 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / November 2008[photos] more stereograms from Santorini
These ones I like: http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_10_13&img=photos/2008_10_13/img_0491.jpg http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_10_13&img=photos/2008_10_13/img_0544.jpg http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_10_13&img=photos/2008_10_13/img_0480.jpg http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_10_13&img=photos/2008_10_13/img_0456.jpg  SignatureTroy Piggins - I always appreciate critique [SI] Shoot-In http://www.pbase.com/shootin > These ones I like: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://piggo.com/~troy/photos.php?album=2008_10_13&img=photos/2008_10_13/img_0456.jpg Me too. Nailed it! Well done. -- Jeff R. * Jeff R. wrote : >> These ones I like: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Well done. Cheers, mate. Beautiful place over there. Loved it. SignatureTroy Piggins - I always appreciate critique [SI] Shoot-In http://www.pbase.com/shootin What method do you use to take these shots? How much spacing? Also, is the pic on the left the one taken from the leftmost position or vice-versa? > What method do you use to take these shots? > How much spacing? Also, is the pic on the left the one taken from the > leftmost position or vice-versa? Dunno where Troy went, but while you are waiting... My method is very basic - just take the two shots from about 3-6" apart. I don't bother measuring or using a tripod for most of mine, but then I'm no artiste, either.. I understand they should technically be taken from the typical inter-ocular distance of ~6.3cm (2.5"), but I find you can go quite a bit wider and the effect seems to be better. Not sure at what point it all falls apart, though. When you cross your eyes to view them, your right eye will be looking at the left image and v-v, so the images do need to be swapped around from the taking aspect. If you get it wrong you will immediately notice that it simply doesn't work. When I create them, I often forget which is which, so I just position them on the PS canvas and try it out - if it doesn't work, just swap'em. Examples - at least one of which you have seen: http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/stereo_brisbane.jpg http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/stereo_colacan.jpg http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/car_stereo.jpg http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/that_spot_in_manly.jpg (Hi, D-Mac!) http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/weird3d.jpg (clouds that move between images can do strange things...) One of these days, like Troy, I'll do one of an *aesthetic* scene.. (O: * Annika1980 wrote : > What method do you use to take these shots? > How much spacing? G'day mate. I just take one shot, then move horizontally about the width your eyes are apart (50-75mm or 2-3" or so) then take another. It's pretty forgiving and don't think you need to be that precise. > Also, is the pic on the left the one taken from the leftmost > position or vice-versa? No. The image on the left is the one your right eye is supposed to see, and vice versa. That's why you go cross-eyed :) SignatureTroy Piggins - I always appreciate critique [SI] Shoot-In http://www.pbase.com/shootin | * Annika1980 wrote : | > What method do you use to take these shots? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | another. It's pretty forgiving and don't think you need to be | that precise. and if you want some *really* impressive images, use a wideangle and shoot even further apart :) k wrote,on my timestamp of 25/11/2008 2:48 PM: > and if you want some *really* impressive images, use a wideangle and shoot > even further apart :) er, careful. then you gotta cope with distortions and such. better to stick with not so wide angles and take more photos. | k wrote,on my timestamp of 25/11/2008 2:48 PM: | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | better to stick with not so wide angles and take more | photos. I use decent rectilinear wides ith minimal distortion but you're right - something a novice might miss (and have problems with!) I went through a pile of new wide zooms when I was in the US and found just the thing for the job back in the 90's bought two 2 F1N's on a rail with an integral level, shutters linked, all good :) luckily at their almost-widest is when the distortion disappears, I'd have had hell if they barelled! k * k wrote : >| k wrote,on my timestamp of 25/11/2008 2:48 PM: >| [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > luckily at their almost-widest is when the distortion disappears, I'd have > had hell if they barelled! Sorry, mate. I didn't understand any of that. What did it all mean? SignatureTroy Piggins - I always appreciate critique [SI] Shoot-In http://www.pbase.com/shootin Troy Piggins wrote,on my timestamp of 29/11/2008 12:13 AM: > * k wrote : >> | k wrote,on my timestamp of 25/11/2008 2:48 PM: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Sorry, mate. I didn't understand any of that. What did it all > mean? LOL! I think he meant: he found just the thing for the job after trying with a pile of zooms back in the 1990s: pair of Canon F1Ns mounted on a rail, shutters linked. Apparently, those don't barrel-distort at the widest zoom setting. Rectilinear wide zooms, I guess? Anyways: my take on it. Or wot I could grok. "Noons" | LOL! | I think he meant: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | | Anyways: my take on it. Or wot I could grok. you did good translating my goobledegook into english :) karl asw a footnote, I went to specifically buy FD L series 20-35's but found the three I looked at (new at the time) soft and not well corrected for distortion - much to my surprise! I then tried a couple of Tamrons, Tokinas and even the Sigmas, becoming more disheartened with each lens before the guy suggested a Phoenix 19-35 .. which I'd never heard of. Apparently I've since found out Vivitar sell the same lens badged as a Series 1 - but either way, this was a lens I had no preconceptions about. Stuck it on the front, grinned, zoomed around a bit (grin grew bigger) and I spent the dollars Funny thing, armed with the Canon walking about New York I was stopped twice by people who commented on the lens on sight, saying how good they were and they are good :) k wrote,on my timestamp of 29/11/2008 1:16 PM: > asw a footnote, I went to specifically buy FD L series 20-35's but found the > three I looked at (new at the time) soft and not well corrected for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > and they are good :) I've heard good things as well from some of the Vivitar series 1 lenses. Looks like the 19-35 is one to watch out for. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.