150 THREE-DIMENSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY
caricature,” “intolerable,” “a travesty.” I often wonder if they
can really be sincere, if anyone is really capable of such self-deceit,
if anyone can refuse the actual evidence of his own eyes to such
an extent.
There is always the proof of the pudding. The chances are that
you have a camera which focuses down to 21/2 feet. Make a picture
of a rose, for example, at this distance. Compare the stereogram
with the original, looking at the latter from the same distance of
30 inches. The stereogram is no more difficult to view than is the
real rose! The stereogram shows no more exaggerated relief than
does the actual rose! And moreover nothing but the stereogram
made at 30 inches can show the true appearance of a rose seen
at 30 inches.
Short has done remarkable work with outdoor subjects. One
is a group of small salamanders in a setting of moss and violets
which is worthy of acclaim. Although made at about 18 inches,
there is nothing in the slide to indicate the fact. Only the size
of the known objects provides a hint, but nowhere is there any
indication of depth distortion. Brooks also does superb floral
work at very close distances as well as definite macro. All of his
slides can be viewed with complete comfort and exhibit wholly
normal stereo relief.
Our frank advice to you is wholly to ignore all such “laws”
which can so easily be demonstrated to be meaningless. We do
have stereo laws, real laws, laws which can be demonstrated and
which are always in effect. Those we respect; but we cannot
respect “laws” which have been promulgated simply because they
substantiate the defective stereoscopic vision of some one indi-
vidual or group of individuals.
MATHEMATICS VERSUS SUGGESTION.-JUSt a word about mathe-
matics. This is an exact science, the nearest approach to the abso-
lute man has made. It is invaluable in most human activity. To
question either the exactness or value of mathematics would be
absurd. The trouble is that in stereo, theorists have used per-
fectly sound mathematics to “prove” their inoperable theories,
and because the mathematics are sound, the reader accepts the
proof. The fault usually lies in the assumption of a false premise,
which is, of course, not evident in the mathematical presentation.
But when mathematics explains (not proves) phenomena which