Capturing the moment.

clifford · Jun 19, 2003

Does anyone have any views on the subject of photography being two dimensional or three dimensional :?: Would appreciate any comments long or short. many thanks, Clifford

MDowdey · Jun 19, 2003

I knew somebody would go crazy on here eventually.

clifford, take the blue pill next time buddy.

seriously, it all depends on how you percieve, but technically, a picture is 2 d.

md

clifford · Jun 20, 2003

I know that it is technically 2 d, but how about some ideas on the 3d aspect, maybe this is why I choose to take the other pill. Iam also aware that it is how one perceives the photo, however, sometimes the gap between 2d and 3d is leaped, you know how sometimes we are transported to the scene etc and we merely sit in the surrealness. There is a 3d aspect to photography and what I would like to know is not what pill I should take, but photographers ideas on the subject. Our world is not 2d and we do not have to go to the world of the matrix to perceive the three dimensions, but merely look around us. Maybe md, you have taken the pill that transports you to platos cave. Lots of 2d photos to be taken in there.

TwistMyArm · Jun 20, 2003

I see photographs as 2 dimensional. I think that's one of the reasons I like it. Unless we walk around with one eye shut all day every day then what we see everyday is 3 dimensional. It's nice to be able to sit back and look at a seen in a different way (ie 2d rather than 3d).
Sure you can give the impression that a photo is 3d. A sidelit subject for example may appear more 3 dimensional because of shadows, but is it 3d..no. It's not 3d in the photo only in real life.
that's just my 2 cents