Nature photogs - % of work without perspective controls?

Serious question to nature photogs: what percent of your work used no
perspective control? Now we all _know_ that it's easy to say "well a
little rise or tilt helps", but I am genuinely interested in finding how
much of the good work required nothing but straight-on shooting. Not
interested in chit-chatt of how controls work. We all know that stuff.

jjs wrote:

Serious question to nature photogs: what percent of your work used no
perspective control?

Stupid question. I've been shooting nature/landscape for 30 years.
ALL of my work uses "perspective control." 35mm, 2&1/4, large
format.

The mere choice of a specific lens or composition is
"perspective control." Use of a pinhole in absence of
a lens is "perspective control."

Now we all _know_ that it's easy to say "well a
little rise or tilt helps", but I am genuinely interested in finding how
much of the good work required nothing but straight-on shooting.

"Good work" has nothing to do with tilts, swings, etc. vs.
"straight on" shooting. In fact, I don't know what "straight
on" shooting means. It's irrelevant. If one has to ask, one
doesn't know what "good work" is.

jjs wrote:

Serious question to nature photogs: what percent of your work used no
perspective control? Now we all _know_ that it's easy to say "well a
little rise or tilt helps", but I am genuinely interested in finding how
much of the good work required nothing but straight-on shooting. Not
interested in chit-chatt of how controls work. We all know that stuff.


If one has to ask one doesn't understand the reasons
for using large format in the first place. It isn't
about "perspective" control. View camera movements
simply compensate for (1) large format's limited depth
of field, and (2) it's advantage in certain types of
photography (still life, architecture) is to be able to
manage the image (parallel lines, convergence, etc.)
Mainly, it's just to have a bigger damn negative...

View camera movements are not always desireable since
"perspective" isn't the same as "image management."
Good nature photography has zero to do with it, since
it's all a matter of "perspective." Again, if one has to
ask..

jjs wrote:
Serious question to nature photogs: what percent of your work used no
perspective control?

If by _perspective control_ you mean the use of adjustments usually
present on view cameras, I would guess about half.

But, actually, perspective is related to the point of view from which the
photograph is made. And once you have selected the point of view, most of
"perspective control" has already been done.

You can change the reproduction ratio by changing the focal length of the
lens. You can change the depth of field by changing the aperture. You can
make projective geometrical changes of the final image by using the
movements. But all this is something else, not perspective or perspective
control.

Now we all _know_ that it's easy to say "well a
little rise or tilt helps", but I am genuinely interested in finding how
much of the good work required nothing but straight-on shooting. Not
interested in chit-chatt of how controls work. We all know that stuff.

I do not know what you think of the work of W. Eugene Smith, Gary
Winogrand, or Cartier-Bresson, but they did not even use cameras with
adjustments. Now they were not especially nature photographers, as
commonly considered. But I cannot call to mind how use of camera
adjustments would have improved any of their images.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:45:00 up 7 days, 13:26, 3 users, load average: 4.24, 4.36, 4.26

BTW, Stafford, if you want to see good nature
photography, pick up the latest issue of View Camera,
the publisher of which you so asininely and continually
trash in this nsg. Craig Blacklock, David Muench, Larry
Ulrich, etc. are showing this month.

Since you fancy yourself a LF photographer and someone
who knows about "good work," maybe you can likewise share
their spotlight. Let's see your "good work."

Tom Phillips wrote:

jjs wrote:

Serious question to nature photogs: what percent of your work used no
perspective control? Now we all _know_ that it's easy to say "well a
little rise or tilt helps", but I am genuinely interested in finding how
much of the good work required nothing but straight-on shooting. Not
interested in chit-chatt of how controls work. We all know that stuff.

If one has to ask one doesn't understand the reasons
for using large format in the first place. It isn't
about "perspective" control. View camera movements
simply compensate for (1) large format's limited depth
of field, and (2) it's advantage in certain types of
photography (still life, architecture) is to be able to
manage the image (parallel lines, convergence, etc.)
Mainly, it's just to have a bigger damn negative...

View camera movements are not always desireable since
"perspective" isn't the same as "image management."
Good nature photography has zero to do with it, since
it's all a matter of "perspective." Again, if one has to
ask..

"Jean-David Beyer" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:
Serious question to nature photogs: what percent of your work used no
perspective control?

If by _perspective control_ you mean the use of adjustments usually
present on view cameras, I would guess about half.

Yes, to clarify; that is what I meant to say.

Thanks, I was guessing about 80% for most people, but a guess is a guess.

But, actually, perspective is related to the point of view from which the
photograph is made. And once you have selected the point of view, most of
"perspective control" has already been done.

I'm going to guess that you have a Fine Art, possibly a painting background.
That's a good thing.

I do not know what you think of the work of W. Eugene Smith, Gary
Winogrand, or Cartier-Bresson, but they did not even use cameras with
adjustments.

Please, I am not challenging the technique of camera movements. There are
many ways to good images.

jjs wrote (in partO:
"Jean-David Beyer" wrote in message

But, actually, perspective is related to the point of view from which the
photograph is made. And once you have selected the point of view, most of
"perspective control" has already been done.


I'm going to guess that you have a Fine Art, possibly a painting background.
That's a good thing.

Interesting guess. But I do not know how to answer that.

My mother taught the History of Art at a university.
Her father made some Lippman color photographs, and was a good amateur oil
color painter who used white, yellow, magenta, and cyan exclusively for
pigments. One of his subjects was Clinton Davisson, a physicist who, with
Germer (sp.?) showed that the electron was a wave as well as a particle.
Her grandfather was a pioneer in photography; inventing, among other
things, the half-tone process (with all the little dots), ways to
sensitize film to green and red.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 13:35:00 up 7 days, 16:16, 3 users, load average: 4.19, 4.15, 4.09

what percent of your work used no
perspective control?

If by "perspective control" you mean camera movements, probably 90% or more.
Most frequent usage of movements is to place/control depth of focus. Does that
help?

Mike


C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit.

what percent of your work used no
perspective control?

If by "perspective control" you mean camera movements, probably 90% or more.
Most frequent usage of movements is to place/control depth of focus. Does that
help?

Mike


C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit.

"Msherck" wrote in message
...
what percent of your work used no
perspective control?

If by "perspective control" you mean camera movements, probably 90% or
more.
Most frequent usage of movements is to place/control depth of focus. Does
that
help?

(my bronx accent) WHADEVAH! I mean not using any camera movements - like a
box.