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

"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

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.

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.

"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.)

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

"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

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

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

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