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

"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.

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

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

"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."

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

"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

"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

"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

"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.