Header banner

MF3D-group Conversations Photos Files All groups About
<< Previous Thread Guidance sought Next Thread >>

Subject: Guidance sought
Date: 2013-07-16 07:10:25
From: Alvah Whealton
I am new to the list.  I have a Holga. I also have two Ricohflex Vii's  set up on a bar. I have made a couple of Holme's viewers in the shop, far from outstanding in craftsmanship, but functional, nevertheless.  Generally, I favor this mode of viewing 3D photos.
 
 I live an hour away from the Blue Ridge Parkway in western Virginia and North Carolina.  I am lusting to get some 3D photos of landscapes there, which have a good sense of depth.  I am aware of the 1/30th principle but I am totally daunted by the requirements.   I'd like to know list members' experiences with landscapes, particularly mountains.  Can you get real depth in such photos with a modest setup?  Or is it preordained that I have to bite the bullet and go to some exotic camera setup to take such pictures? 
 
Thanks,
Al Whealton
Subject: Re: Guidance sought
Date: 2013-07-16 07:23:29
From: Bob Aldridge
Some of the very best landscape MF stereos that I ever saw (and the trigger that set me off on my own MF 3D quest) were shown at the 1993 ISU Congress in Eastbourne by Werner Wieser who use a vintage Rolleidoscop with standard lens separation...

Now, oviously, the pre-war Rolleidoscop has excellent lenses - but I'd guess you would have to be pretty critical to separate images from the Rolleidoscop from those from a correctly aligned pair of Ricohflexes. The Holga lenses tend not to be too highly regarded, on the other hand.

Assuming you can release the shutters pretty much together, you should be able to achieve excellent results - I used an old pair of Hasselblads with "digital synchronisation" (releasing the shutters with two "digits") to surprisingly good effect.

Bob Aldridge

On 16/07/2013 14:09, Alvah Whealton wrote:
 

I am new to the list.  I have a Holga. I also have two Ricohflex Vii's  set up on a bar. I have made a couple of Holme's viewers in the shop, far from outstanding in craftsmanship, but functional, nevertheless.  Generally, I favor this mode of viewing 3D photos.
 
 I live an hour away from the Blue Ridge Parkway in western Virginia and North Carolina.  I am lusting to get some 3D photos of landscapes there, which have a good sense of depth.  I am aware of the 1/30th principle but I am totally daunted by the requirements.   I'd like to know list members' experiences with landscapes, particularly mountains.  Can you get real depth in such photos with a modest setup?  Or is it preordained that I have to bite the bullet and go to some exotic camera setup to take such pictures? 
 
Thanks,
Al Whealton

Subject: Re[2]: [MF3D-group] Guidance sought
Date: 2013-07-16 14:19:35
From: Alvah Whealton
Bob,
 
Thanks. I guess there is nothing to do but get started.  The cost of film and  developing has made me less than enthusiastic about learning by trial and error, but that is obviously what I need to do.  I  actually enjoy all the planning and setting up required to take MF shots, as opposed to taking a hundred shots and picking out the best one.  If the Ricohflex setup shows me I can make it work, I will consider a better arrangement. 
 
I picked up on Amazon a book of stereo views,  "London in 3D." The book contains some great hyper views.  I find no mention of the cameras involved, but figure they must have been medium format at least.  The book really turned me on. 
 
Hang in there with those two Hasselblads.  I know it's terrible cross to bear,  but you are a better man for it. 
 
Al Whealton
 
 
 
------ Original Message ------
From: "Bob Aldridge" <Bob@stereoscopy.net>
To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 7/16/2013 9:23:21 AM
Subject: Re: [MF3D-group] Guidance sought
 

Some of the very best landscape MF stereos that I ever saw (and the trigger that set me off on my own MF 3D quest) were shown at the 1993 ISU Congress in Eastbourne by Werner Wieser who use a vintage Rolleidoscop with standard lens separation...

Now, oviously, the pre-war Rolleidoscop has excellent lenses - but I'd guess you would have to be pretty critical to separate images from the Rolleidoscop from those from a correctly aligned pair of Ricohflexes. The Holga lenses tend not to be too highly regarded, on the other hand.

Assuming you can release the shutters pretty much together, you should be able to achieve excellent results - I used an old pair of Hasselblads with "digital synchronisation" (releasing the shutters with two "digits") to surprisingly good effect.

Bob Aldridge

On 16/07/2013 14:09, Alvah Whealton wrote:
 

I am new to the list.  I have a Holga. I also have two Ricohflex Vii's  set up on a bar. I have made a couple of Holme's viewers in the shop, far from outstanding in craftsmanship, but functional, nevertheless.  Generally, I favor this mode of viewing 3D photos.
 
 I live an hour away from the Blue Ridge Parkway in western Virginia and North Carolina.  I am lusting to get some 3D photos of landscapes there, which have a good sense of depth.  I am aware of the 1/30th principle but I am totally daunted by the requirements.   I'd like to know list members' experiences with landscapes, particularly mountains.  Can you get real depth in such photos with a modest setup?  Or is it preordained that I have to bite the bullet and go to some exotic camera setup to take such pictures? 
 
Thanks,
Al Whealton

Subject: 1/30 and MF
Date: 2013-07-17 05:10:06
From: jamesbharp
Al wrote: "I am aware of the 1/30th principle but I am totally daunted by the requirements."

You've got the right idea that the only way to get started with MF photography is to dive in, take some pictures and evaluate your results.

Personally I feel the 1/30 rule has no bearing on MF photography. Do you need to use the 1/30 rule to enjoy a pleasing 3D scene in real life? The immense amount of detail in medium format images provide subtle depth cues that are completely absent in digital and 35mm formats. This is why there are so many wonderful scenics shot with cameras like the Rolleidocop that don't have tree branches at 10 feet just to add depth.

If you're shooting with two digital cameras you better have something close up or a lot of camera separation because you'll end up with what is basically a 2D image otherwise. With medium format a scene that has a pleasing stereo composition to your naked eyes will probably also look nice in 3D when viewed through a slide viewer.

Have fun!
Jim Harp
Subject: Re: 1/30 and MF
Date: 2013-07-17 06:45:11
From: George Themelis
I agree with Jim :)
 
Another way to say this:
 
The higher the image and viewing quality, the less important depth becomes.
 
If you are working with formats that have inherently low resolution, you must have good depth or the image will be painfully flat.
 
It is not only the quality of the image... it is also the quality of the viewing method.  Those who freeview (even if it is medium format transparencies) need lots of depth.
 
George
 
 
From: jamesbharp
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 7:10 AM
Subject: [MF3D-group] 1/30 and MF
 
 

Al wrote: "I am aware of the 1/30th principle but I am totally daunted by the requirements."

You've got the right idea that the only way to get started with MF photography is to dive in, take some pictures and evaluate your results.

Personally I feel the 1/30 rule has no bearing on MF photography. Do you need to use the 1/30 rule to enjoy a pleasing 3D scene in real life? The immense amount of detail in medium format images provide subtle depth cues that are completely absent in digital and 35mm formats. This is why there are so many wonderful scenics shot with cameras like the Rolleidocop that don't have tree branches at 10 feet just to add depth.

If you're shooting with two digital cameras you better have something close up or a lot of camera separation because you'll end up with what is basically a 2D image otherwise. With medium format a scene that has a pleasing stereo composition to your naked eyes will probably also look nice in 3D when viewed through a slide viewer.

Have fun!
Jim Harp