Maybe it's only my ignorance Imre.  I'm sorry for not knowing what "content rivalries" are but that is a very small thing compared to not having a place for you in the group.  Regardless of your issues with my anaglyphs, I have gained an extreme amount from your knowledge and expertise.

 

None of us have all the answers and personally, I'm still on a quest to learn and become better.  More of it today is based on personal experimentation than acquiring someone else's wisdom but I know you are also still experimenting.  If we are lucky, this will never cease with us.  If I was not open minded I would never have experimented with the floating window which I first came to know from you!  I've put my own twist on it and have asked others to think of it as a tool to be used or not used but not condemned!

 

You will not remember but when I first saw your anaglyphs, they were so intimidating that I told the group I would never become that good.  Your work is an inspiration, but at some point we each follow our own path to that suits our individual passion and desires.

 

Brian

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Imre dr.Zsolnai-Nagy

To: anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:27 PM

Subject: Re: [Anaglyphs] OPHM 25 from Imre

"Rivalries on the edges"... I don't see the rivalries on my monitor.  Are these color or light rivalries?

The question isnt "on monitor"...the questin is the "content rivalry" on the edges.

Your sent images: yes this one is a fusible stereo...

Dear Brain!
I think I have not a place in this forum. If you dont undesrtand what I want to say, who will understand it????

Imre

2009/12/10 Brian Wallace <Starg82343(-at-)hotmail.com>

Thanks for the attention to my anaglyph Imre.

 

If you want my opinion to your statement and questions this is what I believe, language barrier not withstanding...

 

"Bad stereo image"...  or maybe not the best it can be?

    It can of course always be better!

 

"Rivalries on the edges"... I don't see the rivalries on my monitor.  Are these color or light rivalries?

 

"Too much deviation for the far point"... There is an excessive amount of deviation however I do not have trouble fusing it.  To decrease the deviation as you have done by your method, you have compromised the artistic content of the image by eliminating most of the bulkhead thus also eliminating the feeling of being there.  Remember, "Content is king".

 

Mathematics and rules are guides to follow but not necessarily to be followed so strictly as to impair artistic license.  You are very good at the science while I am not, but there needs to be a compromise between the two extremes, wouldn't you agree?  Otherwise an image would seem cold and calculated instead of warm with feeling and emotion.  Ultimately, that's what any type of photography is suppose to be about isn't it?

 

You are correct about the choice of stereo base (technically), but not correct about the original artist's intent.

 

By the way, I already had a version of this scene with less stereo base, less of the bottom and more of the far point.  Here it is for you.

 

I still have a problem compromising better focal point for a bottom window violation.  For me, one cancels out the other.

 

Brian

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Imre dr.Zsolnai-Nagy

To: anaglyphs(-at-)yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 3:24 PM

Subject: Re: [Anaglyphs] OPHM 25 from Imre

Hi Brian!
I wonder why you have so positive replies for this image.( from some experts too, by my consideration....no names....of course :-)  )
For my opinion it is a bad stereo image, too rivalries on the edges and too much deviation for the far point.
My preferable  "rules" are visible on the attached images.
1: show the correct stereo window, of course a lot of window violation....
2: the cropped version is my acceptable version for your base and focal....

What do you think?

Imre

--
http://www.conversion3d.freeweb.hu
http://imre3d.axo.hu