perspective w/ 35mm lenses?

The relationship between focal length and perspective comes when the
photographer does not have access to all possible object distances. One
frequently cannot get close enough to some osubject one wants to shoot,
hence a telephoto setting is nice.

Conversely, one cannot always back away far enough from the subject to
get the perspective one wants, in which case a wide angle setting is
nice.

Jack-of-the-Dust wrote:

An over simplified answer. Were it so why would manufactures make so many
different lens focal lengths?
The answer is correct from a technical stand point, but like many things
practical issues invade reason.

Ed
wrote in message
...
On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01)
wrote:
what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a
digital body (effective
75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens?

peter

Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length
has nothing to do with perspective. In fact perspective wasn't even
invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a
telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/
wideangle look and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look
like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place.
This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding
a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your
wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance
is focal length times magnification. This does mean the proper viewing
distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped
with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact
is a given on at least one news list.

Objects in the mirror
are really not closer than they apear
so always burn out
when in reverse gear.

Heh heh heh......


--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer

The relationship between focal length and perspective comes when the
photographer does not have access to all possible object distances. One
frequently cannot get close enough to some osubject one wants to shoot,
hence a telephoto setting is nice.

Conversely, one cannot always back away far enough from the subject to
get the perspective one wants, in which case a wide angle setting is
nice.

Jack-of-the-Dust wrote:

An over simplified answer. Were it so why would manufactures make so many
different lens focal lengths?
The answer is correct from a technical stand point, but like many things
practical issues invade reason.

Ed
wrote in message
...
On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01)
wrote:
what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a
digital body (effective
75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens?

peter

Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length
has nothing to do with perspective. In fact perspective wasn't even
invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a
telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/
wideangle look and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look
like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place.
This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding
a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your
wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance
is focal length times magnification. This does mean the proper viewing
distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped
with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact
is a given on at least one news list.

Objects in the mirror
are really not closer than they apear
so always burn out
when in reverse gear.

Heh heh heh......


--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 05:24:32 -0000, Jeremy Nixon
wrote:

There is no such thing as a "telephoto look". The "look" you are talking
about is a product of magnification,

Don't you realize you are denying the existence of something in one
sentence and in the next one explaining how it was produced? This is
tantamount to saying there is no pregnant look because it is a by
product of sexual intercourse.

Dave
East Englewood
---------------------------------------------
Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 05:24:32 -0000, Jeremy Nixon
wrote:

There is no such thing as a "telephoto look". The "look" you are talking
about is a product of magnification,

Don't you realize you are denying the existence of something in one
sentence and in the next one explaining how it was produced? This is
tantamount to saying there is no pregnant look because it is a by
product of sexual intercourse.

Dave
East Englewood
---------------------------------------------
Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.

In article , Nostrobino
writes

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Nostrobino
writes

wrote in message
.. .
On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01)
wrote:
what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a
digital body (effective
75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens?

peter

Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length
has nothing to do with perspective.

That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most
people use it, it definitely is related to focal length.

That's not the way most people use it.

You've never heard anyone speak of "wide-angle perspective" for example?


It means (in this context) the
apparent size of various parts of the scene relative to one another.
Objects further from the camera are reproduced at smaller magnification
than those closer to it, but the percentage change varies as the camera
is moved towards or away from the objects.

Yes. However, a wide-angle lens includes more objects and therefore has more
and different relationships, than a long lens.

More relationships, because there are more objects in the FOV. Those
common to both lenses have the same relative sizes.

Wide-angle lenses tend to exaggerate differences in distance, while
telephoto (or more correctly, long-focus lenses whether they are true
telephotos or not) produce the effect of spatial compression. These are
clearly differences in perspective, as it is perceived by the viewer.

Only if you take the picture from a different position.



Perspective is determined by position only. Focal length determines
field of view.

If that were true, wide-angle photos and long-lens photos would appear to
have the same perspective. They do not. I know you know this as well as I
do.

Yes they do. You just don't get it.

[snip]

If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a
wide
angle or telephoto look.

The only reason there is a "telephoto look" is because the pictures are
taken from a great distance.

Wide-angle photos taken from the same distance do not have a "telephoto
look," do they?

If I shoot buildings with an ultra-wide lens with the camera tilted upward,
the sides of those buildings will converge toward the top in a way that
appears very distorted, very spatially exaggerated. This is clearly a matter
of perspective, and meets every ordinary definition for perspective.

Yes, and I dealt with that point in my previous post.

If I
shoot the same buildings from the same position with a long lens, there will
be no such effect; on the contrary there will be a flattening and spatial
compression as verticals are made more parallel and distance differences are
made to appear less. This too is a perspective.

No, it will look just the same, only with more magnification and a
smaller FOV.




and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look
like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place.

This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they
are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is
irrelevant.

The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take
two
photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same
perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto
lens.

Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in
perspective.

No they won't. They will simply see differences in the field of view,
and probably at different magnifications (and probably some differences
in grain or pixellation). Otherwise the two will be identical. The fact
that you think differently suggests that you can never have tried it.

Of course I've tried it. Try it yourself, in the example I've given just
above.

Then I have to conclude that you did not see what was there.


But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took
the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its
field
of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens,
then
the perspective would also be exactly the same.

Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a
wide
angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a
telephoto
lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop
out
everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done
is
EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed
by
what you removed.

No it hasn't. The field of view has been changed; the perspective
remains exactly the same.

Changing the field of view (from the same position) CHANGES the perspective,
is what I am saying.

No, it changes the field of view, nothing more. Your definition of
perspective is not the one as understood by the majority of
photographers.



This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding
a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your
wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance
is focal length times magnification.

But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken
with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room
just
so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact,
defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place.

Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was
shot
with an ultra-wide lens.

The only point of defining a print viewing distance is that it aims to
put you in the same relative position as that in which the photograph
was taken. I agree it's a pretty pointless exercise though, as mostly
one wants to have the perspective effect created by the original taking
position.

And focal length, yes.

Nonsense.



This does mean the proper viewing
distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped
with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact
is a given on at least one news list.

This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's
still
nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated.

The reason the contrary view has "been often repeated" is that it is
true. Most of what you say is totally incorrect; I suggest you try
looking in some reputable textbooks.

I understand perfectly what you and your "reputable textbooks" are claiming.
I am saying that it's demonstrably wrong, which you can easily prove to
yourself.

Just remember that perspective is something that involves THE WHOLE PICTURE.
Once you accept that, your argument collapses.

No, perspective involves the relative appearance of objects at different
distances.



If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm
or
other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be
viewed
from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance?

One uses a long lens to get a bigger magnification without having to use
excessive enlargement post-taking; this would result in very pronounced
grain or pixellation, and much lower resolution.

Those things aren't what matters as much as perspective. With 35mm for
example, why does anyone use a 105mm or so lens for portraiture? Because a
longish lens gives a more flattering perspective. You could use a 28mm lens
and move in to fill the frame just the same, couldn't you? But the results
would be horrid. Perspective is what makes the difference.

A longish lens gives more flattering perspective because you use it
from further away - you have to, to get the subject framed. If you take
a picture with a wide angle lens from the same position and crop, you
get the same perspective. Period.

If you used the 28mm from the original 105mm position would the perspective
be the same (this is what you're claiming, right)? No, it would not. The 28
would produce not only a smaller image of the subject, but also more
convergence in parallel lines outside of the subject and, all in all, the
wide-angle perspective that you claim does not exist--but which anyone can,
in fact, see with their own eyes. How often do you have to see a certain
look with your own eyes before you admit that that look does, in fact,
exist?

You have clearly got a completely erroneous view of this subject and do
not want to hear the views of other photographers. There thus seems no
point in trying to educate you further.
--
David Littlewood

In article , Nostrobino
writes

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Nostrobino
writes

wrote in message
.. .
On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01)
wrote:
what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a
digital body (effective
75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens?

peter

Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length
has nothing to do with perspective.

That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most
people use it, it definitely is related to focal length.

That's not the way most people use it.

You've never heard anyone speak of "wide-angle perspective" for example?


It means (in this context) the
apparent size of various parts of the scene relative to one another.
Objects further from the camera are reproduced at smaller magnification
than those closer to it, but the percentage change varies as the camera
is moved towards or away from the objects.

Yes. However, a wide-angle lens includes more objects and therefore has more
and different relationships, than a long lens.

More relationships, because there are more objects in the FOV. Those
common to both lenses have the same relative sizes.

Wide-angle lenses tend to exaggerate differences in distance, while
telephoto (or more correctly, long-focus lenses whether they are true
telephotos or not) produce the effect of spatial compression. These are
clearly differences in perspective, as it is perceived by the viewer.

Only if you take the picture from a different position.



Perspective is determined by position only. Focal length determines
field of view.

If that were true, wide-angle photos and long-lens photos would appear to
have the same perspective. They do not. I know you know this as well as I
do.

Yes they do. You just don't get it.

[snip]

If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a
wide
angle or telephoto look.

The only reason there is a "telephoto look" is because the pictures are
taken from a great distance.

Wide-angle photos taken from the same distance do not have a "telephoto
look," do they?

If I shoot buildings with an ultra-wide lens with the camera tilted upward,
the sides of those buildings will converge toward the top in a way that
appears very distorted, very spatially exaggerated. This is clearly a matter
of perspective, and meets every ordinary definition for perspective.

Yes, and I dealt with that point in my previous post.

If I
shoot the same buildings from the same position with a long lens, there will
be no such effect; on the contrary there will be a flattening and spatial
compression as verticals are made more parallel and distance differences are
made to appear less. This too is a perspective.

No, it will look just the same, only with more magnification and a
smaller FOV.




and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look
like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place.

This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they
are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is
irrelevant.

The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take
two
photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same
perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto
lens.

Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in
perspective.

No they won't. They will simply see differences in the field of view,
and probably at different magnifications (and probably some differences
in grain or pixellation). Otherwise the two will be identical. The fact
that you think differently suggests that you can never have tried it.

Of course I've tried it. Try it yourself, in the example I've given just
above.

Then I have to conclude that you did not see what was there.


But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took
the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its
field
of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens,
then
the perspective would also be exactly the same.

Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a
wide
angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a
telephoto
lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop
out
everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done
is
EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed
by
what you removed.

No it hasn't. The field of view has been changed; the perspective
remains exactly the same.

Changing the field of view (from the same position) CHANGES the perspective,
is what I am saying.

No, it changes the field of view, nothing more. Your definition of
perspective is not the one as understood by the majority of
photographers.



This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding
a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your
wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance
is focal length times magnification.

But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken
with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room
just
so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact,
defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place.

Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was
shot
with an ultra-wide lens.

The only point of defining a print viewing distance is that it aims to
put you in the same relative position as that in which the photograph
was taken. I agree it's a pretty pointless exercise though, as mostly
one wants to have the perspective effect created by the original taking
position.

And focal length, yes.

Nonsense.



This does mean the proper viewing
distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped
with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact
is a given on at least one news list.

This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's
still
nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated.

The reason the contrary view has "been often repeated" is that it is
true. Most of what you say is totally incorrect; I suggest you try
looking in some reputable textbooks.

I understand perfectly what you and your "reputable textbooks" are claiming.
I am saying that it's demonstrably wrong, which you can easily prove to
yourself.

Just remember that perspective is something that involves THE WHOLE PICTURE.
Once you accept that, your argument collapses.

No, perspective involves the relative appearance of objects at different
distances.



If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm
or
other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be
viewed
from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance?

One uses a long lens to get a bigger magnification without having to use
excessive enlargement post-taking; this would result in very pronounced
grain or pixellation, and much lower resolution.

Those things aren't what matters as much as perspective. With 35mm for
example, why does anyone use a 105mm or so lens for portraiture? Because a
longish lens gives a more flattering perspective. You could use a 28mm lens
and move in to fill the frame just the same, couldn't you? But the results
would be horrid. Perspective is what makes the difference.

A longish lens gives more flattering perspective because you use it
from further away - you have to, to get the subject framed. If you take
a picture with a wide angle lens from the same position and crop, you
get the same perspective. Period.

If you used the 28mm from the original 105mm position would the perspective
be the same (this is what you're claiming, right)? No, it would not. The 28
would produce not only a smaller image of the subject, but also more
convergence in parallel lines outside of the subject and, all in all, the
wide-angle perspective that you claim does not exist--but which anyone can,
in fact, see with their own eyes. How often do you have to see a certain
look with your own eyes before you admit that that look does, in fact,
exist?

You have clearly got a completely erroneous view of this subject and do
not want to hear the views of other photographers. There thus seems no
point in trying to educate you further.
--
David Littlewood

In article , Nostrobino
writes

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Nostrobino
writes

wrote in message
.. .
On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01)
wrote:
what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a
digital body (effective
75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens?

peter

Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length
has nothing to do with perspective.

That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most
people use it, it definitely is related to focal length.

That's not the way most people use it.

You've never heard anyone speak of "wide-angle perspective" for example?


It means (in this context) the
apparent size of various parts of the scene relative to one another.
Objects further from the camera are reproduced at smaller magnification
than those closer to it, but the percentage change varies as the camera
is moved towards or away from the objects.

Yes. However, a wide-angle lens includes more objects and therefore has more
and different relationships, than a long lens.

More relationships, because there are more objects in the FOV. Those
common to both lenses have the same relative sizes.

Wide-angle lenses tend to exaggerate differences in distance, while
telephoto (or more correctly, long-focus lenses whether they are true
telephotos or not) produce the effect of spatial compression. These are
clearly differences in perspective, as it is perceived by the viewer.

Only if you take the picture from a different position.



Perspective is determined by position only. Focal length determines
field of view.

If that were true, wide-angle photos and long-lens photos would appear to
have the same perspective. They do not. I know you know this as well as I
do.

Yes they do. You just don't get it.

[snip]

If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a
wide
angle or telephoto look.

The only reason there is a "telephoto look" is because the pictures are
taken from a great distance.

Wide-angle photos taken from the same distance do not have a "telephoto
look," do they?

If I shoot buildings with an ultra-wide lens with the camera tilted upward,
the sides of those buildings will converge toward the top in a way that
appears very distorted, very spatially exaggerated. This is clearly a matter
of perspective, and meets every ordinary definition for perspective.

Yes, and I dealt with that point in my previous post.

If I
shoot the same buildings from the same position with a long lens, there will
be no such effect; on the contrary there will be a flattening and spatial
compression as verticals are made more parallel and distance differences are
made to appear less. This too is a perspective.

No, it will look just the same, only with more magnification and a
smaller FOV.




and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look
like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place.

This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they
are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is
irrelevant.

The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take
two
photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same
perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto
lens.

Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in
perspective.

No they won't. They will simply see differences in the field of view,
and probably at different magnifications (and probably some differences
in grain or pixellation). Otherwise the two will be identical. The fact
that you think differently suggests that you can never have tried it.

Of course I've tried it. Try it yourself, in the example I've given just
above.

Then I have to conclude that you did not see what was there.


But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took
the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its
field
of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens,
then
the perspective would also be exactly the same.

Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a
wide
angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a
telephoto
lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop
out
everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done
is
EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed
by
what you removed.

No it hasn't. The field of view has been changed; the perspective
remains exactly the same.

Changing the field of view (from the same position) CHANGES the perspective,
is what I am saying.

No, it changes the field of view, nothing more. Your definition of
perspective is not the one as understood by the majority of
photographers.



This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding
a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your
wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance
is focal length times magnification.

But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken
with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room
just
so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact,
defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place.

Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was
shot
with an ultra-wide lens.

The only point of defining a print viewing distance is that it aims to
put you in the same relative position as that in which the photograph
was taken. I agree it's a pretty pointless exercise though, as mostly
one wants to have the perspective effect created by the original taking
position.

And focal length, yes.

Nonsense.



This does mean the proper viewing
distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped
with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact
is a given on at least one news list.

This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's
still
nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated.

The reason the contrary view has "been often repeated" is that it is
true. Most of what you say is totally incorrect; I suggest you try
looking in some reputable textbooks.

I understand perfectly what you and your "reputable textbooks" are claiming.
I am saying that it's demonstrably wrong, which you can easily prove to
yourself.

Just remember that perspective is something that involves THE WHOLE PICTURE.
Once you accept that, your argument collapses.

No, perspective involves the relative appearance of objects at different
distances.



If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm
or
other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be
viewed
from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance?

One uses a long lens to get a bigger magnification without having to use
excessive enlargement post-taking; this would result in very pronounced
grain or pixellation, and much lower resolution.

Those things aren't what matters as much as perspective. With 35mm for
example, why does anyone use a 105mm or so lens for portraiture? Because a
longish lens gives a more flattering perspective. You could use a 28mm lens
and move in to fill the frame just the same, couldn't you? But the results
would be horrid. Perspective is what makes the difference.

A longish lens gives more flattering perspective because you use it
from further away - you have to, to get the subject framed. If you take
a picture with a wide angle lens from the same position and crop, you
get the same perspective. Period.

If you used the 28mm from the original 105mm position would the perspective
be the same (this is what you're claiming, right)? No, it would not. The 28
would produce not only a smaller image of the subject, but also more
convergence in parallel lines outside of the subject and, all in all, the
wide-angle perspective that you claim does not exist--but which anyone can,
in fact, see with their own eyes. How often do you have to see a certain
look with your own eyes before you admit that that look does, in fact,
exist?

You have clearly got a completely erroneous view of this subject and do
not want to hear the views of other photographers. There thus seems no
point in trying to educate you further.
--
David Littlewood

"Nostrobino" writes:

The first post I have here gives the reply, "Actually, it will not make any
deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. In
fact perspective wasn't even invintet until railroads became popular. There
is no such thing as a telephoto/wide angle look. . . ."

This is what I originally disputed. OF COURSE there IS such a thing as a
telephoto look or a wide-angle look, that particular look in either case IS
because of the characteristics of perspective, those characteristics ARE
related to the focal length of the lens used, and anyone whose eyes and
brain work together properly is able to see this.

Can you seriously tell me that if, for example, you walked around a city
with an SLR and two lenses, a 20mm and a 200mm, taking hundreds of pictures
and interchanging the lenses frequently, taking no notes about distance or
which lens was used for which shot, etc., then viewing the photos even
months or years later you would NOT be able to tell which shots were taken
with the 20 and which with the 200?

There are clues other than the size relationships of objects in the
pictures to what lens they were taken with. And it's sufficiently
unconventional to drastically crop a picture that you get some direct
indication of angle of view from the picture.

Have you ever seen one of those brochures or counter mats at a camera
store that give a series of pictures taken by all the lenses in some
company's lineup from the same position? If you look at those
pictures, you will see that each one could have been cropped out of
the center of the next-wider one and nobody could tell the
difference. That's a simple, direct visual proof of the canonical
position that camera-to-object distance is the only thing that affects
perspective.

I don't think you are going to tell me that. Now tell me HOW you could tell
the difference.

Guess you lose, eh?

What I am saying is that people who faithfully repeat "There is no such
thing as 'wide-angle perspective'--perspective depends solely on shooting
position" are simply refusing to believe the evidence of their own eyes, and
refusing to believe it on the basis of some nonsense they have read. Yes, I
grant you it is widely circulated nonsense, but nonsense all the same.

And what I'm saying is that anybody who looks closely at photos, let
alone actually takes them, quickly learns that it's *true*, and trying
to work on any other basis produces unintended results.

Ordinary people who have not had the dubious benefit of such "learned"
explications can immediately see that most photos taken with a 24mm lens,
for example, do indeed (when viewed in their entirety) have a wide-angle
perspective.

What you are describing is not perspective.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"Nostrobino" writes:

The first post I have here gives the reply, "Actually, it will not make any
deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. In
fact perspective wasn't even invintet until railroads became popular. There
is no such thing as a telephoto/wide angle look. . . ."

This is what I originally disputed. OF COURSE there IS such a thing as a
telephoto look or a wide-angle look, that particular look in either case IS
because of the characteristics of perspective, those characteristics ARE
related to the focal length of the lens used, and anyone whose eyes and
brain work together properly is able to see this.

Can you seriously tell me that if, for example, you walked around a city
with an SLR and two lenses, a 20mm and a 200mm, taking hundreds of pictures
and interchanging the lenses frequently, taking no notes about distance or
which lens was used for which shot, etc., then viewing the photos even
months or years later you would NOT be able to tell which shots were taken
with the 20 and which with the 200?

There are clues other than the size relationships of objects in the
pictures to what lens they were taken with. And it's sufficiently
unconventional to drastically crop a picture that you get some direct
indication of angle of view from the picture.

Have you ever seen one of those brochures or counter mats at a camera
store that give a series of pictures taken by all the lenses in some
company's lineup from the same position? If you look at those
pictures, you will see that each one could have been cropped out of
the center of the next-wider one and nobody could tell the
difference. That's a simple, direct visual proof of the canonical
position that camera-to-object distance is the only thing that affects
perspective.

I don't think you are going to tell me that. Now tell me HOW you could tell
the difference.

Guess you lose, eh?

What I am saying is that people who faithfully repeat "There is no such
thing as 'wide-angle perspective'--perspective depends solely on shooting
position" are simply refusing to believe the evidence of their own eyes, and
refusing to believe it on the basis of some nonsense they have read. Yes, I
grant you it is widely circulated nonsense, but nonsense all the same.

And what I'm saying is that anybody who looks closely at photos, let
alone actually takes them, quickly learns that it's *true*, and trying
to work on any other basis produces unintended results.

Ordinary people who have not had the dubious benefit of such "learned"
explications can immediately see that most photos taken with a 24mm lens,
for example, do indeed (when viewed in their entirety) have a wide-angle
perspective.

What you are describing is not perspective.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Nostrobino" writes:

The first post I have here gives the reply, "Actually, it will not make
any
deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with
perspective. In
fact perspective wasn't even invintet until railroads became popular.
There
is no such thing as a telephoto/wide angle look. . . ."

This is what I originally disputed. OF COURSE there IS such a thing as a
telephoto look or a wide-angle look, that particular look in either case
IS
because of the characteristics of perspective, those characteristics ARE
related to the focal length of the lens used, and anyone whose eyes and
brain work together properly is able to see this.

Can you seriously tell me that if, for example, you walked around a city
with an SLR and two lenses, a 20mm and a 200mm, taking hundreds of
pictures
and interchanging the lenses frequently, taking no notes about distance
or
which lens was used for which shot, etc., then viewing the photos even
months or years later you would NOT be able to tell which shots were
taken
with the 20 and which with the 200?

There are clues other than the size relationships of objects in the
pictures to what lens they were taken with.

Of course, and those clues are called "perspective."


And it's sufficiently
unconventional to drastically crop a picture that you get some direct
indication of angle of view from the picture.

Have you ever seen one of those brochures or counter mats at a camera
store that give a series of pictures taken by all the lenses in some
company's lineup from the same position? If you look at those
pictures, you will see that each one could have been cropped out of
the center of the next-wider one and nobody could tell the
difference. That's a simple, direct visual proof of the canonical
position that camera-to-object distance is the only thing that affects
perspective.

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.



I don't think you are going to tell me that. Now tell me HOW you could
tell
the difference.

Guess you lose, eh?

No, you haven't answered the question.



What I am saying is that people who faithfully repeat "There is no such
thing as 'wide-angle perspective'--perspective depends solely on
shooting
position" are simply refusing to believe the evidence of their own eyes,
and
refusing to believe it on the basis of some nonsense they have read.
Yes, I
grant you it is widely circulated nonsense, but nonsense all the same.

And what I'm saying is that anybody who looks closely at photos, let
alone actually takes them, quickly learns that it's *true*, and trying
to work on any other basis produces unintended results.

Ordinary people who have not had the dubious benefit of such "learned"
explications can immediately see that most photos taken with a 24mm
lens,
for example, do indeed (when viewed in their entirety) have a wide-angle
perspective.

What you are describing is not perspective.

Of course it is. What else would you call it?