If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:41:21 -0400, "David Ruether"
wrote: : : "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? Sure, look in the Shoot-In gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/open http://www.pbase.com/shootin/cxxx__wide http://www.pbase.com/shootin/tubes Bob |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?
"Robert Coe" wrote in message ... On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:41:21 -0400, "David Ruether" wrote: : "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? Sure, look in the Shoot-In gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/open http://www.pbase.com/shootin/cxxx__wide http://www.pbase.com/shootin/tubes Bob Thanks. The three images nicely demonstrate how it's done! ;-) BTW, on western trips with film, my 16mm f3.5 FF fisheye was always THE essential lens - and the "success" rate was high. If one knows how to fill a sky with careful framing or how to make use of a long straight "empty" horizon line splitting blue and tan (or other...) or knows how to integrate the curves and other WA image parts into an aesthetically satisfying whole, fisheye shooting is easy! 8^) --DR |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?
In article ,
"David Ruether" wrote: "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 One of the reasons I still shoot medium and large format is the easy ability to look "at" the composition on the focusing screen rather than "through" an eye-level viewfinder. I've always found it easier to evaluate the image as a 2-dimensional composition that way. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?
Robert Coe wrote:
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. Actually it's not. If you look in the mirror as you tilt your head from side to side you will find that your eyes swivel in their sockets which is why the scene remains upright. Yhis is also why if you lie on your side as someone else noted, everything looks sideways, since your eyes can't swivel 90 degrees. Looking in the mirror you will find that the scene starts to tilt when your eyes reach the limit of their swivel. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Perspective (was Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
"Bruce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva Das wrote: In article , Bruce wrote: It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each image. It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect perspective. Yes, that is the classic method of demonstrating that perspective is independent of focal length. It is to be found in many books on photography, yet people still keep making the same mistake over and over again, thinking that perspective is dependent on focal length. But perspective *is* largely dependent on focal length. The the other poster mentioned ". . . how focal length and distance affect perspective." Focal length is not "irrelevant." Both are important: focal length *and* camera position. A shot taken with a wide-angle lens has wide-angle perspective, which (assuming there are enough objects arranged in the scene to establish perspective at all) is easily recognized by anyone looking at the resulting photo. To say that focal length is irrelevant is to deny what anyone can see with his own eyes. (Sorry for being more than a week late in replying to this, but I only saw the thread just now. The misunderstanding is important enough to correct. The "many books" that support the idea are mistaken, as are the several people who have repeated it over the years.) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Perspective (was Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
On 8/8/2010 3:43 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva wrote: In , wrote: It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each image. But what if there is only one subject? I found that out this summer on my recent trip through the Grand Canyon. They had a wet spring and the desert was blooming amazingly. I carried my camera most of the time with my 10-22 EF-S lens, an extreme wide angle. I started out also carrying my 100mm macro for flower shots. But I soon discovered, thanks to the miracle of zoomed review shots on teh camera's screen, that the ultrawide lens is quite adequately sharp used as a macro. It focuses quite close. And the pictures it takes of flowers and bushes (its not for little bugs, etc.) are quite different from the ones made at 100mm. That's due to the perspective difference. I took lots of shots of the same object with both lenses, and sometimes one shot is better, sometimes the other. Doug |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Perspective (was Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... On 8/8/2010 3:43 PM, Neil Harrington wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva wrote: In , wrote: It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each image. But what if there is only one subject? I found that out this summer on my recent trip through the Grand Canyon. They had a wet spring and the desert was blooming amazingly. I carried my camera most of the time with my 10-22 EF-S lens, an extreme wide angle. I started out also carrying my 100mm macro for flower shots. But I soon discovered, thanks to the miracle of zoomed review shots on teh camera's screen, that the ultrawide lens is quite adequately sharp used as a macro. It focuses quite close. And the pictures it takes of flowers and bushes (its not for little bugs, etc.) are quite different from the ones made at 100mm. That's due to the perspective difference. Yes, it sure is. Any three-dimensional subject that's especially close is going to show a difference in perspective when shot with lenses of greatly different focal lengths. Fill the frame with a small model car angled toward the lens, for example, and its perspective will be entirely different with a 100mm macro than with a much shorter lens shooting from the same direction. I took lots of shots of the same object with both lenses, and sometimes one shot is better, sometimes the other. Doug |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Perspective (was Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
On 2010-08-08 16:37:50 -0700, Bruce said:
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:43:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva Das wrote: In article , Bruce wrote: It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each image. It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect perspective. Yes, that is the classic method of demonstrating that perspective is independent of focal length. It is to be found in many books on photography, yet people still keep making the same mistake over and over again, thinking that perspective is dependent on focal length. But perspective *is* largely dependent on focal length. The the other poster mentioned ". . . how focal length and distance affect perspective." Focal length is not "irrelevant." Both are important: focal length *and* camera position. A shot taken with a wide-angle lens has wide-angle perspective, which (assuming there are enough objects arranged in the scene to establish perspective at all) is easily recognized by anyone looking at the resulting photo. To say that focal length is irrelevant is to deny what anyone can see with his own eyes. (Sorry for being more than a week late in replying to this, but I only saw the thread just now. The misunderstanding is important enough to correct. The "many books" that support the idea are mistaken, as are the several people who have repeated it over the years.) The "misunderstanding" is entirely yours, Neil. It is a very common misunderstanding. However, it doesn't matter how many people repeat it, nor how many times, it is still wrong. There is no such thing as "wide angle perspective". Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. OK. I tried the following; D300s on tripod 2 shots, position of tripod unchanged, aim point unchanged, distance between camera and subject constant, lenses changed, EXIF included; Shot #1 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm (16mm FF equiv.) http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3876w.jpg Shot #2 Nikkor 16-200mm VRII @ 35mm (52mm FF equiv.) http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3877w.jpg Side by-side comparison; http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Merc-comp-01.jpg It is tough to say that that this is not a demonstration of focal length perspective change. The view point is constant, the relationship between the subject (the car) and the camera remains unchanged. Yet the eye tells the viewer there is a dramatic change in perspective, in this case created entirely by a change of focal length. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Perspective (was Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-08-08 16:37:50 -0700, Bruce said: On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:43:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva Das wrote: In article , Bruce wrote: It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each image. It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect perspective. Yes, that is the classic method of demonstrating that perspective is independent of focal length. It is to be found in many books on photography, yet people still keep making the same mistake over and over again, thinking that perspective is dependent on focal length. But perspective is largely dependent on focal length. The the other poster mentioned ". . . how focal length and distance affect perspective." Focal length is not "irrelevant." Both are important: focal length and camera position. A shot taken with a wide-angle lens has wide-angle perspective, which (assuming there are enough objects arranged in the scene to establish perspective at all) is easily recognized by anyone looking at the resulting photo. To say that focal length is irrelevant is to deny what anyone can see with his own eyes. (Sorry for being more than a week late in replying to this, but I only saw the thread just now. The misunderstanding is important enough to correct. The "many books" that support the idea are mistaken, as are the several people who have repeated it over the years.) The "misunderstanding" is entirely yours, Neil. It is a very common misunderstanding. However, it doesn't matter how many people repeat it, nor how many times, it is still wrong. There is no such thing as "wide angle perspective". Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. OK. I tried the following; D300s on tripod 2 shots, position of tripod unchanged, aim point unchanged, distance between camera and subject constant, lenses changed, EXIF included; Shot #1 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm (16mm FF equiv.) http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3876w.jpg Shot #2 Nikkor 16-200mm VRII @ 35mm (52mm FF equiv.) http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3877w.jpg Side by-side comparison; http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Merc-comp-01.jpg It is tough to say that that this is not a demonstration of focal length perspective change. The view point is constant, the relationship between the subject (the car) and the camera remains unchanged. Yet the eye tells the viewer there is a dramatic change in perspective, in this case created entirely by a change of focal length. I just performed a simple resize of the second image and laid it on top of the first: http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg Perspective is unchanged. -- - Mike |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Perspective (was Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
On 2010-08-08 18:27:40 -0700, "Mike Warren"
said: Savageduck wrote: On 2010-08-08 16:37:50 -0700, Bruce said: On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:43:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva Das wrote: In article , Bruce wrote: It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each image. It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect perspective. Yes, that is the classic method of demonstrating that perspective is independent of focal length. It is to be found in many books on photography, yet people still keep making the same mistake over and over again, thinking that perspective is dependent on focal length. But perspective is largely dependent on focal length. The the other poster mentioned ". . . how focal length and distance affect perspective." Focal length is not "irrelevant." Both are important: focal length and camera position. A shot taken with a wide-angle lens has wide-angle perspective, which (assuming there are enough objects arranged in the scene to establish perspective at all) is easily recognized by anyone looking at the resulting photo. To say that focal length is irrelevant is to deny what anyone can see with his own eyes. (Sorry for being more than a week late in replying to this, but I only saw the thread just now. The misunderstanding is important enough to correct. The "many books" that support the idea are mistaken, as are the several people who have repeated it over the years.) The "misunderstanding" is entirely yours, Neil. It is a very common misunderstanding. However, it doesn't matter how many people repeat it, nor how many times, it is still wrong. There is no such thing as "wide angle perspective". Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. OK. I tried the following; D300s on tripod 2 shots, position of tripod unchanged, aim point unchanged, distance between camera and subject constant, lenses changed, EXIF included; Shot #1 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm (16mm FF equiv.) http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3876w.jpg Shot #2 Nikkor 16-200mm VRII @ 35mm (52mm FF equiv.) http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3877w.jpg Side by-side comparison; http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Merc-comp-01.jpg It is tough to say that that this is not a demonstration of focal length perspective change. The view point is constant, the relationship between the subject (the car) and the camera remains unchanged. Yet the eye tells the viewer there is a dramatic change in perspective, in this case created entirely by a change of focal length. I just performed a simple resize of the second image and laid it on top of the first: http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg Perspective is unchanged. Damn! I should have thought of doing that. So it seems the eye is easily fooled by focal length changes. Thanks for the proof you provided, I kind of takes the wind out of my sails, but there it is. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OK...Wide Angle IS at 1/4th... | MarkČ | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | September 3rd 06 06:51 PM |
Not many "wide-angle" compacts but, heck, many are wide-angle anyway! | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 10 | January 9th 06 08:30 AM |
wtb: Right Angle Finder C | frankg | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 1 | January 10th 05 02:33 PM |
FA: Vivitar 20mm Manual Focus Ultrawide in Nikon (Non AI) Mount | Bob | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | August 19th 03 03:50 AM |