Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital David Ruether wrote:
"Ryan McGinnis" wrote in message
...

I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
compose a shot in ultrawide.

I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
not help.

I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
excellent!

Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
calling it "distortion".
--
Chris Malcolm

Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular
perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing
familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate
conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-).
So much of this is simply logical! ;-)
--DR

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...
"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital David Ruether wrote:
"Ryan McGinnis" wrote in message
...

I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
compose a shot in ultrawide.

I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
not help.

I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
excellent!

Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
calling it "distortion".
--
Chris Malcolm

Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular
perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing
familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate
conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-).
So much of this is simply logical! ;-)
--DR

Ah, a bit more to add to the above... If a "distorted" fisheye photo is
projected onto a hemispherical surface and the eye is placed properly
at the center of the circle at the hemisphere's rear, the view will also
be undistorted, and an angle of view that is impossible to achieve with
rectangular perspective can easily be achieved with the fisheye view.
--DR

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:52:42 -0400, "David Ruether"
wrote:
:
: "Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
: ...
: In rec.photo.digital David Ruether wrote:
: "Ryan McGinnis" wrote in message
: ...
:
: I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
: lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
: I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
: symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
: will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
: with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
: interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
: distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
: compose a shot in ultrawide.
:
: I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
: "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
: characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
: There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately
: the perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two
: does not help.
:
: I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
: miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
: lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
: excellent!
:
: Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
: what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
: can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
: recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
: calling it "distortion".
: --
: Chris Malcolm
:
: Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular
: perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing
: familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate
: conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-).
: So much of this is simply logical! ;-)
: --DR

And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as
they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way
that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate
your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your
glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit
counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene
that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level
while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as
level, even when the camera doesn't.

Bob

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:19:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: On Jul 25, 10:57*pm, Ryan McGinnis wrote:
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: Hash: SHA1
:
: On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, Me wrote:
:
: RichA wrote:
: Ultrawide angle shots don't need
: compositional thought in order to have an impact.
:
: That's an hilariously ignorant statement.
:
: Seconded. *Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
: but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
: it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.
:
: Not really. The distortion provided by UW shots automatically conveys
: a dyanamism that non-ultrawide shots don't have, so even if no thought
: has gone into them, they are going to have an emotional impact on most
: viewers.

Perhaps, but that emotional impact may not be what you hoped for. I'm still
getting used to my new ultrawide and adjusting to the fact that the tricks one
uses to compensate for inadequate lens width, such as photographing a wide
building with the camera pointed at its corner, can produce garish results
with an ultrawide. The emotional impact of more than a few of my recent
pictures has been to make me want to retch. ;^)

Bob

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:32:07 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
: RichA wrote:
: On Jul 25, 10:57 pm, Ryan wrote:
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: Hash: SHA1
:
: On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, wrote:
:
: RichA wrote:
: Ultrawide angle shots don't need
: compositional thought in order to have an impact.
:
: That's an hilariously ignorant statement.
:
: Seconded. Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
: but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
: it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.
:
: Not really. The distortion provided by UW shots automatically conveys
: a dyanamism that non-ultrawide shots don't have, so even if no thought
: has gone into them, they are going to have an emotional impact on most
: viewers.
:
: Yeah but a poorly composed ultra wide shot is likely to invoke disgust
: rather than the boredom of a poorly composed normal view g. So it's
: not exactly a safe shortcut to fame. The exception is an ultra wide shot
: at the beach with no foreground, which will indeed look boring. Fisheye
: lenses are really tough to make good photos with because it usually just
: looks weird and bad.

So far, Bowser is the only photographer in our group who has shown that he can
consistently produce good pictures with a fisheye. And he chooses his subjects
very carefully to make it happen.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:52:42 -0400, "David Ruether"
wrote:
: "Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
: ...
: In rec.photo.digital David Ruether wrote:
: "Ryan McGinnis" wrote in message
: ...

: I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
: lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
: I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
: symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
: will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
: with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
: interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
: distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
: compose a shot in ultrawide.

: I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
: "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
: characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
: There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately
: the perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two
: does not help.

: I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
: miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
: lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
: excellent!
:
: Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
: what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
: can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
: recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
: calling it "distortion".
: --
: Chris Malcolm

: Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular
: perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing
: familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate
: conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-).
: So much of this is simply logical! ;-)
:
: Ah, a bit more to add to the above... If a "distorted" fisheye photo is
: projected onto a hemispherical surface and the eye is placed properly
: at the center of the circle at the hemisphere's rear, the view will also
: be undistorted, and an angle of view that is impossible to achieve with
: rectangular perspective can easily be achieved with the fisheye view.
: --DR

And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as
they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way
that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate
your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your
glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit
counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene
that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level
while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as
level, even when the camera doesn't.

Bob

Hmmm.... If you stuck an empty picture frame out in front of you and
did the same thing, you would see the same thing, but it's just a tilted
frame (so what...?). If you lie down on a bed and watch a big TV
close in, the TV image will look sideways. If you lie down on the
ground, the scenery will also look sideways (and uncorrected), but
you know what the relationships are and that you are at 90 degrees
from the scenery level-view. I've never had the problem you describe
leveling a camera (either with, or without, a "real" visible horizon
line), so the above doesn't make sense to me (but maybe I'm missing
something, or maybe I've learned to see things as they are, and not
"as they are supposed to be"...;-). Or, maybe you are referring to
trying to hold level at arm's length a little digital camera using its dark
(in daylight) rear screen (only)? Now THIS is difficult! 8^)
--DR

"Robert Coe" wrote in message ...

So far, Bowser is the only photographer in our group who has shown that he can
consistently produce good pictures with a fisheye. And he chooses his subjects
very carefully to make it happen.

Bob

Samples?
--DR

David Ruether wrote:
"Robert wrote in message ...
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:52:42 -0400, "David
wrote:
: "Chris wrote in message
: ...
: In rec.photo.digital David wrote:
: "Ryan wrote in message
: ...

: I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
: lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
: I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
: symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
: will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
: with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
: interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
: distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
: compose a shot in ultrawide.

: I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
: "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
: characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
: There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately
: the perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two
: does not help.

: I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
: miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
: lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
: excellent!
:
: Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
: what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
: can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
: recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
: calling it "distortion".
: --
: Chris Malcolm

: Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular
: perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing
: familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate
: conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-).
: So much of this is simply logical! ;-)
:
: Ah, a bit more to add to the above... If a "distorted" fisheye photo is
: projected onto a hemispherical surface and the eye is placed properly
: at the center of the circle at the hemisphere's rear, the view will also
: be undistorted, and an angle of view that is impossible to achieve with
: rectangular perspective can easily be achieved with the fisheye view.
: --DR

And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as
they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way
that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate
your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your
glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit
counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene
that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level
while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as
level, even when the camera doesn't.

Bob

Hmmm.... If you stuck an empty picture frame out in front of you and
did the same thing, you would see the same thing, but it's just a tilted
frame (so what...?).

I can relate to the way he describes it. It's really hard for me to see
things objectively, even through a viewfinder, till I get home & see it
again out of context. Chimping helps... or even squinting... or just
making the effort to step back (in my mind) but it doesn't come natural.



If you lie down on a bed and watch a big TV
close in, the TV image will look sideways. If you lie down on the
ground, the scenery will also look sideways (and uncorrected), but
you know what the relationships are and that you are at 90 degrees
from the scenery level-view. I've never had the problem you describe
leveling a camera (either with, or without, a "real" visible horizon
line), so the above doesn't make sense to me (but maybe I'm missing
something, or maybe I've learned to see things as they are, and not
"as they are supposed to be"...;-). Or, maybe you are referring to
trying to hold level at arm's length a little digital camera using its dark
(in daylight) rear screen (only)? Now THIS is difficult! 8^)
--DR

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...
"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...

And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as
they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way
that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate
your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your
glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit
counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene
that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level
while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as
level, even when the camera doesn't.

Bob

Hmmm.... If you stuck an empty picture frame out in front of you and
did the same thing, you would see the same thing, but it's just a tilted
frame [or scene] (and, so what...?). If you lie down on a bed and watch a big TV close in, the TV image will look sideways. If
you lie down on the ground, the scenery will also look sideways (and uncorrected), but
you know what the relationships are and that you are at 90 degrees
from the scenery level-view. I've never had the problem you describe
leveling a camera (either with, or without, a "real" visible horizon
line), so the above doesn't make sense to me (but maybe I'm missing
something, or maybe I've learned to see things as they are, and not
"as they are supposed to be"...;-). Or, maybe you are referring to
trying to hold level at arm's length a little digital camera using its dark
(in daylight) rear screen (only)? Now THIS is difficult! 8^)
--DR

More...;-) I was just at the edge of a large lake with a well-defined
horizon line (with hills above), and what you ("R. C.") pointed out does
appear to be true for an angle of tilt up to around 45 to 60 degrees... ;-)
--DR

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
David Ruether wrote:
"Robert wrote in message
...

And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as
they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way
that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate
your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your
glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit
counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene
that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level
while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as
level, even when the camera doesn't.

Bob

Hmmm.... If you stuck an empty picture frame out in front of you and
did the same thing, you would see the same thing, but it's just a tilted
frame (so what...?).

I can relate to the way he describes it. It's really hard for me to see things objectively, even through a viewfinder, till I get
home & see it again out of context. Chimping helps... or even squinting... or just making the effort to step back (in my mind) but
it doesn't come natural.

Ah, THAT was the value of a good, sharp, contrasty SLR viewing screen
from the old days, combined with a DOF preview button and a "high
eyepoint" VF. You could see the composition in a well-defined rectangle
within a larger field of black, with the brights/darks compositionally
exaggerated by using the DOF button to darken the VF image.
--DR