Enough of this perspective non sense..

Daniella said:

stephenmelvin said:

A true "normal" lens would give the same field of view as the human
eyes, which is about 150? from left to right. That's why
photographs and movies shot with superwide lenses look so much more
real than those shot with longer focal lengths.

Click to expand...

is it? 150mm? seems rather dependant on the equipement on which
the lens is attached. A 150mm lens on my camera does not give me
real life perspective.

Click to expand...

That was supposed to be 150 degrees, but it didn't reproduce correctly.

Daniella68313 said:

Daniella68313 said:

I tend to think in terms of another great photographer whose name
eludes me. But he was a war photographer, and he said, "If your
pictures aren't good enough, you weren't close enough!" Give me a
wide over a normal any day of the week.

Click to expand...

now you're surely not into birding.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not, though I find your photography very inspiring. Almost makes me want to get some super teles, but I know I'm unlikely to get nearly as much out of it as you do. I'll stick with my superwides for now.

Daniella68313 said:

Daniella68313 said:

Daniella said:

For those who wonder about the difference in wide angle and
telephoto lens.. for those who think that wide angle lens and
telephoto lens does not make a difference in depth.

any thoughts about this?

http://hobbymaker.narod.ru/English/Articles/perspective_eng.htm

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Click to expand...

1. Perspective is affected by distance between camera and subject.
2. Field of view (how much is in the image) is affected by focal length.

3. Photos taken with 50mm lens (or more generally sensor diameter equal to focal length) looks "natural" to human perception.

There is nothing new here.

-jeffB wrote:
.

-jeffB said:

The eye's field of view is very wide, in the sense that you can
perceive motion at angles far removed from central vision, but you
can't (say) read a sign that's 60 degrees off from where you're
looking. The area of sharpest central vision is a mere few degrees
across -- in the realm of the supertelephotos. So I guess a true
"normal" lens would have a small central area of sharp detail, with
blurry hints of subdued color everywhere else. (Aha! Lensbaby!)

Click to expand...

lensbaby! I think you got it

-jeffB said:

Your eye gives the illusion of wide-field sharpness by quickly
saccading from region to region of interest, with your brain
integrating the resulting stream of images below the conscious
level. But what the brain does to process perspective,
depth-of-field, and so forth is much subtler and more complex
than just "it's like a 12mm lens at f/whatever".

Click to expand...

yes I think, because we don't really see blured what's out of focus but rather doubled, or both.

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Daniella said:

how far must one stand to optimaly see the dotted paintings?

Click to expand...

About 6 - 8 ft. and best viewed at 12 ft. The machine we invented and just patent approved, is a tool that you could create one of these in oil on canvas after you learned how to program those thousands of dots. I appraoch the technology from the old school of painting and someone could approach it from a photographer's field. I don't know if you got that far to see the machine but it a toy that allows graphic artists, photographers, or old artists with difficulty using thier hand tools anymore. And of course the disabled.

Daniella, took a look at your gallery and you have a natural eye for design and composition. Very good work!
Christian

Pappie said:

Daniella said:

how far must one stand to optimaly see the dotted paintings?

Click to expand...

About 6 - 8 ft. and best viewed at 12 ft. The machine we invented
and just patent approved, is a tool that you could create one of
these in oil on canvas after you learned how to program those
thousands of dots. I appraoch the technology from the old school
of painting and someone could approach it from a photographer's
field. I don't know if you got that far to see the machine but it
a toy that allows graphic artists, photographers, or old artists
with difficulty using thier hand tools anymore. And of course the
disabled.

Click to expand...

no i have not seen it..can you give me the direct link to that page?

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

ignoring, something not quite right upstairs somehow.

PalmsWestPhoto said:

Daniella

just because you read something doesnt mean you understood it or it
is right

Let me repeat this.

The lens focal length does not in any way change perspective as you
implied.

Get that once and for all. Stop all that nonsense about focal
length having anything to do with perspective.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

Click to expand...

--
If only thire wos money to mayke owt of typo's

Pappie said:

I don't even understand what most of you are saying about this
article or if you read it and didn't understand it. Course then
again, your photographers. I am a painter of oils and use a camera
to assist my memory but the problems of proportional scale is a
camera's failure area. Drives me nuts so I work one painting from
multiple images at different focal lengths, stitching it together
in my mind and then on the canvas. If you had an issue with this
article, you do not understand the artist's perspective and have
not spent years drawing a subject from real life and knowing what
it "correct" for maximum realism.

Click to expand...

Based on your tilt-shift lens comment later, I suspect the "correction" you're talking about is to correct for the rectilinear projection, not perspective or focal length factors (which is what the rest of this thread is about). The camera captures a true image as real-world physics dictates. The light cannot behave any other way. A painting cannot be more realistic.

A painting, however, can appear more realistic, by violating some of those real world physics. That's the case for wide-angle rectilinear lenses. They project a true image, but the true image is so distorted from our normal perception that it appears unnatural. In a painting you can correct this. It results in an image that is less realistic, but looks more realistic.

I've a background in drafting and 3D graphics (I'm an engineer by trade), and there are a multitude of projections that are used. Each of them is less true than what you'd get with a camera, but are sometimes more useful for displaying what it is you're trying to show.

Anyhow, perspective is purely a function of distance. You can choose to think of it in terms of focal length and field of view if you wish (FOV as in linear width of the scene, not the angle of view). There's nothing wrong with that. It's more complicated that way, but those two ways of thinking of it are mathematically equivalent - the focal length and field of view will give you the distance (for rectilinear lenses), which determines perspective Just don't make the mistake of leaving out the "field of view" part when you think of it in terms of focal length.

Daniella said:

For those who wonder about the difference in wide angle and
telephoto lens.. for those who think that wide angle lens and
telephoto lens does not make a difference in depth.

any thoughts about this?

http://hobbymaker.narod.ru/English/Articles/perspective_eng.htm

Click to expand...

Just take a snap of your "Hind-quarters" at 19mm, then at 200mm ... your perspective will be "CRYSTAL" clear ...
--
Regards....Matt K
' Why isn't Phonetic spelled the way it sounds ???? '

'You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn't waste either.'....Galen Rowell
Exerpt from Thom Hogan's web Site http://www.bythom.com a must visit site for all.

Perhaps it's just my "perspective", but..

How have we come to a point where people feel free to make ad hominem attacks on posters here, as if this is a "humanity-free" zone?

My God, people - take a step back and look at plain ugly cruelty of what you are blithely typing!

Please, keep these forums a civil place - find another outlet for your thwarted aggressions.
--
Gingerbaker
http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/galleries

Enough perspective non-sense - yet there were no non sense to begin with, Daniella made all that up.

Well, I didn't read all the posts, so possibly some went over the line, but when you make subject lines like that, you ask for it.

Kjeld Olesen

gingerbaker said:

Perhaps it's just my "perspective", but..

How have we come to a point where people feel free to make ad
hominem attacks on posters here, as if this is a "humanity-free"
zone?

My God, people - take a step back and look at plain ugly cruelty of
what you are blithely typing!

Please, keep these forums a civil place - find another outlet for
your thwarted aggressions.
--
Gingerbaker
http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/galleries

Click to expand...

--
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.acapixus.dk

Agreed

Kjeld Olesen said:

Well, I didn't read all the posts, so possibly some went over the
line, but when you make subject lines like that, you ask for it.

Kjeld Olesen

gingerbaker said:

Perhaps it's just my "perspective", but..

How have we come to a point where people feel free to make ad
hominem attacks on posters here, as if this is a "humanity-free"
zone?

My God, people - take a step back and look at plain ugly cruelty of
what you are blithely typing!

Please, keep these forums a civil place - find another outlet for
your thwarted aggressions.
--
Gingerbaker
http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/galleries

Click to expand...

--
Kjeld Olesen
http://www.acapixus.dk

Click to expand...

stephenmelvin said:

I tend to think in terms of another great photographer whose name
eludes me. But he was a war photographer, and he said, "If your
pictures aren't good enough, you weren't close enough!" Give me a
wide over a normal any day of the week.

Click to expand...

That was Robert Capa. Ironically, he probably used "boring" 35mm and 50mm lenses for most of his pictures (Leica rangefinder).

Daniella said:

For those who wonder about the difference in wide angle and
telephoto lens.. for those who think that wide angle lens and
telephoto lens does not make a difference in depth.

any thoughts about this?

http://hobbymaker.narod.ru/English/Articles/perspective_eng.htm

Click to expand...

I read the article, and I found it a little confusing, particularly when he tries to mathematically justify the conclusions. For example he says that correct similarity means a1/b1 =a2/b2 and that correct scale means a1/a2 = b1/b2.

From a mathematical point of view the two equations are identical so I do not understand the difference between correct scale and correct similarity. I do not understand all the statements but I understand the effect on the example:

• telephoto small depth
• wide-angle high depth
• 50 mm natural

I prefer to see things in this way:

I consider "natural" a photo when I am seeing it at a distance that gives you the exact field of view of the combination lens/film-size used, virtually any photo is "natural".
Same example:

If you print on A4 (297*240) the "natural" distance for different focal length are:

50 mm -~ 48 cm
15 mm -~ 13 cm
400 mm -~ 3.4 m

The 50 mm is more natural because you naturally look at 50mm print at the natural distance.

In any case I do not think that more "natural" is in some sense "better". Telephoto, wide-angle, print size and viewing distance are tools that can be used to obtain unnatural and beautiful pictures.

Stefano

Ok... One sample... Shot with a wide angle or telephoto:



--
KEG

All comments should be taken as shameless plugs for me and my equipment

Daniella,

By this time you're probably all charged up by all the vitriol going around in this thread, some of which was probably deserved because of your original post title, but let's try to put that aside. I want to try to conduct a civil discussion of this matter, and I hope you will do the same, because I think we can all benefit from resolving this matter once and for all.

Going back to the article you linked, let's examine his 1st figure, the one with the 4 perspectives of the same scene. Let's just assume for the sake of argument (and ease of argument!) that the lenses used were 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm. Take the 35mm and 135mm situations. Let's say that their original distance to the scene are 1m and 6m distances respectively. If you moved the viewer with the 35mm lens to the same distance that the 135mm is (6m away), you would obviously get a much wider field of view with the 35mm (captured field of view is dependent on focal length). However, we are interested in focal length and its effect on perspective not field of view, so to do a proper comparison of perspective you must crop the image obtained with the 35mm down to the same scene as that captured by the 135mm. When you do this you effectively reduce the angle of view, and even though you are using a 35mm lens your angle of view will be identical to that of the 135mm lens, which would produce identical perspectives.

So really, the only factor that governs perspective is your angle of view. The smaller the angle, the more compressed the perspective. Focal length has nothing to do with it. It really is quite easy to test this too. Just perform the experiment I described above. Take a picture of a scene with a 135mm lens, and from the same distance (very important) take it again with a 35mm. Crop the 35mm image to match the same scene as the 135mm lens image and you will see that the perspective is identical. You might want to down-rez the 135mm image to match the resolution of the cropped 35mm image to make it easier to do a side-by-side comparison.

I hope this explanation has made you curious enough about the validity of your previous thoughts on this issue to actually try this experiment yourself. I think in the long run you'll be thankful that you did.

-Yohan

Daniella said:

For those who wonder about the difference in wide angle and
telephoto lens.. for those who think that wide angle lens and
telephoto lens does not make a difference in depth.

any thoughts about this?

http://hobbymaker.narod.ru/English/Articles/perspective_eng.htm

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

Click to expand...

Isn't is a function of DOF? At the same aperture the DOF of 15mm lense is far greater than 500mm lense.

--
KEG

All comments should be taken as shameless plugs for me and my equipment

Stefano Antonelli said:

I consider "natural" a photo when I am seeing it at a distance that
gives you the exact field of view of the combination lens/film-size
used, virtually any photo is "natural".
Same example:

If you print on A4 (297*240) the "natural" distance for different
focal length are:

50 mm -~ 48 cm
15 mm -~ 13 cm
400 mm -~ 3.4 m

The 50 mm is more natural because you naturally look at 50mm print
at the natural distance.

Click to expand...

See above:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=11067873

Lee Jay

Exactly,

sorry I read 'almost' all the thread .

But you can see this 'facts' in yet another way.

Because normally we look at print at a standard distance, using different lens lenght (and of course different position) gives you different perspective result, and you can use this result to obtain particular effects.

I think that is the point of the article.

Stefano

not it has nothing to do with the DOF, that is simply what's in focus. read the article and you will understand

KEG said:

Isn't is a function of DOF? At the same aperture the DOF of 15mm
lense is far greater than 500mm lense.

--
KEG

All comments should be taken as shameless plugs for me and my
equipment

Click to expand...

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel