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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses
"Herb Ludwig" wrote in message ... "Mike Fields" spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet wrote: I have seen more people bitten with the foreground/background thing. Out in the open country somewhere with a beautiful mountain backdrop, they shoot the picture of someone from up close with the wide angle then notice when they get home the "magnificent mountain scenery" that was there when they took the picture is just a couple of little bumps behind their subject. Always the same comment "gee I don't understand, the mountains looked so much bigger when we were there". Step back even 10 feet, zoom in a bit to frame the subject and voila - the mountains are there !! (unless you live in Kansas, in which case, there is no hope for mountains .. ) When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the condensed perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My personal taste for landscape images goes rather in the opposite, wide-angle direction, where the foreground subject is emphazised and the feeling of depth enhanced. Therefore my preference and reliance on the 17-40 f4 Zoom. Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate: http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350 Cheers, Hank Excellent pictures. Looks to me like you got it just right - only thing missing was all the sheep that we saw when we were over there about 20 years ago. Seems like EVERYWHERE was sheep !! You are right about the landscape images and the lens - what I was thinking more of is when you want a picture of the kids etc with Mt. Rainier or some such as a major part of the picture instead of the little bump in the corner of the picture. mikey mikey |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses
"Herb Ludwig" wrote in message ... "Mike Fields" spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet wrote: I have seen more people bitten with the foreground/background thing. Out in the open country somewhere with a beautiful mountain backdrop, they shoot the picture of someone from up close with the wide angle then notice when they get home the "magnificent mountain scenery" that was there when they took the picture is just a couple of little bumps behind their subject. Always the same comment "gee I don't understand, the mountains looked so much bigger when we were there". Step back even 10 feet, zoom in a bit to frame the subject and voila - the mountains are there !! (unless you live in Kansas, in which case, there is no hope for mountains .. ) When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the condensed perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My personal taste for landscape images goes rather in the opposite, wide-angle direction, where the foreground subject is emphazised and the feeling of depth enhanced. Therefore my preference and reliance on the 17-40 f4 Zoom. Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate: http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350 Cheers, Hank I think quite a few comments in this thread are a bit missleading.... we need to remember that perspective does NOT change with focal length. Perspective will only change when we move our feet and change the subject distance... this of course means that we will use a longer FL to frame the subject as tight as being close with a shorter focal length, but the important fact is that the persective only changed because we moved our feet. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:22:08 GMT, "Herb Ludwig"
wrote: I use my Canon DSLR with 3 lenses (17-40 f4 Zoom, a 50 f1.4 Prime and a 70-200 f4 Zoom) and find that I take about 50% of my pictures with the 17-40 f4 lens, because I like its perspective on a 1.6 crop camera. Cheers, Hank Meanwhile, I shoot with a 1.3 crop factor camera (1D Mark II) and I have the opposite reaction. I have a 24-70 and a 70-200, and have borrowed the 17-40. I ONLY used the 17-40 for fireworks photos. Each time I put it on the camera thinking I'd try some wider views, I kept finding myself on the 40 end and wishing I had more telephoto. I've been using the 70-200 as my primary lens, and only reach for the 24-70 occasionally. The 17-40 is not on my shopping list but the 1.4 extender is. :-) jc -- "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses
Mike Fields wrote:
"Herb Ludwig" wrote in message ... "Mike Fields" spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet wrote: I have seen more people bitten with the foreground/background thing. Out in the open country somewhere with a beautiful mountain backdrop, they shoot the picture of someone from up close with the wide angle then notice when they get home the "magnificent mountain scenery" that was there when they took the picture is just a couple of little bumps behind their subject. Always the same comment "gee I don't understand, the mountains looked so much bigger when we were there". Step back even 10 feet, zoom in a bit to frame the subject and voila - the mountains are there !! (unless you live in Kansas, in which case, there is no hope for mountains .. ) When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the condensed perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My personal taste for landscape images goes rather in the opposite, wide-angle direction, where the foreground subject is emphazised and the feeling of depth enhanced. Therefore my preference and reliance on the 17-40 f4 Zoom. Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate: http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350 Cheers, Hank Excellent pictures. Looks to me like you got it just right - only thing missing was all the sheep that we saw when we were over there about 20 years ago. Seems like EVERYWHERE was sheep !! You are right about the landscape images and the lens - what I was thinking more of is when you want a picture of the kids etc with Mt. Rainier or some such as a major part of the picture instead of the little bump in the corner of the picture. You mean like this if someone was in the frame: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3182796 Or with Mt Rainier even bigger? Greg -- "All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses
"POTD.com.au" wrote:
I think quite a few comments in this thread are a bit missleading.... we need to remember that perspective does NOT change with focal length. Perspective will only change when we move our feet and change the subject distance... this of course means that we will use a longer FL to frame the subject as tight as being close with a shorter focal length, but the important fact is that the persective only changed because we moved our feet. Of course, perspective is not a function of lens focal length. Perspective is a function of the distance of objects from the lens. However, in common language usage it is customary to speak in terms of perspective as wide angle, normal, or telephoto perspective. Ron Bigelow http://www.ronbigelow.com/ in his excellent tutorial "Advanced Composition" (Part3) approaches this dilemma as follows: "The first thing that needs to be done is to destroy a misconception about perspective. Many people believe that perspective is a function of lens focal length. This is incorrect. Rather, perspective is a function of the distance of objects from the lens. However, it is easy to see how this misconception comes about. When wide angle lenses are used, the foreground objects are typically placed close to the lens and the background objects are relatively far away. This creates one perspective. When telephoto lenses are used, typically, both the foreground and background objects are fairly far away from the lens. This creates a different perspective. So, it appears that the two lenses create different perspectives. In reality, this is not the case -- it is not the lenses that create the different perspectives; it is how the photographer uses those lenses to change the relative distances of the foreground and background objects with respect to the lens. However, in real life, wide angle lenses are used in certain ways, and long lenses are generally used in different ways. Thus, it is often easier to think in terms of perspective as wide angle, normal, or telephoto perspective. Therefore, for the purpose of ease of explanation and understanding, the rest of this section will cover the topic as if perspective was a function of lens focal length. In spite of this, those of us in the know understand that perspective is really a function, not of focal length, but of how we use that focal length." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses
Herb Ludwig wrote:
"POTD.com.au" wrote: I think quite a few comments in this thread are a bit missleading.... we need to remember that perspective does NOT change with focal length. Perspective will only change when we move our feet and change the subject distance... this of course means that we will use a longer FL to frame the subject as tight as being close with a shorter focal length, but the important fact is that the persective only changed because we moved our feet. Of course, perspective is not a function of lens focal length. Perspective is a function of the distance of objects from the lens. However, in common language usage it is customary to speak in terms of perspective as wide angle, normal, or telephoto perspective. Ron Bigelow http://www.ronbigelow.com/ in his excellent tutorial "Advanced Composition" (Part3) approaches this dilemma as follows: "The first thing that needs to be done is to destroy a misconception about perspective. Many people believe that perspective is a function of lens focal length. This is incorrect. Rather, perspective is a function of the distance of objects from the lens. However, it is easy to see how this misconception comes about. When wide angle lenses are used, the foreground objects are typically placed close to the lens and the background objects are relatively far away. This creates one perspective. When telephoto lenses are used, typically, both the foreground and background objects are fairly far away from the lens. This creates a different perspective. So, it appears that the two lenses create different perspectives. In reality, this is not the case -- it is not the lenses that create the different perspectives; it is how the photographer uses those lenses to change the relative distances of the foreground and background objects with respect to the lens. However, in real life, wide angle lenses are used in certain ways, and long lenses are generally used in different ways. Thus, it is often easier to think in terms of perspective as wide angle, normal, or telephoto perspective. Therefore, for the purpose of ease of explanation and understanding, the rest of this section will cover the topic as if perspective was a function of lens focal length. In spite of this, those of us in the know understand that perspective is really a function, not of focal length, but of how we use that focal length." This attitude only enforces the incorrect use of perspective, and that leads to more confusion by the beginner. While Ron's articles in general are great, this is one of his few "hiccups," along with previsualization, which is just visualization. Roger |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses
"G.T." wrote in message ... Mike Fields wrote: "Herb Ludwig" wrote in message ... "Mike Fields" spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet wrote: I have seen more people bitten with the foreground/background thing. Out in the open country somewhere with a beautiful mountain backdrop, they shoot the picture of someone from up close with the wide angle then notice when they get home the "magnificent mountain scenery" that was there when they took the picture is just a couple of little bumps behind their subject. Always the same comment "gee I don't understand, the mountains looked so much bigger when we were there". Step back even 10 feet, zoom in a bit to frame the subject and voila - the mountains are there !! (unless you live in Kansas, in which case, there is no hope for mountains .. ) When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the condensed perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My personal taste for landscape images goes rather in the opposite, wide-angle direction, where the foreground subject is emphazised and the feeling of depth enhanced. Therefore my preference and reliance on the 17-40 f4 Zoom. Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate: http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350 Cheers, Hank Excellent pictures. Looks to me like you got it just right - only thing missing was all the sheep that we saw when we were over there about 20 years ago. Seems like EVERYWHERE was sheep !! You are right about the landscape images and the lens - what I was thinking more of is when you want a picture of the kids etc with Mt. Rainier or some such as a major part of the picture instead of the little bump in the corner of the picture. You mean like this if someone was in the frame: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3182796 Or with Mt Rainier even bigger? Greg Nice pix from the Queen Ann area. That is the idea, but I was thinking more along the lines of when we are down there - there are times it is really nice to bring the mountain right in tight. Then there are other times as people have pointed out where the wide angle is best. Took me a while to realize the most useless lens for me to buy with a 35mm was the normal 58mm lens - it was either not long enough to bring in what I wanted or it was not wide enough for the scenery pix I was taking (I used a 28 and 35mm a lot with film). Yours is a good example of bringing the mountain into the view though. I guess the point I started out trying to make was as someone else pointed out - there is no "correct" one, it is a case of recognizing what the effects of different lenses and relative distances between the foreground subject and background and how they interact. mikey mikey |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses
"Herb Ludwig" wrote in message ... "POTD.com.au" wrote: I think quite a few comments in this thread are a bit missleading.... we need to remember that perspective does NOT change with focal length. Perspective will only change when we move our feet and change the subject distance... this of course means that we will use a longer FL to frame the subject as tight as being close with a shorter focal length, but the important fact is that the persective only changed because we moved our feet. Of course, perspective is not a function of lens focal length. Perspective is a function of the distance of objects from the lens. However, in common language usage it is customary to speak in terms of perspective as wide angle, normal, or telephoto perspective. Ron Bigelow http://www.ronbigelow.com/ in his excellent tutorial "Advanced Composition" (Part3) approaches this dilemma as follows: "The first thing that needs to be done is to destroy a misconception about perspective. Many people believe that perspective is a function of lens focal length. This is incorrect. Rather, perspective is a function of the distance of objects from the lens. However, it is easy to see how this misconception comes about. When wide angle lenses are used, the foreground objects are typically placed close to the lens and the background objects are relatively far away. This creates one perspective. When telephoto lenses are used, typically, both the foreground and background objects are fairly far away from the lens. This creates a different perspective. So, it appears that the two lenses create different perspectives. In reality, this is not the case -- it is not the lenses that create the different perspectives; it is how the photographer uses those lenses to change the relative distances of the foreground and background objects with respect to the lens. However, in real life, wide angle lenses are used in certain ways, and long lenses are generally used in different ways. Thus, it is often easier to think in terms of perspective as wide angle, normal, or telephoto perspective. Therefore, for the purpose of ease of explanation and understanding, the rest of this section will cover the topic as if perspective was a function of lens focal length. In spite of this, those of us in the know understand that perspective is really a function, not of focal length, but of how we use that focal length." Yeah, that is what I was trying to say. The bottom line is the average P&S user in particular has no idea about this and it makes a BIG difference in how your pictures come out. You need to decide what effect is the one you want, but you do need to be aware of the differences (and yes, that also involves using the legs to get in the right position). mikey |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses
"Mike Fields" spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet wrote Yeah, that is what I was trying to say. The bottom line is the average P&S user in particular has no idea about this and it makes a BIG difference in how your pictures come out. You need to decide what effect is the one you want, but you do need to be aware of the differences (and yes, that also involves using the legs to get in the right position). mikey Agreed. Cheers, Hank |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses
"Herb Ludwig" wrote in message ... When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the condensed perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My personal taste for landscape images goes rather in the opposite, wide-angle direction, where the foreground subject is emphazised and the feeling of depth enhanced. Therefore my preference and reliance on the 17-40 f4 Zoom. Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate: http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350 Funny then that that shot has little foreground detail. Whilst it's quite an OK shot, why would you have to "strive" to emulate it? Are you suggesting you could not do as well, in the same location, for some reason? MrT. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikkor - overview? | Jan Tieghem | 35mm Photo Equipment | 16 | February 3rd 06 12:02 PM |
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses | Joseph Chamberlain, DDS | Digital SLR Cameras | 128 | November 20th 05 12:01 AM |
Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses | Joseph Chamberlain, DDS | Digital Photography | 24 | November 13th 05 05:28 AM |
Some basic questions about process lenses vs. "regular" lenses | Marco Milazzo | Large Format Photography Equipment | 20 | November 23rd 04 04:42 PM |
perspective w/ 35mm lenses? | PrincePete01 | Digital Photography | 373 | August 10th 04 02:21 PM |