Enough of this perspective non sense..

[Daniella68313]

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

 

[Lee Jay]

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.

They don't. Perspective is a function of shooting location. Do I have to prove this to you? Try it yourself. Go out and take two shots from exactly the same location with two different focal lengths that are different by a factor of two (use the same f-stop). Now crop the wider image to the same field-of-view as the longer image. Now reduce the resolution of the longer image to the same as the cropped wider image. The result is the same image.

Lee Jay

 

[Daniella68313]

please read the article and we'll talk later..

becasue I can see that you have not read one bit of it.

 

[Steingrim]

Check out :

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Perspective_01.htm

If the subjects are framed equally, then the focal length affects the resulting perspective. I guess that is what Daniella is talking about.

 

[Lee Jay]

Check out :

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Perspective_01.htm

If the subjects are framed equally, then the focal length affects
the resulting perspective. I guess that is what Daniella is talking
about.

Images b&c are what I was talking about. Image D is different because the position of the observer changed. Position is what controlls perspective.

Lee Jay

 

[Lee Jay]

please read the article and we'll talk later..

becasue I can see that you have not read one bit of it.

I did read it, although not quite all of it until this post. What I'm saying is that it isn't right.

Perspective is a matter of position.

What the article calls "constancy" is a bit different.

Let's say you are standing at point X. You snap a shot with a 600mm lens and print the result at 8x10. If you now put that 8x10 into the original scene, quite a ways away from the observer so that it exactly obscures the field-of-view that it covers, you can't even tell it's there (except for paralax and focus distance).

If you take a shot of the same scene, from the same place, with a 35mm lens, print the result at 8x10, you'll need the print much closer to you to obscure its field of view.

For "constancy" to be maintained always, you'll need an 8mm fisheye and to print the result on the inside of a sphere. Then you'll have to place the sphere so that it obscures all of your vision.

So "constancy" is a function of matching the print size and viewing distance to the field-of-view of the original so that the field-of-view of the print is the same.

Lee Jay

 

[jackal]

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

What's the controversy? The linked article describes and illustrates perspective as a function of distance. It muddles the issue a little with declarations that certain perspectives correspond to certain focal lengths, but even these follow statements regarding distance.

I see these debates about perspective largely as puffed-up semantic battles between people who define the problem in terms of framing v. those who define it in terms of distance. In my view only one of these arguments is technically correct, but the other is conversationally reasonable.

 

[Pappie]

Now that was a good read and good info! Thanks, just the stuff I'm always looking for.

 

[Rusty1]

This is the type information and discussion I wish we had more of.
--
Good luck and good shooting.

Regards Rusty

 

[Pappie]

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.

 

[Daniella68313]

please read the article and we'll talk later..

becasue I can see that you have not read one bit of it.

I did read it, although not quite all of it until this post. What
I'm saying is that it isn't right.

Perspective is a matter of position.

sure, we all know that..but that is not the entire story. What I was more concerned about is not really the perspective from one specific point of vue..we all agree that does not change.

However, I was refering to the way wide angle photo look deep and telephone shot look flat. That article pretty much sums up my thought about it.

What the article calls "constancy" is a bit different.

Let's say you are standing at point X. You snap a shot with a
600mm lens and print the result at 8x10. If you now put that 8x10
into the original scene, quite a ways away from the observer so
that it exactly obscures the field-of-view that it covers, you
can't even tell it's there (except for paralax and focus distance).

yes, but if you take each image full frame..they feel totaly different for depth. One give the impression (false) that all object are father than they really are..whereas the other give the false impression that there is no distance between objects, or they are very close. I am not talking about taking a crop out of one image to match another...but the way they both feel with the full size image is viewed..as they are intended to be anyway.

I am only interested in how they feel for depth.

 

[Daniella68313]

Check out :

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Perspective_01.htm

If the subjects are framed equally, then the focal length affects
the resulting perspective. I guess that is what Daniella is talking
about.

In a way yes..that is part of what I was trying to say..but also that if you take a full size image taken in wide angle...it looks deep..very deep.. overall the telephoto images look and feel flat.

In this article, he describe well what I was concerned with and when he categorize perspective type A, B etc and give them appropriate focal length..I think that is an interesting way of looking at it.

--
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

 

[Daniella68313]

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

What's the controversy? The linked article describes and
illustrates perspective as a function of distance. It muddles the
issue a little with declarations that certain perspectives
correspond to certain focal lengths, but even these follow
statements regarding distance.

yes but it explain very well why certain focal length feel deep and why some like the telephoto feel flat.

I see these debates about perspective largely as puffed-up semantic
battles between people who define the problem in terms of framing
v. those who define it in terms of distance. In my view only one of
these arguments is technically correct, but the other is
conversationally reasonable.

I think people are just too much stuck on only one way of looking at perspective, without considering how focal length affect the way we perceive it.

--
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

 

[Daniella68313]

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.

I think you have to be a bit of an artist to see out of the box in this. The article is technical yet it does go out of the box.

do you have a web site for your paintings? I would like to see them if possible?

--
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

 

[Steingrim]

Check out :

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Perspective_01.htm

If the subjects are framed equally, then the focal length affects
the resulting perspective. I guess that is what Daniella is talking
about.

Images b&c are what I was talking about. Image D is different
because the position of the observer changed. Position is what
controlls perspective.

Lee Jay

Given that the framing is the same. To keep the framing the same, you need to change focal length as you change position. Look at it from the other direction, and we may say that to keep framing the same, you need to change position as you change focal length. So perspective within the same frame is affected by both focal length AND position.

The trick here is that anyone can change position - it is just a matter of taking a few steps. But once you changed position you can't get by with that same prime if you're going to keep the same subjectes within frame, and therefore focal length is the most crucial component to changing perspective.

 

[Steingrim]

In reality, perspective is a function of the angle of view caught within the frame or crop you are left with. If you go wide angle then crop, then the resulting angle of view corresponds to that of a tele shot.

Check out :

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Perspective_01.htm

If the subjects are framed equally, then the focal length affects
the resulting perspective. I guess that is what Daniella is talking
about.

In a way yes..that is part of what I was trying to say..but also
that if you take a full size image taken in wide angle...it looks
deep..very deep.. overall the telephoto images look and feel flat.

In this article, he describe well what I was concerned with and
when he categorize perspective type A, B etc and give them
appropriate focal length..I think that is an interesting way of
looking at it.

--
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

 

[stephenmelvin]

"The 50mm prime lens is still the best!"

What a steaming load...

It ignores the camera maker's initial reasons for standardizing on the 50mm "normal" lens. Beside just being "in the middle," it was the shortest focal length you could attach to an SLR before the introduction of retrofocus wide angle lenses.

The perspective from a 50 is just about the worst you can get on a 24 x 36mm camera, with only the 35mm lens being close, which should be no surprise, since they're about equidistant from the true "normal" focal length of 43mm.

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.

Herber Keppler once wrote (I think it was in Modern Photography) that he had no use for lenses longer than 28mm and shorter than 85mm, and I realized that he had put into words something I had felt for a long long time. That middle range is as boring as Bud Light and Wonder Bread. Have great pictures been taken in that range? Sure. But they probably would have been better if the photographer had moved in with a wide, or backed up with a tele.

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.

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

 

[Daniella68313]

In reality, perspective is a function of the angle of view caught
within the frame or crop you are left with. If you go wide angle
then crop, then the resulting angle of view corresponds to that of
a tele shot.

yep..but who work that way? no one will do this because that'S not practical. if you crop you get the same thing but at way too low res...

In real life, I use wide angle when I want to accentuate distance beteen objects, and I use telephoto when I want to make objects look closer to each other, full frame considered here.

Check out :

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Perspective_01.htm

If the subjects are framed equally, then the focal length affects
the resulting perspective. I guess that is what Daniella is talking
about.

In a way yes..that is part of what I was trying to say..but also
that if you take a full size image taken in wide angle...it looks
deep..very deep.. overall the telephoto images look and feel flat.

In this article, he describe well what I was concerned with and
when he categorize perspective type A, B etc and give them
appropriate focal length..I think that is an interesting way of
looking at it.

--
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

--
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

 

[KevinDufff]

this link 3 times!

I have tried to avoid getting involved in this argument this time as you still seem to think that EVERONE is wrong!

Forget about the lens, what is important here is the distance between the capture device(film, tape, sensor, you choose) and the objects in front of you.

If you move closer, the distance between them will appear to grow, if you move further away, the distance wil appear the shrink.

That article it based on moving around to accomodate the lens, a different argument!

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

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

 

[Daniella68313]

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.

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.

Herber Keppler once wrote (I think it was in Modern Photography)
that he had no use for lenses longer than 28mm and shorter than
85mm, and I realized that he had put into words something I had
felt for a long long time. That middle range is as boring as Bud
Light and Wonder Bread. Have great pictures been taken in that
range? Sure. But they probably would have been better if the
photographer had moved in with a wide, or backed up with a tele.

ahh now you're talking. I think it is his conclusion too..he simply said that to keep the perspective true to life one should stay around 50mm..to get more creative go wide and telephoto. At least that is what I understood from the conclusion.

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.

now you're surely not into birding.

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

--
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