perspective w/ 35mm lenses?

Nostrobino wrote:

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?

Field of view.

--
Jeremy |

Nostrobino wrote:

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?

Field of view.

--
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?

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

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?

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

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
wrote:
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.

Then it's equally valid to say that pregnancy is a "sexual look".

The so-called "telephoto look" is not a product of the lens focal length.
You can get exactly the same "look" by cropping out the center of a wide-
angle picture --

Then you've changed the picture, and in doing so you've changed the
perspective.


it's magnification, nothing more.

As I have said befo you can magnify a wide-angle shot to your heart's
content and it will still be a wide-angle shot, still have the "wide-angle
look" and wide-angle perspective. Print it postage-stamp size or super
mural-size, it still will have the "wide-angle look." You cannot change that
without modifying the picture itself.

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
wrote:
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.

Then it's equally valid to say that pregnancy is a "sexual look".

The so-called "telephoto look" is not a product of the lens focal length.
You can get exactly the same "look" by cropping out the center of a wide-
angle picture --

Then you've changed the picture, and in doing so you've changed the
perspective.


it's magnification, nothing more.

As I have said befo you can magnify a wide-angle shot to your heart's
content and it will still be a wide-angle shot, still have the "wide-angle
look" and wide-angle perspective. Print it postage-stamp size or super
mural-size, it still will have the "wide-angle look." You cannot change that
without modifying the picture itself.

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
wrote:
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.

Then it's equally valid to say that pregnancy is a "sexual look".

The so-called "telephoto look" is not a product of the lens focal length.
You can get exactly the same "look" by cropping out the center of a wide-
angle picture --

Then you've changed the picture, and in doing so you've changed the
perspective.


it's magnification, nothing more.

As I have said befo you can magnify a wide-angle shot to your heart's
content and it will still be a wide-angle shot, still have the "wide-angle
look" and wide-angle perspective. Print it postage-stamp size or super
mural-size, it still will have the "wide-angle look." You cannot change that
without modifying the picture itself.

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:

Except that the effect is not in any way the result of the focal length
of
the lens, but of the magnification.

The magnification IS a direct result of the focal length used.

No, it's not. The magnification is magnification. You can achieve that
magnification in exactly the same way by cropping the field of view.

You can get more magnification in a number of ways, but all other things
being equal it is a direct result of the focal length used.



You are saying that you really cannot see any difference in perspective
between a shot taken with a 24mm lens and one taken with a 200mm lens?

No, I can't, because there isn't any. There is a difference in the field
of view, but that's it.

You cannot tell the "difference in the field of view" except by the visual
cues provided by perspective.

For example, take a shot of a house with a 24mm lens from 24 feet away, and
a shot of the same house with a 200mm lens from 200 feet away. In both shots
the house will be the same size on the print (i.e., the same final
magnification), but it will look RADICALLY different in the two shots. The
24mm shot will have the "wide-angle look" which you claim does not exist,
and the 200mm shot will have the "telephoto look" which you also claim does
not exist.

Then try showing both photos to any human being with a normally functioning
eye-brain system and try telling him the two photos are "the same," that
neither has a "look" any different from the other.

He will probably look at you to see if you have your eyes rolled back in
your head.


There is no such thing as a "telephoto look".

You honestly BELIEVE this? Looking at photos taken with 200mm and 300mm
lenses, you would have no clue from their appearance that they'd be
taken
with long lenses?

Of course I would, because the field of view will be smaller.

The "look" you are talking about is a product of magnification,

Take a 24mm shot and magnify it all you like, it will never (when viewed
in
its entirety) look like a 300mm shot.

Whether it's viewed in its entirety has nothing to do with perspective.

See my comments on this elsewhere in this thread; I'm not going to repeat it
all again.

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:

Except that the effect is not in any way the result of the focal length
of
the lens, but of the magnification.

The magnification IS a direct result of the focal length used.

No, it's not. The magnification is magnification. You can achieve that
magnification in exactly the same way by cropping the field of view.

You can get more magnification in a number of ways, but all other things
being equal it is a direct result of the focal length used.



You are saying that you really cannot see any difference in perspective
between a shot taken with a 24mm lens and one taken with a 200mm lens?

No, I can't, because there isn't any. There is a difference in the field
of view, but that's it.

You cannot tell the "difference in the field of view" except by the visual
cues provided by perspective.

For example, take a shot of a house with a 24mm lens from 24 feet away, and
a shot of the same house with a 200mm lens from 200 feet away. In both shots
the house will be the same size on the print (i.e., the same final
magnification), but it will look RADICALLY different in the two shots. The
24mm shot will have the "wide-angle look" which you claim does not exist,
and the 200mm shot will have the "telephoto look" which you also claim does
not exist.

Then try showing both photos to any human being with a normally functioning
eye-brain system and try telling him the two photos are "the same," that
neither has a "look" any different from the other.

He will probably look at you to see if you have your eyes rolled back in
your head.


There is no such thing as a "telephoto look".

You honestly BELIEVE this? Looking at photos taken with 200mm and 300mm
lenses, you would have no clue from their appearance that they'd be
taken
with long lenses?

Of course I would, because the field of view will be smaller.

The "look" you are talking about is a product of magnification,

Take a 24mm shot and magnify it all you like, it will never (when viewed
in
its entirety) look like a 300mm shot.

Whether it's viewed in its entirety has nothing to do with perspective.

See my comments on this elsewhere in this thread; I'm not going to repeat it
all again.

In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

For example, take a shot of a house with a 24mm lens from 24 feet away, and
a shot of the same house with a 200mm lens from 200 feet away. In both shots
the house will be the same size on the print (i.e., the same final
magnification), but it will look RADICALLY different in the two shots. The
24mm shot will have the "wide-angle look" which you claim does not exist,
and the 200mm shot will have the "telephoto look" which you also claim does
not exist.

the perspective differs because the *camera* was in a different
location, not because different lenses were used.

take BOTH pictures from the SAME spot, crop off the additional view
with the wide angle and you will have identical pictures.

Then try showing both photos to any human being with a normally functioning
eye-brain system and try telling him the two photos are "the same," that
neither has a "look" any different from the other.

they are different because the camera was in a different location.

He will probably look at you to see if you have your eyes rolled back in
your head.

is that what is afflicting you?

See my comments on this elsewhere in this thread; I'm not going to repeat it
all again.

good, because its wrong.