The operative words are, of course, with respect to the background. And with respect to each other. But perhaps I didn't repeat them often enough?
Not 27 times.
You did, and this didn't change anything. When I look at an object close to me, I am aware of the background but do not compare them directly. I have to force myself to focus my attention on both. Then I see what you see but this is an artificial effort. When I look at a photo with a deep DOF, it is a very different experience. I have to make a mental effort to separate them, just the opposite.I seem to remember seeing somewhere that that had at least as much to with what the general idea of an image at that time? Images and illustrations were understood to be allegorical, and thus something using perspective rendering in order to better show reality was rather confusing.
That is certainly true. Simple experiments - like the one in my post - show that perspective is there. But we work with it in a mostly instinctive manner, and not intellectually; even if the principle is really simple. At a guess I'd say that this is at the root of all the confusing with regard to the role of focal length.
I quite agree. Once explained, the idea is quite simple, and it can be verified with very simple tools, paper, pen and ruler. Like this, irregardless of whether you are working with a camera or your eye:
Some apparently can't see or aren't disturbed by crooked horizons; my wife is one of those. She can't get the horizon straight - and she doesn't care. Whereas I get itchy fingers...
My most often used landscape lens is the 70-200, the 16-32 comes in third place
The experiment I describe is of course a conscious one ;-) You have to take conscious note of what you see and the relationships before and after you move something.Not 27 times.
And that's the number one reason why the vast majority of the pictures I've taken over the past couple of decades have been with a normal focal length lens. I want the sense of depth in my photos to look as normal as possible, not exaggerated or compressed, and I also want the apparent size and distance of objects in the picture to appear normal. It's not that I don't appreciate the creative possibilities that wide angle and telephoto lenses provide, it's just that my pictures are strictly for my own use as a visual diary of places and events that I've enjoyed, and the more real they appear, the more useful they are to me as a memory aid of what I saw.
The evidence from history suggests otherwise. The Greeks and Romans produced vast numbers of statues of the human body that were astonishingly accurate portrayals of reality. Of course, these were 3-D statues of a 3-D reality, so there was no problem of how to portray reality (as far as the geometry is concerned).
You have surely noticed that when you are standing closer to something that something appears larger in relationship to the background than when you stand further away, right?
Like when you stand close to a telephone pole, that pole appears to be much larger than when you stand further away. And it even appears larger agains the background.
You can easily verify this in front of your computer. Look at the top corners of the screen and note their position against the background, eg. a wall.
Now move your head closer to the screen - you will notice that it appears that the corners of the screen are moving outwards with respect to the points on the background. The screen now looks larger with respect to the background.
When you move further away, the screen corners will move inwards, and the screen now looks smaller with respect to the background.
This is of course due to the shift in perspective by moving your observation point back and forth. It is a function of your distance to the foreground and the distance between the foreground and the background in scene.
You see a similar effect if you move the background, while keeping the viewpoint and the foreground still. Move the background further away, it appears smaller with respect to the foreground; move it closer, it appears larger.
And of course you can also keep viewpoint and background fixed, while moving the foreground back and forth. Move the foreground closer to the viewpoint, it will appear larger in relationship to the background. Move it further away, it will appear smaller.
One way of using this effect in photography is to either emphasise or de-emphasise the foreground with respect to the background.
In studio settings you can of course control the position of all three elements to a much larger degree than in non-studio settings. Contrary to popular belief, mountains really are much more difficult to move than a backdrop is
Want that really bulbous nose of your friend? Move in real close to his face, and the nose will appear disproportionally larger than the rest of the face.
You don't want that bulbous nose? Move further away.
Want to show the happy couple in the grandeur of nature? Move away from the couple.
Want to emphasise a detail against the background? Move in close.
And so on and so forth.
You will of course also need to change your focal length to something that gives you the framing which you want. The focal length obviously determines, through the angle of view of that particular focal length, how much of the scene you will have in the frame, while your position determines the relative size between foreground and background (and of objects in-between them, of course).
But the first step is to find the position that will give you the wanted relationship between foreground and background. Afterwards, select the focal length for the framing.
Just thought I wanted to clear that up
And spawning its own threads...You have surely noticed that when you are standing closer to something that something appears larger in relationship to the background than when you stand further away, right?
Just thought I wanted to clear that up
See, it's your little nastiness in that post that prompted me to write the OP in this thread.And spawning its own threads...You have surely noticed that when you are standing closer to something that something appears larger in relationship to the background than when you stand further away, right?
Just thought I wanted to clear that up
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57817508
I don't think so. 3D and 2D are rather different.
Exactly - no problem.
Exactly.
And exactly.
You have surely noticed that when you are standing closer to something that something appears larger in relationship to the background than when you stand further away, right?
Like when you stand close to a telephone pole, that pole appears to be much larger than when you stand further away. And it even appears larger agains the background.
You can easily verify this in front of your computer. Look at the top corners of the screen and note their position against the background, eg. a wall.
Now move your head closer to the screen - you will notice that it appears that the corners of the screen are moving outwards with respect to the points on the background. The screen now looks larger with respect to the background.
When you move further away, the screen corners will move inwards, and the screen now looks smaller with respect to the background.
This is of course due to the shift in perspective by moving your observation point back and forth. It is a function of your distance to the foreground and the distance between the foreground and the background in scene.
You see a similar effect if you move the background, while keeping the viewpoint and the foreground still. Move the background further away, it appears smaller with respect to the foreground; move it closer, it appears larger.
And of course you can also keep viewpoint and background fixed, while moving the foreground back and forth. Move the foreground closer to the viewpoint, it will appear larger in relationship to the background. Move it further away, it will appear smaller.
One way of using this effect in photography is to either emphasise or de-emphasise the foreground with respect to the background.
In studio settings you can of course control the position of all three elements to a much larger degree than in non-studio settings. Contrary to popular belief, mountains really are much more difficult to move than a backdrop is
Want that really bulbous nose of your friend? Move in real close to his face, and the nose will appear disproportionally larger than the rest of the face.
You don't want that bulbous nose? Move further away.
Want to show the happy couple in the grandeur of nature? Move away from the couple.
Want to emphasise a detail against the background? Move in close.
And so on and so forth.
You will of course also need to change your focal length to something that gives you the framing which you want. The focal length obviously determines, through the angle of view of that particular focal length, how much of the scene you will have in the frame, while your position determines the relative size between foreground and background (and of objects in-between them, of course).
But the first step is to find the position that will give you the wanted relationship between foreground and background. Afterwards, select the focal length for the framing.
Just thought I wanted to clear that up
My apologies, I think I read an implication in your remarks that you did not intend!
The so-called normal lens is called that because its angle of view bears a certain similarity to the angle of view of your eyes. That angle of view makes you choose a viewpoint that renders an image similar to what you see when you frame with your hands.
I think I can tell you a reason why that article is no longer available. It, like the lens rentals article in the previous thread, and the Navy article that you quoted, conflates the issue of what causes change in perspective. It is not the focal length or the angle of view of the lens; it's your position with regard to the elements in the scheme.
all, not just the
equally
The spatial relationship remains exactly the same as it is a function of the viewpoint with respect to the scene, and not of the angle of view.
Not ignorant, I was entertained.See, it's your little nastiness in that post that prompted me to write the OP in this thread.And spawning its own threads...You have surely noticed that when you are standing closer to something that something appears larger in relationship to the background than when you stand further away, right?
Just thought I wanted to clear that up
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57817508
It's quite OK that you don't care what is what - you can be as ignorant as you choose to be.
Go re-read that post.
That's good. You managed, through your nasty comments to convey a completely different image of your understanding. Particularly when you brush off correct wording and understanding as a game of semantics.Not ignorant,See, it's your little nastiness in that post that prompted me to write the OP in this thread.And spawning its own threads...You have surely noticed that when you are standing closer to something that something appears larger in relationship to the background than when you stand further away, right?
Just thought I wanted to clear that up
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57817508
It's quite OK that you don't care what is what - you can be as ignorant as you choose to be.
And nasty.
No, really ?? Amazing !
I can't believe it !! I need to experiment this, this is so surprising
Thanks for enlightening us, you can't imagine how much I learn from such posts.Just thought I wanted to clear that up
I cannot only imagine, I actually see, that it gave you a much needed chance to exercise your sarcasm. Feeling a bit low on that, recently?No, really ?? Amazing !
I can't believe it !! I need to experiment this, this is so surprising
Thanks for enlightening us, you can't imagine how much I learn from such posts.Just thought I wanted to clear that up
There is apparently also, as evidenced by this other thread, a whole lot of articles that are rubbish on this topic. And the understanding in said thread was unfortunately also rather low.
