d slides?
3. How many of these take Medium Format 3d slides?

I once tried to estimate #2. I think I came up with something like 5,000.
This is a very small percentage of all photographers worldwide.

What percentage of these people take Medium Format slides? At best 1%, I
would say. This brings the total number of Medium Format stereo
photographers to 500, a very-very small number.

For example, in our stereo club (in Cleveland Ohio) we have about 50
members. From these 50 members, about 35 actively take stereo slides. From
these 35, only 2 take Medium Format stereo slides (and I am not one of
them!!!)

George

Subject: Re: how many of us?
Date: 2009-09-16 12:55:24
From: John Thurston

jeremy3843 wrote:

> I've wondered this as well. It seems the MF3D has been getting a bit
> dormant lately-

Conversation here seems to revolve around our technology.
If there is new and interesting technology, we like to talk
about it. If we have questions about how to use our
technology we like to ask about it. If we think we know the
optimum amount of on-film deviation we like to argue about
it. So until someone wants to talk about their technology,
its kind of quiet.
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

Subject: Re: how many of us?
Date: 2009-09-16 13:01:02
From: Bill G

I am curious what the size of this list is now? I bet not many ?

> Conversation here seems to revolve around our technology.
> If there is new and interesting technology, we like to talk
> about it. If we have questions about how to use our
> technology we like to ask about it. If we think we know the
> optimum amount of on-film deviation we like to argue about
> it. So until someone wants to talk about their technology,
> its kind of quiet.
>

Subject: Re: how many of us?
Date: 2009-09-16 13:08:27
From: John Thurston

Bill G wrote:

> I am curious what the size of this list is now? I bet not many ?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group
# Members: 237
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

Subject: Re: how many of us?
Date: 2009-09-16 13:31:00
From: Aaron Muderick

247.

Bill G wrote:

I am curious what the size of this list is now? I bet not many ?

> Conversation here seems to revolve around our technology.
> If there is new and interesting technology, we like to talk
> about it. If we have questions about how to use our
> technology we like to ask about it. If we think we know the
> optimum amount of on-film deviation we like to argue about
> it. So until someone wants to talk about their technology,
> its kind of quiet.
>

Subject: Re: how many of us?
Date: 2009-09-16 16:38:18
From: David Damico

Hello everyone. A while back, I was enthused by the beauty of medium format thanks to Dorothy Mladenka's pictures. I was blown away by them and bought a Sputnik which was tuned up by Don. However, the cost of processing and my ability to get usable frames has made me rethink use of the larger format. I am fortunate to have a wonderful E6 developer in nearby Rochester, NY that is friendly and reliable but I just cannot afford the cost per frame of medium compared to that of the Realist format (which I have been using a lot lately).

So it sits for now, unused but loved.

That's my story.

David Damico
LeRoy, NY

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:09 AM, DrT (George Themelis) <drt-3d@att.net> wrote:

> How many people do you think exist worldwide that are actively taking MF3D
> photos?

Subject: cost per image [was: how many of us?]
Date: 2009-09-16 17:09:44
From: John Thurston

David Damico wrote:

> Hello everyone. A while back, I was enthused by the beauty of medium format
> thanks to Dorothy Mladenka's pictures. I was blown away by them and bought a
> Sputnik which was tuned up by Don. However, the cost of processing and my
> ability to get usable frames has made me rethink use of the larger format.

I was an early adopter of digital-3d and figured that cheap,
quick and easy was good enough for me. I didn't understand
why anyone still bothered dealing with film. I was brought
to MF3D when Paul Talbot mailed me a viewer and arranged for
Don Lopp to ship me a few of his slides. When I saw it, I
knew I had to have it.

Now I'm shooting medium format and loving it. I still have
my TDC Vivid but haven't used it in years. I still have my
Burdlo and put about one roll a year through it. Yes, my
cost per image is much higher for my medium format images
than for my 135 format images, but I rationalize it this way:
I don't get out often
I don't shoot many pictures when I do
When I find something I like, I want to make the best
image I can make
Hauling around a tripod, meters, hoods and film to expose
a little scrap of film seems a waste of effort when I could,
instead, be exposing a big scrap of film

Since I've shelved my 35mm equipment and moved to 120, I
don't spend any more on processing and I don't have that
many fewer "good" images. I just shoot less and take more
care when I do. Yes, it hurts more when I realize that I've
shot 1/3 of a roll with my lens caps on (as I did yesterday)
or when I discover that I bumped the camera getting it out
of the pack and shot three rolls with mismatched apertures
(as I did last January). But I try to make such events the
exception rather than the rule.

> I
> am fortunate to have a wonderful E6 developer in nearby Rochester, NY

Ahh, those were the days.
I had a local processor :) who retired :(
Now I must trust the postal service to carry my film to
Denver or California for processing. It slows the process
but I'll stick with it as long as I can get the film processed.

--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

Subject: Re: cost per image [was: how many of us?]
Date: 2009-09-16 18:41:32
From: Bill G

John, wonderful justification... :-)

all VERY valid points, which I think most of us remaining MF shooters
share fully.... OTOH, 35mm still has its place as well.... faster
shutter speeds, wider lenses, smaller carry package, etc.

John Thurston wrote:

> David Damico wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone. A while back, I was enthused by the beauty of medium format
>> thanks to Dorothy Mladenka's pictures. I was blown away by them and bought a
>> Sputnik which was tuned up by Don. However, the cost of processing and my
>> ability to get usable frames has made me rethink use of the larger format.
>>
>
> I was an early adopter of digital-3d and figured that cheap,
> quick and easy was good enough for me. I didn't understand
> why anyone still bothered dealing with film. I was brought
> to MF3D when Paul Talbot mailed me a viewer and arranged for
> Don Lopp to ship me a few of his slides. When I saw it, I
> knew I had to have it.
>
> Now I'm shooting medium format and loving it. I still have
> my TDC Vivid but haven't used it in years. I still have my
> Burdlo and put about one roll a year through it. Yes, my
> cost per image is much higher for my medium format images
> than for my 135 format images, but I rationalize it this way:
> I don't get out often
> I don't shoot many pictures when I do
> When I find something I like, I want to make the best
> image I can make
> Hauling around a tripod, meters, hoods and film to expose
> a little scrap of film seems a waste of effort when I could,
> instead, be exposing a big scrap of film
>
> Since I've shelved my 35mm equipment and moved to 120, I
> don't spend any more on processing and I don't have that
> many fewer "good" images. I just shoot less and take more
> care when I do. Yes, it hurts more when I realize that I've
> shot 1/3 of a roll with my lens caps on (as I did yesterday)
> or when I discover that I bumped the camera getting it out
> of the pack and shot three rolls with mismatched apertures
> (as I did last January). But I try to make such events the
> exception rather than the rule.
>
>
>> I
>> am fortunate to have a wonderful E6 developer in nearby Rochester, NY
>>
>
> Ahh, those were the days.
> I had a local processor :) who retired :(
> Now I must trust the postal service to carry my film to
> Denver or California for processing. It slows the process
> but I'll stick with it as long as I can get the film processed.
>
>