paul_sanderson

I too have come to this thread late (four years late!) but for anyone else finding this and

needing an answer, I use the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro scanner in our studio.

My Kodak Stereo images are already mounted in plastic RBT frames, and it's a simple

matter to slip one end of a mounted pair into the end of the slide-holder that is meant for

already-mounted slides - because the end of that slide-holder is open, whereas the end of

the six loose slides-holder is not. You scan one end, then turn the slide mount and scan

the image that's at other end. One image will obviously be upside-down compared to the

other, and to allow for any positioning errors it's best to marquee a scan area bigger than

the visible frame, but all that can be sorted out in Photoshop.

I use a nice fine grain transparency such as Ektachrome 100G and the results are easily

good enough for 6x4 prints. In fact the scanner might do better than that for the stereos -

it's just about good enough for up to A4 from a full 35mm frame but I've never had any

need to find out from the stereo half-frames.

I've just realised that part of Ian's original query hasn't been answered - why is it that easy

add-on attachments for SLRs are so uncommon?

The answer to that is that camera producers are only to well aware that not only is stereo

photography a minority interest (and therefore not much profit) compared to the rest of

photography, but even within that narrow field it waxes and wanes in interest too. So while

major manufacturers may make a beam-splitter attachment to fit their lenses and a

suitable viewer - so that their range is complete - they will never make many of them

simply because they know they won't sell many of them.

And because of that I suspect the manufacturers don't put their best technical efforts into

whatever they do in that direction - half-frame images from my Pentax beam-splitter,

when seen through the matching Pentax viewer, are just not as good as the ones taken

with my Kodak Stereo and viewed through a 'proper' stereo viewer. And it's worse with

prints - my dedicated-to-stereo Loreo kit produces 6x4 prints to be viewed in the

supplied Loreo viewer, but you can see the grain of the paper and the whole image looks

decidedly unsharp. Undoubtedly, the plastic lenses in the camera and viewer - though

excellent of their type, I'm sure - are merely adequate in the grand scheme of things.

You may well think that a stereo view is so spectacular in comparison to a normal 2-D

view that surely the market for 3-D would explode if only Joe Public could regularly see

sharp, full-colour 3-D imagery rather than the blurry red-blue anaglyphs they see on

cereal packets or in kids' books - and it would be in the photographic industry's interest

to ensure that happened. But the same problem always gets in the way when it comes to

stereo - you always need special viewing arrangements to see the 3-D effect. It may be an

electrical viewer, or one you merely hold up to a strong light, or it may be polarised specs

for everyone in a theatre audience where stereo views are being projected onto a screen,

but always one needs special equipment to see the effect. And, generally, people can't be

bothered.

My neighbours all have cameras and have taken photos all their lives, and they are

thunderstruck when they first put their eyes to my stereo viewer. But not one has shown

any inclination to take 3-D pics themselves.

Paul Sanderson, Beckenham, Kent

I've been buying USA stuff on eBay for a couple of years now, taking advantage of the very

favourable rate of monetary exchange if you're here in the UK. Mainly I've been buying

stereo photography stuff that, pre-Internet, was just too expensive here in the UK.

However, it does mean that UK residents are more inclined to go higher with their bids, or

happily pay for goods with higher profit margins attached, since it still seems cheap. Not

only that, Bill, you might get some quiet satisfaction to learn that there is an import tax

based on weight and declared value for all goods entering the UK, so the cheap purchase

coming from the USA could turn out to be 20 GBP($40) more expensive than first thought!

For any UK readers of this intending to use eBay USA, it's a sliding scale, and so small,

lightweight items attract practically no tax (or no tax at all).

Paul, London UK

If you are thinking of dabbling in stereo, as indicated above it's definitely better to have a

dedicated stereo camera rather than an add-on system such as a beam-splitter. I started

out with a beam splitter for a Pentax K1000, then a Loreo camera (both of which I still

have).

But once the Internet came along and it was suddenly possible to shop in the USA at half

the price of here in the UK, then I soon got myself a Kodak Stereo camera. There are

always many available on eBay and in fact I, er, ended up with six! Don't ask me why, I

don't have a sensible answer! Slightly more expensive are the Stereo Realists, but the

Kodak Stereo to my eyes looks nicer and also has a built-in spirit level - very important for

stereo shooting. Both use ordinary 35mm transparency and I use Ektachrome 100G, since

the grain is so fine that you can scan the nearly-half-frame trannies if need be and still

get decent results at a decent size.

Both Stereo Realist and Kodak Stereo were built for 50 ASA film, so a slight downside is

that it's best if you use a light meter since it's inevitable that you'll be using a different

speed film. I've never handled a Stereo Realist, but the Kodak certainly has picture icons

on the casing to enable the users to set the camera to sunny, overcast, etc, as well as set

the focus distance (there is no through-the-lens focusing). But that's for 50 ASA of course.

The film is processed normally (E6) with instructions not to cut. Once upon a time the

stereo pairs would come back ready-mounted, but nowadays you have to do it yourself on

the kitchen table. If you use plastic RBT mounts (currently 15 GBP for 50 plus postage) it's

a doddle once you've done the first one. Very cheap plastic viewers can be bought on eBay

(I carry one with a stereo pair in it for when passers-by get curious about my strange

camera), but backlighting battery-powered viewers with proper optical lenses and

focusing are much, much better. The Stereo Realist 'red button' viewer (it has achromatic

lenses) is said to be the Rolls Royce of such viewers; Kodak's own aren't so good but do

look nicely 1950s. I also have a Revere Stereo 22 viewer which looks even more 1950s!

Paul Sanderson, Beckenham, UK

Jeff - the Kodak Stereo is a great camera... I've got six of them!

I've been using mine since Christmas and have filled a box with

the slides I've mounted. I've also been collecting ye olde Realist

format slides from the 1950s/'60s (USA and European), though

that interest has tailed off now that I'm doing more of my own.

Still, all my neighbiours are agog at the lifelike views of the past -

their knowledge of stereo is a Snow White And The Seven

Dwarves disc in a ViewMaster.

You'll need to mount the slides yourself, but with RBT slide

mounts it's very easy. You'll also need a light meter. Get in touch

if you want to know more practical stuff.

Regards, Paul Sanderson (London, UK)

sandy@dircon.co.uk