Perspective (was Re: Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Mike Warren on 8 Aug 2010 21:27 Savageduck wrote: >On 2010-08-08 16:37:50 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: > >>On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:43:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington" >><nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:ugar46dfhpou4nimibd86jm53iqo459f99(a)4ax.com... >>>>On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> >>>>wrote: >>>>>In article <5k2r46pe2t2t7tsjn802pa3o5v7lla946f(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's >>>>>>focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its >>>>>>relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is >>>>>>irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>>In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, >>>>>Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using >>>>>progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm >>>>>to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). >>>>> >>>>>The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same >>>>>spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely >>>>>lady >>>>>on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each >>>>>image. >>>>> >>>>>It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect >>>>>perspective. >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes, that is the classic method of demonstrating that perspective is >>>>independent of focal length. >>>> >>>>It is to be found in many books on photography, yet people still keep >>>>making the same mistake over and over again, thinking that perspective >>>>is dependent on focal length. >>> >>>But perspective is largely dependent on focal length. >>> >>>The the other poster mentioned ". . . how focal length and distance >>>affect >>>perspective." >>> >>>Focal length is not "irrelevant." Both are important: focal length and >>>camera position. A shot taken with a wide-angle lens has wide-angle >>>perspective, which (assuming there are enough objects arranged in the >>>scene >>>to establish perspective at all) is easily recognized by anyone looking >>>at >>>the resulting photo. To say that focal length is irrelevant is to deny >>>what >>>anyone can see with his own eyes. >>> >>>(Sorry for being more than a week late in replying to this, but I only >>>saw >>>the thread just now. The misunderstanding is important enough to correct. >>>The "many books" that support the idea are mistaken, as are the several >>>people who have repeated it over the years.) >> >> >>The "misunderstanding" is entirely yours, Neil. It is a very common >>misunderstanding. However, it doesn't matter how many people repeat >>it, nor how many times, it is still wrong. There is no such thing as >>"wide angle perspective". >> >>Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship >>with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. >> > >OK. >I tried the following; >D300s on tripod 2 shots, position of tripod unchanged, aim point >unchanged, distance between camera and subject constant, lenses changed, >EXIF included; > >Shot #1 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm (16mm FF equiv.) >< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3876w.jpg > > >Shot #2 Nikkor 16-200mm VRII @ 35mm (52mm FF equiv.) >< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3877w.jpg > > >Side by-side comparison; >< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Merc-comp-01.jpg > > >It is tough to say that that this is not a demonstration of focal length >perspective change. >The view point is constant, the relationship between the subject (the car) >and the camera remains unchanged. Yet the eye tells the viewer there is a >dramatic change in perspective, in this case created entirely by a change >of focal length. I just performed a simple resize of the second image and laid it on top of the first: http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg Perspective is unchanged. -- - Mike
From: Savageduck on 8 Aug 2010 21:43 On 2010-08-08 18:27:40 -0700, "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit(a)or-this-csas.net.au> said: > Savageduck wrote: > >> On 2010-08-08 16:37:50 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: >> >>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:43:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington" >>> <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>>> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:ugar46dfhpou4nimibd86jm53iqo459f99(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> In article <5k2r46pe2t2t7tsjn802pa3o5v7lla946f(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>> Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's >>>>>>> focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its >>>>>>> relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is >>>>>>> irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>>> In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, >>>>>> Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using >>>>>> progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm >>>>>> to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). >>>>>> >>>>>> The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same >>>>>> spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady >>>>>> on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each >>>>>> image. >>>>>> >>>>>> It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect >>>>>> perspective. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, that is the classic method of demonstrating that perspective is >>>>> independent of focal length. >>>>> >>>>> It is to be found in many books on photography, yet people still keep >>>>> making the same mistake over and over again, thinking that perspective >>>>> is dependent on focal length. >>>> >>>> But perspective is largely dependent on focal length. >>>> >>>> The the other poster mentioned ". . . how focal length and distance affect >>>> perspective." >>>> >>>> Focal length is not "irrelevant." Both are important: focal length and >>>> camera position. A shot taken with a wide-angle lens has wide-angle >>>> perspective, which (assuming there are enough objects arranged in the scene >>>> to establish perspective at all) is easily recognized by anyone looking at >>>> the resulting photo. To say that focal length is irrelevant is to deny what >>>> anyone can see with his own eyes. >>>> >>>> (Sorry for being more than a week late in replying to this, but I only saw >>>> the thread just now. The misunderstanding is important enough to correct. >>>> The "many books" that support the idea are mistaken, as are the several >>>> people who have repeated it over the years.) >>> >>> >>> The "misunderstanding" is entirely yours, Neil. It is a very common >>> misunderstanding. However, it doesn't matter how many people repeat >>> it, nor how many times, it is still wrong. There is no such thing as >>> "wide angle perspective". >>> >>> Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship >>> with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. >>> >> >> OK. >> I tried the following; >> D300s on tripod 2 shots, position of tripod unchanged, aim point >> unchanged, distance between camera and subject constant, lenses >> changed, EXIF included; >> >> Shot #1 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm (16mm FF equiv.) >> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3876w.jpg > >> >> Shot #2 Nikkor 16-200mm VRII @ 35mm (52mm FF equiv.) >> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3877w.jpg > >> >> Side by-side comparison; >> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Merc-comp-01.jpg > >> >> It is tough to say that that this is not a demonstration of focal >> length perspective change. >> The view point is constant, the relationship between the subject (the >> car) and the camera remains unchanged. Yet the eye tells the viewer >> there is a dramatic change in perspective, in this case created >> entirely by a change of focal length. > > > I just performed a simple resize of the second image and laid it on > top of the first: > > http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg > > Perspective is unchanged. Damn! I should have thought of doing that. So it seems the eye is easily fooled by focal length changes. Thanks for the proof you provided, I kind of takes the wind out of my sails, but there it is. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Mike Warren on 8 Aug 2010 21:59 Savageduck wrote: >>I just performed a simple resize of the second image and laid it on >>top of the first: >> >>http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg >> >>Perspective is unchanged. > >Damn! I should have thought of doing that. > >So it seems the eye is easily fooled by focal length changes. Thanks for >the proof you provided, I kind of takes the wind out of my sails, but >there it is. I think the confusion comes about because if you were to take a picture of a subject with a particular lens and then wanted the subject to be the same size in the frame with a wider angle lens, you would need to move closer to the subject. Moving will change the perspective. -- - Mike
From: David J Taylor on 9 Aug 2010 02:30 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message [] > Damn! I should have thought of doing that. > > So it seems the eye is easily fooled by focal length changes. Thanks for > the proof you provided, I kind of takes the wind out of my sails, but > there it is. > > > -- > Regards, > > Savageduck But you are correct that the resulting image /looks/ different, although the change is not because of a perspective change as such, but because of a field of view change. I.e. a narrow-angle shot looks different to a wide angle shot, perhaps because of the amount of included material and the context of a part of the image compared to the rest of the image. Cheers, David
From: Bruce on 9 Aug 2010 05:10
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 01:27:40 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit(a)or-this-csas.net.au> wrote: >I just performed a simple resize of the second image and laid it on >top of the first: > >http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg > >Perspective is unchanged. Exactly right. You are someone who understands perspective. All the wide angle lens does is include more in the shot. Of course that is precisely why it is called a "wide angle" lens. |