If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
"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/ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
"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/ |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
"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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can Nikon DX lenses be used on 35mm bodies? | Paul Crowder | Digital Photography | 6 | July 11th 04 09:32 PM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
35mm C vs 35mm N mamiya 645 lenses | Stacey | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | May 16th 04 07:06 AM |
Asking advice | Bugs Bunny | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 69 | March 9th 04 05:42 AM |
FA: Ricoh KR-10 35mm Camera, lenses, flash extras | jon | Other Photographic Equipment | 1 | February 8th 04 10:10 PM |