perspective w/ 35mm lenses?

"Anoni Moose" wrote in message
om...
"Nostrobino" wrote in message
om...

Wide-angle lenses tend to exaggerate differences in distance, while
telephoto (or more correctly, long-focus lenses whether they are true
telephotos or not) produce the effect of spatial compression. These are
clearly differences in perspective, as it is perceived by the viewer.

Yes, those visual effects are caused by perspective. However it's not the
lens that is responsible for the perspective, it's the location of
the camera that does.

That's the popular fallacy I'm disputing, yes.



Perspective is determined by position only. Focal length determines
field of view.

If that were true, wide-angle photos and long-lens photos would appear
to
have the same perspective. They do not. I know you know this as well as
I
do.

Unfortunatly, you're not quite right on that. Do a classic experiment
(I was taught this about 35 years ago, it still will work). Set up your
camera at some spot, and take a photo with your telephoto lens. Make
sure it shows what you call telephoto perspective. Next keep the camera
on that tripod pointed the same way. Change lens to wide angle lens.
Get film back (or digital files...) and crop the wide angle lens' image
to the same one in the telephoto. You've two pictures of a subject, one
with telephoto lense and one with wide angle lens. They are identical
photos (other than for grain/resolution aspects). Perspective is the
same. Do it with the zoom on your digital camera. The will be the same.
Why? Perspective is set by location, not by lens. Having a wide angle
lens only allows your field of view to be wider, it does not change
perspective
and you can test this yourself if you don't belive it.

All that was covered in my very first post, which I suggest you read since I
don't want to repeat it all over and over and over again.

What you're saying is perfectly true, and irrelevant. No one takes a shot
with a wide-angle lens so they can THEN crop it to look like a telephoto
lens shot. What would be the purpose of that?

Perspective is a quality of the ENTIRE PICTURE. When you crop out a large
part of the picture, you change the perspective. Again, this is something
I've covered at length in other posts in this thread, which I implore you to
read.


If I shoot buildings with an ultra-wide lens with the camera tilted
upward,
the sides of those buildings will converge toward the top in a way that
appears very distorted, very spatially exaggerated. This is clearly a
matter
of perspective, and meets every ordinary definition for perspective. If
I
shoot the same buildings from the same position with a long lens, there
will
be no such effect; on the contrary there will be a flattening and
spatial
compression as verticals are made more parallel and distance differences
are
made to appear less. This too is a perspective.

Absolutely not true if you've taken the photo from the same location.
You can't have done this because it won't come out that way. If you
change your location to make the image the same size, there will be
a difference, but it's not the lens that made the difference, it's the
location of the camera that changed.

No location change. Wide-angle lens = wide-angle perspective. Telephoto lens
= telephoto perspective. Again, all covered previously, several times.



No they won't. They will simply see differences in the field of view,
and probably at different magnifications (and probably some
differences
in grain or pixellation). Otherwise the two will be identical. The
fact
that you think differently suggests that you can never have tried it.

Of course I've tried it. Try it yourself, in the example I've given just
above.

I don't believe you've taken the two shots from the exact same location
with lens focal length the only thing changed (to show that it's that
which controls perspective). I think you probably moved location.

No, you're correct. What I meant was that I have taken wide-angle shots of
buildings and long-lens shots of the same and/or similar buildings, not
necessarily from the same location since I had no reason to do that. The
wide-angle shots all LOOK like wide-angle shots, i.e. they have the
"wide-angle look" which others here are claiming there is no such thing as;
and the long-lens shots all have the "telephoto look" which, again, people
on the other side of the argument are claiming does not and cannot exist.

Furthermore, I am saying that if YOU take wide-angle shots of buildings,
cityscapes etc. they will also have an obvious wide-angle perspective, and
if you use long lenses instead they will have an obvious long-lens
perspective in most cases. (There are some situations in which perspective
of any kind will not be apparent.)



Those things aren't what matters as much as perspective. With 35mm for
example, why does anyone use a 105mm or so lens for portraiture? Because
a
longish lens gives a more flattering perspective.

Not really true. That f.l. is used because it provides a view where the
subject fills the film when taken from the distance which provides
flattering perspective. If you take the same photo at the same distance
using a wider angle lens then crop down the film, you'll get the same
image (albeit with more grain).

All gone over here already, many times. Please read the previous posts.




You could use a 28mm lens
and move in to fill the frame just the same, couldn't you? But the
results
would be horrid. Perspective is what makes the difference.

Exactly right, but it's the "move in to fill the frame" which does the
distortion of perspective, not the lens focal length.

Covered already, many times.



If you used the 28mm from the original 105mm position would the
perspective
be the same (this is what you're claiming, right)? No, it would not. The
28
would produce not only a smaller image of the subject, but also more
convergence in parallel lines outside of the subject and, all in all,
the
wide-angle perspective that you claim does not exist--but which anyone
can,
in fact, see with their own eyes. How often do you have to see a certain
look with your own eyes before you admit that that look does, in fact,
exist?

Crop that smaller version to the same framing, and enlarge it. It will
be identical. I did this some time ago to prove it to myself. I *know*
you haven't because it *will* be the same.

I said this in my very FIRST POST. You don't have to prove it to me because
I have never disagreed with this. It's irrelevant. Please read the other
posts. You have not said a single thing that has not already been said and
replied to.

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:

Ordinary people who have not had the dubious benefit of such "learned"
explications can immediately see that most photos taken with a 24mm
lens, for example, do indeed (when viewed in their entirety) have a
wide-angle perspective.

What you are describing is not perspective.

Of course it is. What else would you call it?

Field of view.

And what is it about the picture that conveys its field of view?

(The EASY AND CORRECT answer, of course, is "its perspective." I know you
cannot bring yourself to say that, and am really curious as to how you will
get past this hurdle.)

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:

Ordinary people who have not had the dubious benefit of such "learned"
explications can immediately see that most photos taken with a 24mm
lens, for example, do indeed (when viewed in their entirety) have a
wide-angle perspective.

What you are describing is not perspective.

Of course it is. What else would you call it?

Field of view.

And what is it about the picture that conveys its field of view?

(The EASY AND CORRECT answer, of course, is "its perspective." I know you
cannot bring yourself to say that, and am really curious as to how you will
get past this hurdle.)

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

Certainly not, because perspective is a function of the picture in its
entirety. When you crop out parts of the picture as you describe, you
change
its perspective.

so if i take a print and then crop away parts of it by cutting it with
scissors, i am changing the perspective of the remaining parts of the
picture?

Exactly.



great! no more need to buy expensive and heavy telephoto lenses when i
can get the same effect with just scissors!

I am always glad to be of help.

However, telephoto lenses are useful anyway since they allow you to get
telephoto perspective without having to cut away most of that paper that you
paid for, which is not only a waste of materials but also tends to result in
rather tiny final prints. But you knew that anyway, right?

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

Certainly not, because perspective is a function of the picture in its
entirety. When you crop out parts of the picture as you describe, you
change
its perspective.

so if i take a print and then crop away parts of it by cutting it with
scissors, i am changing the perspective of the remaining parts of the
picture?

Exactly.



great! no more need to buy expensive and heavy telephoto lenses when i
can get the same effect with just scissors!

I am always glad to be of help.

However, telephoto lenses are useful anyway since they allow you to get
telephoto perspective without having to cut away most of that paper that you
paid for, which is not only a waste of materials but also tends to result in
rather tiny final prints. But you knew that anyway, right?

Nostrobino wrote:

And what is it about the picture that conveys its field of view?

Er... its field of view. I don't know what you're even asking. You can
see more stuff with a wide field of view, in a greater range of directions.
It's rather self-evident.

--
Jeremy |

Nostrobino wrote:

And what is it about the picture that conveys its field of view?

Er... its field of view. I don't know what you're even asking. You can
see more stuff with a wide field of view, in a greater range of directions.
It's rather self-evident.

--
Jeremy |

Nostrobino wrote:

For example, take a shot of a house with a 24mm lens from 24 feet away, and
a shot of the same house with a 200mm lens from 200 feet away. In both shots
the house will be the same size on the print (i.e., the same final
magnification), but it will look RADICALLY different in the two shots. The
24mm shot will have the "wide-angle look" which you claim does not exist,
and the 200mm shot will have the "telephoto look" which you also claim does
not exist.

You've changed the perspective in that example, by moving to a different
position. If you had stayed at the same position, the perspective would
not have changed.

--
Jeremy |

Nostrobino wrote:

For example, take a shot of a house with a 24mm lens from 24 feet away, and
a shot of the same house with a 200mm lens from 200 feet away. In both shots
the house will be the same size on the print (i.e., the same final
magnification), but it will look RADICALLY different in the two shots. The
24mm shot will have the "wide-angle look" which you claim does not exist,
and the 200mm shot will have the "telephoto look" which you also claim does
not exist.

You've changed the perspective in that example, by moving to a different
position. If you had stayed at the same position, the perspective would
not have changed.

--
Jeremy |

Nostrobino wrote:

For example, take a shot of a house with a 24mm lens from 24 feet away, and
a shot of the same house with a 200mm lens from 200 feet away. In both shots
the house will be the same size on the print (i.e., the same final
magnification), but it will look RADICALLY different in the two shots. The
24mm shot will have the "wide-angle look" which you claim does not exist,
and the 200mm shot will have the "telephoto look" which you also claim does
not exist.

You've changed the perspective in that example, by moving to a different
position. If you had stayed at the same position, the perspective would
not have changed.

--
Jeremy |