Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: New photo on flickr....
Next: Indy Car
From: Robert Coe on 31 Jul 2010 09:57 On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:52:42 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: : : "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message : news:8ba487FkkU2(a)mid.individual.net... : > In rec.photo.digital David Ruether <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: : >> "Ryan McGinnis" <digicana(a)gmail.com> wrote in message : >> news:4c4d0899$0$24965$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... : : >>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of : >>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo. : >>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and : >>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes : >>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose : >>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less : >>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary : >>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to : >>> compose a shot in ultrawide. : : >> I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word : >> "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging : >> characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-) : >> There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately : >> the perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two : >> does not help. : : > I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly : > miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear : > lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is : > excellent! : > : > Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly : > what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and : > can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to : > recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of : > calling it "distortion". : > -- : > Chris Malcolm : : Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular : perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing : familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate : conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-). : So much of this is simply logical! ;-) : --DR And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as level, even when the camera doesn't. Bob
From: Robert Coe on 31 Jul 2010 10:30 On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:42:44 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: : Have paint brushes become cliched for painting things? : : (Hint: It's a tool. And like all tools it doesn't tell you how to use : it. You could paint like Monet or you could paint a house.) : : Same tool. That's hardly the most plausible example you could have chosen. There's at least as much differences between Monet's brushes and those of a house painter as there is between a superzoom P&S and a 5D2. ;^) Bob
From: Bruce on 31 Jul 2010 10:38 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:57:37 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as >they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way >that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate >your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your >glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit >counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene >that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level >while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as >level, even when the camera doesn't. A spirit level is almost ever-present in my accessory shoe. I have always needed a good excuse for the difficulty I have in producing shots that are consistently level. Thank you for providing one. ;-)
From: David Ruether on 31 Jul 2010 12:31 "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message news:mu98569mi10a4puo7vuv1eu5c384qnighl(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:52:42 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> > wrote: > : "Chris Malcolm" <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message > : news:8ba487FkkU2(a)mid.individual.net... > : > In rec.photo.digital David Ruether <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > : >> "Ryan McGinnis" <digicana(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > : >> news:4c4d0899$0$24965$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > : >>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of > : >>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo. > : >>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and > : >>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes > : >>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose > : >>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less > : >>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary > : >>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to > : >>> compose a shot in ultrawide. > : >> I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word > : >> "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging > : >> characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-) > : >> There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately > : >> the perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two > : >> does not help. > : > I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly > : > miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear > : > lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is > : > excellent! > : > > : > Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly > : > what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and > : > can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to > : > recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of > : > calling it "distortion". > : > -- > : > Chris Malcolm > : Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular > : perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing > : familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate > : conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-). > : So much of this is simply logical! ;-) > : > : Ah, a bit more to add to the above... If a "distorted" fisheye photo is > : projected onto a hemispherical surface and the eye is placed properly > : at the center of the circle at the hemisphere's rear, the view will also > : be undistorted, and an angle of view that is impossible to achieve with > : rectangular perspective can easily be achieved with the fisheye view. > : --DR > And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as > they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way > that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate > your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your > glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit > counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene > that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level > while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as > level, even when the camera doesn't. > > Bob Hmmm.... If you stuck an empty picture frame out in front of you and did the same thing, you would see the same thing, but it's just a tilted frame (so what...?). If you lie down on a bed and watch a big TV close in, the TV image will look sideways. If you lie down on the ground, the scenery will also look sideways (and uncorrected), but you know what the relationships are and that you are at 90 degrees from the scenery level-view. I've never had the problem you describe leveling a camera (either with, or without, a "real" visible horizon line), so the above doesn't make sense to me (but maybe I'm missing something, or maybe I've learned to see things as they are, and not "as they are supposed to be"...;-). Or, maybe you are referring to trying to hold level at arm's length a little digital camera using its dark (in daylight) rear screen (only)? Now THIS is difficult! 8^) --DR
From: David Ruether on 31 Jul 2010 12:41
"Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message news:j2c85692dig4smg5n3h8g7qums0gcou8j0(a)4ax.com... > So far, Bowser is the only photographer in our group who has shown that he can > consistently produce good pictures with a fisheye. And he chooses his subjects > very carefully to make it happen. > > Bob Samples? --DR |