perspective w/ 35mm lenses?

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

Certainly not, because perspective is a function of the picture in
its
entirety. When you crop out parts of the picture as you describe,
you
change
its perspective.

so if i take a print and then crop away parts of it by cutting it with
scissors, i am changing the perspective of the remaining parts of the
picture?

Exactly.

ok, how does the inner portion of a picture change by cutting the outer
portion off?

It doesn't. Why would it?


or better yet, what if i just put my hands over the outer
portion, blocking it from view. same net effect, but no paper cutting,
and the ability to 'undo' it at any time.

Sure. Same thing.



great! no more need to buy expensive and heavy telephoto lenses when i
can get the same effect with just scissors!

I am always glad to be of help.

you are a great help - for today's entertainment. for that, i am
grateful.

I always like to be appreciated.



However, telephoto lenses are useful anyway since they allow you to get
telephoto perspective without having to cut away most of that paper that
you
paid for, which is not only a waste of materials but also tends to
result in
rather tiny final prints. But you knew that anyway, right?

i know that paper, even a fair amount of it, weighs less and certainly
costs substantially less than a bulky heavy telephoto lens. infact, it
can replace several different telephoto lenses. therefore, i don't
really mind a little waste. its even less fragile too. all in all, a
win-win. the only glitch i see is that it is easier to bring a
telephoto lens thru airport security than it is to bring scissors.

Absolutely. My eight-year-old great-niece had her little toy scissors
confiscated before they'd let her on the plane. They would just barely cut
paper, but they had to be taken.


maybe i'll keep a telephoto lens just for air travel.

I would keep the telephoto lens anyway. It's an all-around more satisfactory
tool for producing telephoto shots than a scissors is.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

Certainly not, because perspective is a function of the picture in
its
entirety. When you crop out parts of the picture as you describe,
you
change
its perspective.

so if i take a print and then crop away parts of it by cutting it with
scissors, i am changing the perspective of the remaining parts of the
picture?

Exactly.

ok, how does the inner portion of a picture change by cutting the outer
portion off?

It doesn't. Why would it?


or better yet, what if i just put my hands over the outer
portion, blocking it from view. same net effect, but no paper cutting,
and the ability to 'undo' it at any time.

Sure. Same thing.



great! no more need to buy expensive and heavy telephoto lenses when i
can get the same effect with just scissors!

I am always glad to be of help.

you are a great help - for today's entertainment. for that, i am
grateful.

I always like to be appreciated.



However, telephoto lenses are useful anyway since they allow you to get
telephoto perspective without having to cut away most of that paper that
you
paid for, which is not only a waste of materials but also tends to
result in
rather tiny final prints. But you knew that anyway, right?

i know that paper, even a fair amount of it, weighs less and certainly
costs substantially less than a bulky heavy telephoto lens. infact, it
can replace several different telephoto lenses. therefore, i don't
really mind a little waste. its even less fragile too. all in all, a
win-win. the only glitch i see is that it is easier to bring a
telephoto lens thru airport security than it is to bring scissors.

Absolutely. My eight-year-old great-niece had her little toy scissors
confiscated before they'd let her on the plane. They would just barely cut
paper, but they had to be taken.


maybe i'll keep a telephoto lens just for air travel.

I would keep the telephoto lens anyway. It's an all-around more satisfactory
tool for producing telephoto shots than a scissors is.

Nostrobino wrote:

But why on earth would I want to do that? The purpose of a wide-angle lens
is to deliver wide-angle images.

The reason to do it is to demonstrate that the perspective is the same
regardless of focal length.

In this particular example the camera position HAD to change in order to
fill the frame with the house with each lens. The difference in "look" or
perspective however has nothing to do with camera position, it has to do
with focal length.

The "look" you speak of has to do with focal length. The perspective, which
is independent of that "look", has to do with camera position. You are
confusing the two things.

--
Jeremy |

Nostrobino wrote:

But why on earth would I want to do that? The purpose of a wide-angle lens
is to deliver wide-angle images.

The reason to do it is to demonstrate that the perspective is the same
regardless of focal length.

In this particular example the camera position HAD to change in order to
fill the frame with the house with each lens. The difference in "look" or
perspective however has nothing to do with camera position, it has to do
with focal length.

The "look" you speak of has to do with focal length. The perspective, which
is independent of that "look", has to do with camera position. You are
confusing the two things.

--
Jeremy |

Nostrobino wrote:

But why on earth would I want to do that? The purpose of a wide-angle lens
is to deliver wide-angle images.

The reason to do it is to demonstrate that the perspective is the same
regardless of focal length.

In this particular example the camera position HAD to change in order to
fill the frame with the house with each lens. The difference in "look" or
perspective however has nothing to do with camera position, it has to do
with focal length.

The "look" you speak of has to do with focal length. The perspective, which
is independent of that "look", has to do with camera position. You are
confusing the two things.

--
Jeremy |

In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

Certainly not, because perspective is a function of the picture in
its
entirety. When you crop out parts of the picture as you describe,
you
change
its perspective.

so if i take a print and then crop away parts of it by cutting it with
scissors, i am changing the perspective of the remaining parts of the
picture?

Exactly.

ok, how does the inner portion of a picture change by cutting the outer
portion off?

It doesn't. Why would it?

first you said if i crop away parts of it with scissors, that changes
the perspective, now you say it doesn't. both cannot be true.

or better yet, what if i just put my hands over the outer
portion, blocking it from view. same net effect, but no paper cutting,
and the ability to 'undo' it at any time.

Sure. Same thing.

same thing as what? does it change perspective or not? if so, how?

However, telephoto lenses are useful anyway since they allow you to get
telephoto perspective without having to cut away most of that paper that
you
paid for, which is not only a waste of materials but also tends to
result in
rather tiny final prints. But you knew that anyway, right?

i know that paper, even a fair amount of it, weighs less and certainly
costs substantially less than a bulky heavy telephoto lens. infact, it
can replace several different telephoto lenses. therefore, i don't
really mind a little waste. its even less fragile too. all in all, a
win-win. the only glitch i see is that it is easier to bring a
telephoto lens thru airport security than it is to bring scissors.

Absolutely. My eight-year-old great-niece had her little toy scissors
confiscated before they'd let her on the plane. They would just barely cut
paper, but they had to be taken.

no they did not have to be taken.

http://www.tsa.gov/public/interweb/a..._Prohibited_12
_18_2003.pdf

plastic or metal scissors with blunt tips are acceptable for carry on;
scissors with pointy ends are prohibited. presumably, your niece's
'litte toy scissors' have blunt rounded ends like most children's
scissors. if so, they were improperly confiscated.

of course, what the tsa does is often entirely different from what they
are supposed to do, but that is a topic for a different newsgroup.

maybe i'll keep a telephoto lens just for air travel.

I would keep the telephoto lens anyway. It's an all-around more satisfactory
tool for producing telephoto shots than a scissors is.

the telephoto lens costs more money than paper and i'm cheap.
unfortunately i bought the lens before you gave me this excellent
advice. at least i can avoid getting additional long lenses in the
future. furthermore, a package of paper lets me pack lighter; i will
just need to buy scissors after the flight. that should be easier than
finding the right lens in the right camera mount in some foreign city.

In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

Certainly not, because perspective is a function of the picture in
its
entirety. When you crop out parts of the picture as you describe,
you
change
its perspective.

so if i take a print and then crop away parts of it by cutting it with
scissors, i am changing the perspective of the remaining parts of the
picture?

Exactly.

ok, how does the inner portion of a picture change by cutting the outer
portion off?

It doesn't. Why would it?

first you said if i crop away parts of it with scissors, that changes
the perspective, now you say it doesn't. both cannot be true.

or better yet, what if i just put my hands over the outer
portion, blocking it from view. same net effect, but no paper cutting,
and the ability to 'undo' it at any time.

Sure. Same thing.

same thing as what? does it change perspective or not? if so, how?

However, telephoto lenses are useful anyway since they allow you to get
telephoto perspective without having to cut away most of that paper that
you
paid for, which is not only a waste of materials but also tends to
result in
rather tiny final prints. But you knew that anyway, right?

i know that paper, even a fair amount of it, weighs less and certainly
costs substantially less than a bulky heavy telephoto lens. infact, it
can replace several different telephoto lenses. therefore, i don't
really mind a little waste. its even less fragile too. all in all, a
win-win. the only glitch i see is that it is easier to bring a
telephoto lens thru airport security than it is to bring scissors.

Absolutely. My eight-year-old great-niece had her little toy scissors
confiscated before they'd let her on the plane. They would just barely cut
paper, but they had to be taken.

no they did not have to be taken.

http://www.tsa.gov/public/interweb/a..._Prohibited_12
_18_2003.pdf

plastic or metal scissors with blunt tips are acceptable for carry on;
scissors with pointy ends are prohibited. presumably, your niece's
'litte toy scissors' have blunt rounded ends like most children's
scissors. if so, they were improperly confiscated.

of course, what the tsa does is often entirely different from what they
are supposed to do, but that is a topic for a different newsgroup.

maybe i'll keep a telephoto lens just for air travel.

I would keep the telephoto lens anyway. It's an all-around more satisfactory
tool for producing telephoto shots than a scissors is.

the telephoto lens costs more money than paper and i'm cheap.
unfortunately i bought the lens before you gave me this excellent
advice. at least i can avoid getting additional long lenses in the
future. furthermore, a package of paper lets me pack lighter; i will
just need to buy scissors after the flight. that should be easier than
finding the right lens in the right camera mount in some foreign city.

In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

Certainly not, because perspective is a function of the picture in
its
entirety. When you crop out parts of the picture as you describe,
you
change
its perspective.

so if i take a print and then crop away parts of it by cutting it with
scissors, i am changing the perspective of the remaining parts of the
picture?

Exactly.

ok, how does the inner portion of a picture change by cutting the outer
portion off?

It doesn't. Why would it?

first you said if i crop away parts of it with scissors, that changes
the perspective, now you say it doesn't. both cannot be true.

or better yet, what if i just put my hands over the outer
portion, blocking it from view. same net effect, but no paper cutting,
and the ability to 'undo' it at any time.

Sure. Same thing.

same thing as what? does it change perspective or not? if so, how?

However, telephoto lenses are useful anyway since they allow you to get
telephoto perspective without having to cut away most of that paper that
you
paid for, which is not only a waste of materials but also tends to
result in
rather tiny final prints. But you knew that anyway, right?

i know that paper, even a fair amount of it, weighs less and certainly
costs substantially less than a bulky heavy telephoto lens. infact, it
can replace several different telephoto lenses. therefore, i don't
really mind a little waste. its even less fragile too. all in all, a
win-win. the only glitch i see is that it is easier to bring a
telephoto lens thru airport security than it is to bring scissors.

Absolutely. My eight-year-old great-niece had her little toy scissors
confiscated before they'd let her on the plane. They would just barely cut
paper, but they had to be taken.

no they did not have to be taken.

http://www.tsa.gov/public/interweb/a..._Prohibited_12
_18_2003.pdf

plastic or metal scissors with blunt tips are acceptable for carry on;
scissors with pointy ends are prohibited. presumably, your niece's
'litte toy scissors' have blunt rounded ends like most children's
scissors. if so, they were improperly confiscated.

of course, what the tsa does is often entirely different from what they
are supposed to do, but that is a topic for a different newsgroup.

maybe i'll keep a telephoto lens just for air travel.

I would keep the telephoto lens anyway. It's an all-around more satisfactory
tool for producing telephoto shots than a scissors is.

the telephoto lens costs more money than paper and i'm cheap.
unfortunately i bought the lens before you gave me this excellent
advice. at least i can avoid getting additional long lenses in the
future. furthermore, a package of paper lets me pack lighter; i will
just need to buy scissors after the flight. that should be easier than
finding the right lens in the right camera mount in some foreign city.

In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

In the example I used before, if you take a photo of a house with a 24mm
lens from 24 feet away, and another photo of the same house with a 200mm
lens from 200 feet away, the house will be the same size on both prints.
Yet
one photo will have a "wide-angle look" and the other will have a
"telephoto
look," despite the fact that you deny any such looks actually exist.

take both pics at 200 ft and crop the wide angle shot. they will look

But why on earth would I want to do that? The purpose of a wide-angle lens
is to deliver wide-angle images.

to prove that camera *position* is what affects perspective, not focal
length.

the same. yes, the house in the wide angle shot will be smaller -
magnify it so that it matches the other pic. it will be grainier or
more pixellated due to the magnification, but the distance compression
will be *the same* in both pictures because the camera did not move.

Of course. That has NEVER been in dispute. You are essentially repeating
what I said myself in my very first post on this subject. Again, who on
earth would actually do this, and for what reason?

to prove that camera *position* is what affects perspective, not focal
length.

So if
you're right, how can you tell anything about the field of view? If the
house fills the frame in both shots, you will have nothing else to judge
field of view by--nothing but the house itself. So how will you know, if
as
you insist there are no different "looks" between such lenses?

if the camera position does not change, the house will fill the frame
in one picture and not fill the frame in the other. the 'wide angle
look' to which you refer, is that one picture is just the house and the
other picture includes more stuff - the house, the house next to it,
the street, trees behind it, etc. that is field of view.

No, that's not at all what I'm suggesting.

if you move so that the house fills the frame in both pictures, then

That's what I'm doing, yes.

which is why the perspective changes.

you are using a different lens for compositional purposes and to
minimize unnecessary enlargement after the fact.

distances in the telephoto picture will look compressed and distances
in the wide angle pic will look stretced.

Exactly. One picture has a "telephoto look" (a telephoto perspective), and
the other has a "wide-angle look" (a wide-angle perspective). That's what
I've been saying all along. Now if you can just convince some of the others
that there ARE such things as a "telephoto look" and a "wide-angle look,"
that will be a great accomplishment, because two or three folks here claim
they cannot see any such difference at all.

nobody denies the looks exist. however it is due to where the camera is
positioned relative to the subject, not the focal length of the lens.

that is because the camera
position changed.

In this particular example the camera position HAD to change in order to
fill the frame with the house with each lens. The difference in "look" or
perspective however has nothing to do with camera position, it has to do
with focal length. If the camera were left in the same position for both
shots, then everything taken with the 24mm lens would look much smaller,
just as you say. However, the 24mm shot would STILL have a "wide-angle
look." Any time the 24mm lens is used and a print is made from the full
frame, that print will still have wide-angle perspective. This is not
dependent on camera position.

it has everything to do with camera position, and that can be verified
by the tests outlined previously.

In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

In the example I used before, if you take a photo of a house with a 24mm
lens from 24 feet away, and another photo of the same house with a 200mm
lens from 200 feet away, the house will be the same size on both prints.
Yet
one photo will have a "wide-angle look" and the other will have a
"telephoto
look," despite the fact that you deny any such looks actually exist.

take both pics at 200 ft and crop the wide angle shot. they will look

But why on earth would I want to do that? The purpose of a wide-angle lens
is to deliver wide-angle images.

to prove that camera *position* is what affects perspective, not focal
length.

the same. yes, the house in the wide angle shot will be smaller -
magnify it so that it matches the other pic. it will be grainier or
more pixellated due to the magnification, but the distance compression
will be *the same* in both pictures because the camera did not move.

Of course. That has NEVER been in dispute. You are essentially repeating
what I said myself in my very first post on this subject. Again, who on
earth would actually do this, and for what reason?

to prove that camera *position* is what affects perspective, not focal
length.

So if
you're right, how can you tell anything about the field of view? If the
house fills the frame in both shots, you will have nothing else to judge
field of view by--nothing but the house itself. So how will you know, if
as
you insist there are no different "looks" between such lenses?

if the camera position does not change, the house will fill the frame
in one picture and not fill the frame in the other. the 'wide angle
look' to which you refer, is that one picture is just the house and the
other picture includes more stuff - the house, the house next to it,
the street, trees behind it, etc. that is field of view.

No, that's not at all what I'm suggesting.

if you move so that the house fills the frame in both pictures, then

That's what I'm doing, yes.

which is why the perspective changes.

you are using a different lens for compositional purposes and to
minimize unnecessary enlargement after the fact.

distances in the telephoto picture will look compressed and distances
in the wide angle pic will look stretced.

Exactly. One picture has a "telephoto look" (a telephoto perspective), and
the other has a "wide-angle look" (a wide-angle perspective). That's what
I've been saying all along. Now if you can just convince some of the others
that there ARE such things as a "telephoto look" and a "wide-angle look,"
that will be a great accomplishment, because two or three folks here claim
they cannot see any such difference at all.

nobody denies the looks exist. however it is due to where the camera is
positioned relative to the subject, not the focal length of the lens.

that is because the camera
position changed.

In this particular example the camera position HAD to change in order to
fill the frame with the house with each lens. The difference in "look" or
perspective however has nothing to do with camera position, it has to do
with focal length. If the camera were left in the same position for both
shots, then everything taken with the 24mm lens would look much smaller,
just as you say. However, the 24mm shot would STILL have a "wide-angle
look." Any time the 24mm lens is used and a print is made from the full
frame, that print will still have wide-angle perspective. This is not
dependent on camera position.

it has everything to do with camera position, and that can be verified
by the tests outlined previously.