Do you think that 3D photography, either stereo or anaglyph will stick around?

I am currently doing my dissertation on the history of 3D photography. I wanted to get some other people's views on whether or not they feel that 3D really does bring anything new to a photograph and if so, why? I also want to find out whether people think that photography will stick around this time or whether or not it will fade out gradually as it has done in previous years. Any feedback or comments you may have would be extremely useful!

So, I have an opinion, but my English is too limited to express my opinion in details. - I think that this time the 3D phenomenon will survive, because of the advancement in technology. - The third dimension can bring a spectacular appearance to a photo or to a video, but not for all ordinary scenes. - The real threat comes because of those who entering the market with low quality 3D products (especially the bad 3D movies and the conversions from 2D to 3D movies). - Another big problem is because of some part of population who have a low level of 3D perception, have all sorts of eyesight problems or have a completely lack of 3D perception. A good 3D photo (or movie) will be always a good 3D photo (or movie) for people who can see the photo (or the movie) in appropriate conditions.

Thank you for your response, it has been really useful! Its nice to know other people's opinions and to be honest I have found it hard to actually find anyone that will answer! I completely agree with the argument you put forward. Do you think that 3D photography is something that you would look into doing professionally?

Yes, I do professional work in 3D business (photo and some video).:) I can say that people love to see good 3D materials. "Good" means interesting subjects, easy to see in 3D, deep 3D effect.

3D (stereo) photography never really disappeared since it's inception, although it's popularity rose and fell since the beginning of photography. It is currently going though another resurgence, primarily due to technological advances in digital capture. In order to be popular, it has to be simple to produce and use. Unfortunately, GOOD stereophotography is NOT easy to produce, probably an order of magnitude more complex than 2D (flat) photography. The most popular past forms (the Holmes Stereoscope print cards, the Realist "5P 35mm" transparency format, and the still used Viewmaster Reel) used STANDARD viewing methods that were both easy to use and gained popularity DUE IN GREAT PART to the standard viewers. I maintain that the lack of a firm, standard viewing method forces this aspect of imaging into sub-niches of viewing methods, more varied today then ANY time before... Until a new standard emerges, I doubt there will be a sustained resurgence. In my opinion, "3D" televisions currently hold the greatest potential for a standard viewing method. But three are at least 3 incompatible methods used with today's 3D Televisions. Now, does "3D" add anything to a photograph??? Well, it certainly adds a Z axis that was missing before! This opens up a huge new aspect of imaging. For instance, certain 2D photographs of the SAME SUBJECT MATTER appear to a a simple jumble of noise, but when viewed in stereo, the scene becomes one of complete, breathtaking understanding! And the use of stereophotography adds a distinct "tactile" feel to textures impossible to capture with other means. For instance, try this crosseye view: http://www.flickr.com/photos/turbguy/3485470802/in/photostream/lightbox/ Won't most people feel a different "emotion" when viewed in Stereo?

I have never before tried the cross eye view! Very interesting! I agree with you that 3D does add an extra 'tactile' feel to an image that otherwise could not be captured. In relation to the emotion that people may feel, I do think that certain 'types' of images would become almost more personal to the viewer, you can almost become immersed in a 3D image in my experience, you are almost in the location, experiencing the feel of that moment in time. Thank you very much for your response, it is really appreciated!

I think the challenging nature of good 3D photography is a great thing by itself. Taking great 2D photos also isn't simple and requires understanding of the tech as well as lots of practice. Then, at some point, you start taking your first stereo pictures and suddenly despite all your "flat" experience you know nothing about taking stereoscopic photos This drives me all the time, it's that feeling of depth, air in the image between objects. I perceive photos as a brief attempts to create a small world living in the frame, not just merely snapshots. Stereoscopy enhances this feel of presence, a window to another world. If you get it right. So at least for me, yes, 3D photography is here to stay Unless they come up with an affordable way of capturing quality holography pictures.

all 3-d brings to photography is reality. this is how we see. no longer does a photographer have to rely on his compositional and lighting skills to give the 'illusion' of 3-d to a 2-d media. it will only take off when they get rid of the need for glasses. having a 3.5 inch lcd on the back of a 3-d camera will never suffice. i'm committed to the genre and put up with the glasses, but the results can be shockingly stunning if you have great subject matter 30 feet or closer to the camera and sound photographic skills applied to the image. i'm cautiosly hopeful. lack of commercial 3-d content is a big drawback and high costs, naturally.

I think the Lytro camera will eventually have some staying power, but only if the image resolution is increased greatly. After playing with images on the Lytro website for about 45 minutes, I came back to dpzen. It was shocking to me how pictures that I knew were well composed and of interesting subject suddenly seemed flat and dull. All you could do was look at them. I kept wanting to click in different regions and refocus. It has been a few days and I am not quite back to normal. I agree with others that concepts that rely on viewing with glasses will never really catch on.

There are two non-lenticular glasses-free methods commonly available, TODAY! AND they are both OLD! Both are SBS freeviewing, cross and parallel. Both are superior to any other method devised to date. Both require skill and practice on the part of the viewer

"Both require skill and practice on the part of the viewer" Yes, which is yet another reason why 3D will never be popular. Unless the barriers to viewers are reduced, like "learning how to view" or the need to invest hundreds or thousands of dollars just to view 3D, 3D will be a small niche. Just putting on and wearing glasses makes viewing 3D more onerous than viewing 2D. Or, as with anaglyph, the viewing technique kills color and light - then you are trading off one-dimension (color) for another (3D) - that is not an advance. It is obvious that 3D is NOT sticking around for consumers: no more 3D phones being produced, no more new 3D consumer cameras or camcorders will be forthcoming, no additional 3D game consoles, no new 3D laptops. Every manufacturer made investments, and they have ALL pulled back (yes, there are probably a few exceptions; don't waste space talking about them; they prove the rule). Look it up - I used to contribute heavily to this forum, with posted 3D videos and pictures. I stopped because there was no interest even here. My 2D Youtube and Vimeo videos get hundreds or thousands of views; 3D stuff gets 10's or 20's. So, I have stopped shooting in 3D despite a heavy investment - no one is interested; not friends, family or even people here, most of whom are old-timers. No new blood is attracted to stay, and so there is no future. Maybe in 20 years there will be another flurry of interest, or maybe a breakthrough in convenient viewing of 3D will allow it to survive.

I do have more visitors on my anaglyph -groups of flickr.then last year. wim

Check what Dolby3D-together with Philips are willing to contribute in terms of Autosterescopic TVs in the next 2-3 years, not five.

I truly believe that 3D will definitely survive for several reasons. 1. The cost has been reduced significantly where the 3D support will be in all TV's, Displays and Projectors in the future. 2. The price of glasses will significantly be reduced in the coming years where. 3. The benefits to seeing things in 3D for educational purposes and viewer engagement are to large to ignore. 4. Advancements in Autostereo 3D in the next 5 - 10 years is exciting. 5. Expect to see Autostereo 3D Mobile devices next year in forms of tablets and mobile phones. The driver of these devices will be content in forms of pictures and videos that users will share. 6. More and more 3D content creation tools are being released every day that do not require special skills for creating 3D content. This will drive consumer engagement. Look forward to everyone else's comments on this. Dennis

I guess I can only speak for my own preferences. For home entertainment, it is extremely unlikely that I would ever put on a pair of glasses to see something in 3D. For movie theater experience, 3D is nice sometimes. But it is not something I seek out. Given a choice between a 2D or 3D version, my family (me, my wife and two kids) chose based on what show time is the most convenient. For work, I can envision many circumstances in mechanical and optical design that 3D viewing would be useful. I can imagine a room full of people at design reviews wearing 3D glasses. But I have not seen it yet.

Add new comment

Image
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.