Perspective (was Re: Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 8 Aug 2010 16:43 "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.)
From: Doug McDonald on 8 Aug 2010 18:19 On 8/8/2010 3:43 PM, Neil Harrington 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. >>> But what if there is only one subject? I found that out this summer on my recent trip through the Grand Canyon. They had a wet spring and the desert was blooming amazingly. I carried my camera most of the time with my 10-22 EF-S lens, an extreme wide angle. I started out also carrying my 100mm macro for flower shots. But I soon discovered, thanks to the miracle of zoomed review shots on teh camera's screen, that the ultrawide lens is quite adequately sharp used as a macro. It focuses quite close. And the pictures it takes of flowers and bushes (its not for little bugs, etc.) are quite different from the ones made at 100mm. That's due to the perspective difference. I took lots of shots of the same object with both lenses, and sometimes one shot is better, sometimes the other. Doug > >
From: Neil Harrington on 8 Aug 2010 19:27 "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message news:i3naai$ns0$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu... > On 8/8/2010 3:43 PM, Neil Harrington 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. >>>> > > > But what if there is only one subject? > > I found that out this summer on my recent trip through the Grand Canyon. > They had a wet spring and the desert was blooming amazingly. > > I carried my camera most of the time with my 10-22 EF-S lens, an extreme > wide angle. I started out also carrying my 100mm macro for flower shots. > > But I soon discovered, thanks to the miracle of zoomed review shots > on teh camera's screen, that the ultrawide lens is quite adequately sharp > used as a macro. It focuses quite close. > > And the pictures it takes of flowers and bushes (its not for little bugs, > etc.) > are quite different from the ones made at 100mm. That's due to the > perspective > difference. Yes, it sure is. Any three-dimensional subject that's especially close is going to show a difference in perspective when shot with lenses of greatly different focal lengths. Fill the frame with a small model car angled toward the lens, for example, and its perspective will be entirely different with a 100mm macro than with a much shorter lens shooting from the same direction. > I took lots of shots of the same object with both lenses, and > sometimes one shot is better, sometimes the other. > > Doug >> >> >
From: Bruce on 8 Aug 2010 19:37 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.
From: Savageduck on 8 Aug 2010 20:52
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. -- Regards, Savageduck |