Caravaggio anticipated 3D conversion?

uuglypher wrote:

Turbguy1 wrote:

Welcome to the stereo window!

Without custom borders, using traditional rectangular formats, that is not only the result, it is the expected result. As you would observe, peering out a rectangular window.

I guess we can blame film (and a whole bunch of artwork) for that "tradition".

Does it "bother" you?

You might find using custom frames more pleasing. Try the photostream here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stereotron/

If you cannot observe the disparity I pointed out, then we must agree to disagree.

Viewing larger image size might help.

No, it does not bother me, what does bother me is your trying to “re-frame” the discussion.

To re-focus:

You explicitly pointed out non-corresponding details near the edges of some of my image pairs, complaining of discomfort in viewing such pairs…. but you do not hesitate to post image pairs with at least as many if not more non-correspondence of edge details. Neither your non-corresponding details nor mine are a “bother” to me. I’ve long since learned to look past and ignore such incidental drek. It just seems that if one complains of clutter on my side of the fence, they ought be sure they don’t similarly offend on their side?

Fair’s fair?

No need for a distracting discourse on framing ; interesting but not appropos your original complaint.

if of interest, we certainly could have a discussion on the effects of disproportionate encroachment of masks (frame edges) upon perceived subject depths relative to frame level.