Stereo Realist, David White Co., 1947-1971

<p><strong>The Stereo Realist f/3.5, David White, Milwaukee, WI</strong><br /><br />The principle of stereo viewing goes back even before the development of photography with 3D drawings, etc., based on the slightly different view each eye has.<br /><br /> Much early photography was done in 3D (even daguerreotypes) and many of the famous so-called "Brady" pictures were originally shot in 3D. What you see today is usually one of the stereo pairs, but Bob Zeller has presented two fascinating volumes of the originals in his <em>The Civil War in Depth</em>, and <em>The Civil War in Depth Volume II</em>. For just one example, the classic and often printed picture of Lincoln and McClellan sitting in the latter's tent was originally a stereo photograph as was the often printed scene of a rare council of war in Virginia held by Grant and the Generals of the Army of the Potomac. Many other portraits of famous personalities of the time were photographed on multiple lens cameras for making more copies at a time, and stereo views have been made up of matching pairs of these, both at the time and much later.<br /><br />Beautiful wet and dry plate wooden stereo cameras are relatively common, and the Holmes stereograph viewer became a common Victorian-era parlor amusement with large sets of stereo cards, often hand colored. There were also other kinds of stereo viewers, and one of these days, if given even a smidgeon of encouragement, I will post more on various forms of stereo. A fairly inferior form of stereo viewing is what is known as "anaglyphic" 3D where the two images are superimposed, one tinted blue or green, the other red. I have earlier presented a discussion of a simplified version of this that was made by Vivitar in its glory days-- the Vivitar Series 1 Qdos 70-210mm lens ( http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Nngp ). Unlike the true anaglyphic pictures, the separation is less on the red/green in this Qdos lens, so without glasses, the images just look like they were taken with a lens with the mother of chromatic aberrations, aka color-fringed soft-focus. With red/green glasses, however there is a decided 3D look. In the early 3D movies of the 1950s, the separation was from polarization, not via the anaglyphic means, although the films are often shown on TV and elsewhere in anaglyphic versions.<br /><br />Suffice it to say that I have been collecting stereo gear for a long time, even before I collected any cameras but the ones I used. I had never got into the Stereo Realist. I was too young, and far too bereft of cash, to be caught up in the thing when it was hot in the years after WWII. One of the best known of the many stereo cameras from that period, the most widely sold and used one, was the David White Stereo Realist camera. Contemporary advertisements show many Hollywood stars and others using the Stereo Realist camera. The silent screen actor, Harold Lloyd, for just one example, used his Stereo Realist to take over 300,000 color 3D images, many of them of tastefully posed nude women. Many examples are to be found in the book, <em>Harold Lloyd's Hollywood Nudes in 3-D</em> by Suzanne Lloyd (his granddaughter). Since these pictures pre-date cosmetic enhancements, they form a valuable source of study for physical anthropologist interested in variability of human form. One Stereo Realist advertisement from June 1950 in Popular Photography featured Cecil B. de Mille, who probably didn't have to scrounge for advertising pennies from David White company.</p><div></div>

<p>There are variants depending on lens and other minutiae that rival those of Leica collectors, but mine is just the standard model with the f/3.5 lens. It is very difficult to find some of these items and eBay and retail prices remain fairly high for many.<br /><br />There's too much available on this camera to merit too extensive a write-up here but I will refer people to Dr. T's discussion at http://www.3drealist.com/ . The Wiki article is good at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_Realist .<br /><br />Dr. T. also provides stereo photographers with slide mounts and much other technical and mechanical support, including instructions on repair and refurbishment (see http://www.drt3d.com/ ).<br /><br />On the subject of viewing stereo, there is an earlier post here on P.net about it ( http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00XUTy ). Also, there are excellent discussions of the fine point of parallel or crossed viewing at http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/freeview.html<br /><br />Here is a stereo view of my own Stereo Realist. To view in stereo, cross and then relax your eyes to let the images merge.</p><div></div>

<p>This has been set for crossed eye viewing. It was taken with a Pentax made Stereo adapter (of what was earlier known as "Stereotach") on a Canon 5D w/50mm f/1.8 lens<br /><br />I also have the "green-button" viewer (this is important, pay attention, since some button colors are much rarer than others ;)</p><div></div>

<p>I did not know that Mathew Brady's famous pictures (some of them, at least) were shot as stereo pairs. Very interesting. Thanks for an informative article.</p>

<p>But enough camera porn. Here are some stereo images from it, alas, not including Harold Lloyd's nudes.</p>

<p>The first is an eagle at the local National Guard Armory, again as are all the others, in crossed-eye mode. The original images are roughly 22x24mm in size, which became a sort of standard for stereo on 35mm film, but is a little awkward in scanning.</p><div></div>

<p>A backyard view</p><div></div>

<p>A scene at the Cedarhurst Craft Fair in Mount Vernon IL</p><div></div>

<p>And one of the craft displays of art glass work at the Cedarhurst Fair</p><div></div>

<p>Finally a little easter egg for those of you who made it to the end.<br /> <br />The movie <strong><em>Them!</em></strong> (one of the first and the best of the giant bug films see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Them! ) was originally planned to be shot in color 3D, however, by the time that the film came to the actual filming its budget had been trimmed and it was made in B&W, no 3D. Many features of the film still show a 3D heritage, however, with monsters jutting into the foreground. There are a huge number of trivia items about this film. It got Fess Parker the Davy Crockett role, Leonard Nemoy has a bit part, and so on, including many re-uses of the famous "Wilhelm scream" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_scream ), subsequently an in-joke in Hollywood for many years.<br /><br />When I realized I was wearing out my VHS tape of this movie, I finally sprung for a DVD of it. Much clearer and more detail, including the detail that I could finally figure out what camera Dr. Pat Medford (Joan Weldon) was using to photograph the exterior and later the interior of the ant nest: a David White Stereo Realist with the flip-up lens cover/hood removed. Fitting, for what was to have been a 3D film. Ironically, she just uses it like a regular camera, with no homage paid to the actually rather deliberate and multiple procedures needed to use it in real life. Sort of like those infinite magazine automatic weapons, I suppose.<br /><br />Here it is in Scene 12 of the film:</p><div></div>

<p>That's all folks!</p>

<p>That's a very interesting and comprehensive post, <strong>JDM</strong>! Possibly a tutorial, even. Many thanks for broadening my knowledge on a subject I know very little about. I'll have to say that I've never succumbed to the fascination of 3D images, being just about the only kid on the block who never asked for a Viewmaster for Christmas, but I really admire the technology behind the production.</p>

<p>Many thanks for putting together this post.</p>

<p>Very enjoyable - informative and eloquently written as always - a pleasure. Thank you, Sir.</p>

<p>Top notch posting. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks for this, as always an interesting and informative post. The Harold Lloyd nudes seem intriguing - "a <a id="itxthook2" rel="nofollow" href="../classic-cameras-forum/00YCII">valuable</a> source of study for physical anthropologist interested in variability of human form". Looks like some serious research is in order.</p>

<p>Seton Rochwite, who designed the Realist cameras, was a member of our local stereo camera club which has been meeting since 1953. Besides the Stereo Realist, he also designed the Realist 45 built by Iloca, and the Macro Realist. Of the Stereo Realists, those with f/2.8 lenses including the Custom, and the ones with Tessars command a premium.</p>

<p>A delightful post and thoughtful presentation, JDM, many thanks. I don't have the camera but I have the viewer and a couple of boxes of stereo Kodachrome slides that my old boss left to me. The 3-effect is absolutely <strong>stunning</strong>. I bet that stained glass really pops. </p>

<p>Nice timing for this thread; I just used my Stereo Realist this morning! Though I'm very late to the party, having only started using it in the late 1990s, it remains my primary camera for everyday use. </p>

<p>1947-1971, that's a long production run for a single basic model, isn't it? Thank you JDM for spotlighting one of the best uses for Kodachrome ever!</p>

<p>Great post, JDM! Little to add, other than that I like to tinker with 3D photography as well, using my own Stereo Realist, or a slider bar on a conventional camera. It tweaks the brain a little, to have to compose while also paying more attention to depth and foreground, in addition to conventional composition.</p>

<p>Chauncey thanks for the info on Seton Rochwite being in your camera club. I've always thought the visual design of the Stereo Realist was one of the finest products of post WWII design. The ergonomics of the camera? maybe not so much.</p>

<p>He was a firm believer in using the forehead to steady the camera which did lend itself to some unusual ergonomics;-)</p>

<p>Awesome article, JDM ! <br /> .... and just as I finished with Oliver Sack's <strong> </strong><a href="http://www.oliversacks.com/books/the-minds-eye/"><strong>The Mind's Eye</strong></a><br /> with a chapter on stereoscopic vision and neurological abnormalities that affect it.<strong> </strong></p>

<p>I've sold numerous Realists and Sawyers 3D cameras, but never had the notion of experiment with them... guess now's the time !<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Excellent, you have outdone yourself! A camera that I haven't ever seen, so I wonder how popular they were? Certainly see plenty of ads in old magazines for them. Those B grade horror flicks were just the greatest!</p>

<p>I was really happy to see your topic here because late last year the stereo photography bug hit me and I bought a Realist. I've shot a half dozen or so rolls of Fuji Sensia with it but I haven't seen the results yet. The viewer I bought for it came with a couple of hundred amateur slides from all those decades ago, and seeing that 3D snapshot of family life was a real blast (even though it was someone else's family!). So much so that the shots I have been taking with the camera are not arty or documentary in style, but rather I have been concentrating mainly on shooting family candids and other shots of general home life. I'm sure my own 3D family photos will be just as much fun to view in 50 years time by whichever family members inherit them as the ones from the 1950s that I've been having fun viewing lately.</p>

<p>I agree with your opinion about the strange ergonomics, but to be honest within the first half a roll I had the routine down pat and it wasn't awkward at all.</p>

<p>I can vouch for "Dr T". He is a great source of knowledge as well as new and used equipment and other supplies such as slide mounts.</p>

<p>+1 on Dr. T, George Themelis. I was a member of the Cleveland area stereo photography club for a year or two, as my job was midway between Cleveland and Toledo. And George was always there, combination of cheerleader, guru, coach, and ringleader.</p>

<p>An absolutely fascinating presentation, JDM. I am almost tempted to get to one of our many used camera shops in the Osaka-Kobe area and get a stereo camera. </p>