Using perspective to your advantage

[Mike CH]

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

 

[LooseLatitude]

I thought it was kind of poetic how the last post was J A C S conceding that in order for focal length to affect compression you have to ***MOVE***

 

[Mike CH]

I thought it was kind of poetic how the last post was J A C S conceding that in order for focal length to affect compression you have to ***MOVE***

;-)

Regards, Mike

 

[talkinghorse]

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

good post - many people seem to think that perspective is a function of focal length when in fact focal length really has nothing to do with it. The only thing a longer focal length gives you is the ability to frame the shot from a greater distance. you could actually shoot the same shot from the exact same place with a wider lens and then crop and you would end up with the same perspective

as you said this is easily seen by just looking at things from different distances - you dont even need a lens to see the change

 

[tony field]

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.

The iPhone Selfie has now made the bulbous nose a mark of a good photograph.

You don't want that bulbous nose? Move further away.

and maybe by a real camera.

 

[Moti]

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.

The iPhone Selfie has now made the bulbous nose a mark of a good photograph.

You don't want that bulbous nose? Move further away.

and maybe by a real camera.

Not necessarily. Even with an iPhone, one have to know how to take good photos. I recently bought an iPhone 6s and I must say the results I get from it are more than satisfying for casual photography, up to the point that I seriously think of selling my RX100.

SOOC, would look much better with a bit of PP.



Cheers,

Moti

--
http://www.musicalpix.com

 

[Mike CH]

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.

The iPhone Selfie has now made the bulbous nose a mark of a good photograph.

You don't want that bulbous nose? Move further away.

and maybe by a real camera.

The principle works for bad cameras, also

But the selfie certainly has popularised the bulbous nose by close-up ability of the smart-phones.

Regards, Mike

 

[Art Jacks]

I prepared the following two images for my wife's photography students to help them understand the points you are describing, I hope you do not mind me adding them your thread ? I could only work with the lens focal lengths that I owned so no extreme long lens.

 

[Mike CH]

I hope you do not mind me adding them your thread ?

Not at all. Thank you for the illustrations - I didn't have any at hand.

Regards, Mike

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Moti wrote:.

Not necessarily. Even with an iPhone, one have to know how to take good photos. I recently bought an iPhone 6s and I must say the results I get from it are more than satisfying for casual photography, up to the point that I seriously think of selling my RX100.

I tend to agree; I use my iPhone 6 for most of my casual photography, although now that I got a Nikon with WiFi I'm using that more.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Filippo Brunelleschi (1377–1446) is widely credited with the invention of a rigorous method of perspective drawing, based on Euclidean geometry; up until his time, perspective was either ignored or applied in a crude or a conventional manner. Medieval painters followed the good photographic principle of 'filling the frame' and so figures would be all over the painted panel, with little concern with foreshortening and such; the introduction of perspective led to the possibility of huge blank areas of land and sky in paintings, a problem which stays with us to this day.

But we should not suppose that this linear perspective is particularly 'natural' for a viewer; indeed, it was reportedly confusing to the first viewers, and Brunelleschi had to construct a box that a viewer would look through in order to understand the perspective view.

I think that perspective in real life is simply something that we take for granted, and is not something we grasp intellectually under most circumstances; this would explain a number of problematic things:

• In discussions of focal length, using the same framing of a particular subject is almost always assumed, and usually is not explicitly mentioned. I never hear of anyone wanting to keep the framing of the distant, out-of-focus mountains in the background the same.
• People usually find perspective trick photography amusing, such as a hand holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa; if perspective were immediately grasped, it wouldn't be amusing at all.
• Vertical lines are expected to remain vertical, frequently leading to beginners' puzzlement when buildings appear to be leaning over in photographs.
• Likewise, beginners sometimes are puzzled about crooked horizons (although some do not notice it at all unless it is pointed out to them) and ask if it is possible to correct this, apparently not seeing that it is a natural outcome of holding the camera with a roll about the lens axis.
• Generally, beginners frequently photograph buildings from whatever angle, expecting something better than what they get, despite the fact that they better appreciate those photos taken along the principal axes of the building and those photos which eliminate vanishing points as much as possible, as well as avoiding camera tilt and roll. These principles appear to be learned, or at least subject to experience and reflection.
• Beginners frequently desire an ultra wide angle lens for landscape photography in order to 'get the whole scene' in the photo, but then they end up with a photograph that does not reproduce the sublimity of the scene, with tiny distant mountains and large, uninteresting expanses dominating the photograph, as mentioned above. The disappointment is quickly apparent, and so many graduate to photographing panoramas; but these are usually uninteresting unless printed large.
• A telephoto lens is often described as bringing the photographer closer to the subject, and even photographers who ought to know better (including myself) describe the technique of 'zooming with your feet'.
• A common beginner problem is photographing a figure (usually a loved one) centered in the frame and relatively distant from the camera, leading to a photograph of a figure surrounded by uninteresting detail. I would think that this indicates the photographer assumes that the figure will appear to the camera the same way it appears to themselves.
• Finally, a common problem is inadvertently cutting off parts of the subject by the frame, which indicates an unclear conception of the image frame, similar to the previous problem.

--

The Refracted Light

A website about the Art and Science of Photography

therefractedlight.blogspot.com

 

[tony field]

Filippo Brunelleschi (1377–1446) is widely credited with the invention of a rigorous method of perspective drawing, based on Euclidean geometry; up until his time, perspective was either ignored or applied in a crude or a conventional manner. Medieval painters followed the good photographic principle of 'filling the frame' and so figures would be all over the painted panel, with little concern with foreshortening and such; the introduction of perspective led to the possibility of huge blank areas of land and sky in paintings, a problem which stays with us to this day.

But we should not suppose that this linear perspective is particularly 'natural' for a viewer; indeed, it was reportedly confusing to the first viewers, and Brunelleschi had to construct a box that a viewer would look through in order to understand the perspective view.

I think that perspective in real life is simply something that we take for granted, and is not something we grasp intellectually under most circumstances; this would explain a number of problematic things:

• In discussions of focal length, using the same framing of a particular subject is almost always assumed, and usually is not explicitly mentioned. I never hear of anyone wanting to keep the framing of the distant, out-of-focus mountains in the background the same.
• People usually find perspective trick photography amusing, such as a hand holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa; if perspective were immediately grasped, it wouldn't be amusing at all.
• Vertical lines are expected to remain vertical, frequently leading to beginners' puzzlement when buildings appear to be leaning over in photographs.
• Likewise, beginners sometimes are puzzled about crooked horizons (although some do not notice it at all unless it is pointed out to them) and ask if it is possible to correct this, apparently not seeing that it is a natural outcome of holding the camera with a roll about the lens axis.
• Generally, beginners frequently photograph buildings from whatever angle, expecting something better than what they get, despite the fact that they better appreciate those photos taken along the principal axes of the building and those photos which eliminate vanishing points as much as possible, as well as avoiding camera tilt and roll. These principles appear to be learned, or at least subject to experience and reflection.
• Beginners frequently desire an ultra wide angle lens for landscape photography in order to 'get the whole scene' in the photo, but then they end up with a photograph that does not reproduce the sublimity of the scene, with tiny distant mountains and large, uninteresting expanses dominating the photograph, as mentioned above. The disappointment is quickly apparent, and so many graduate to photographing panoramas; but these are usually uninteresting unless printed large.
• A telephoto lens is often described as bringing the photographer closer to the subject, and even photographers who ought to know better (including myself) describe the technique of 'zooming with your feet'.
• A common beginner problem is photographing a figure (usually a loved one) centered in the frame and relatively distant from the camera, leading to a photograph of a figure surrounded by uninteresting detail. I would think that this indicates the photographer assumes that the figure will appear to the camera the same way it appears to themselves.
• Finally, a common problem is inadvertently cutting off parts of the subject by the frame, which indicates an unclear conception of the image frame, similar to the previous problem.

Indeed these points are true ... however it is not only the fault of "beginners". It does take some "sense of art" to recognize and correct the problems. Simply describing the process seldom works ... you have to convince them by good demonstration and it is up to them to actually comprehend and try to adjust "how they see".

 

[J A C S]

I thought it was kind of poetic how the last post was J A C S conceding that in order for focal length to affect compression you have to ***MOVE***

I never claimed otherwise and you know this. That makes you dishonest, again.

 

[J A C S]

Actually, when I move my computer back and forth, it does not appear smaller or larger. It appears like what it is. The reason is that human vision is vey different from photography. If I see in in a generic photo, I would not be able to tell the size well, as you say.

 

[LooseLatitude]

I thought it was kind of poetic how the last post was J A C S conceding that in order for focal length to affect compression you have to ***MOVE***

I never claimed otherwise and you know this. That makes you dishonest, again.

You maxed out a whole thread, with multiple people, and you're still going on about whatever you're going on about. Maybe the issue is that no one knows what you're trying to say. I understand what the other people were saying but everyone else keeps having issues with what you're saying.

 

[SilvanBromide]

... I recently bought an iPhone 6s and I must say the results I get from it are more than satisfying for casual photography, up to the point that I seriously think of selling my RX100.

Yes. I upgraded to the 6s last year when my older iPhone bit the dust, and immediately noticed that the IQ the 6s delivers is surprisingly usable - to the point that I find a point-and-shoot or low-to-mid range camera now basically redundant.

 

[Streakshooter]

It's worth noting that the effect is reversed with shadows, though the same principle applies.

 

[LooseLatitude]

It's worth noting that the effect is reversed with shadows, though the same principle applies.

It also applies to movement in video. If you film someone walking towards the camera at a wider focal length they will move quickly compared to a longer focal length even though they cover the same distance.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Indeed these points are true ... however it is not only the fault of "beginners". It does take some "sense of art" to recognize and correct the problems. Simply describing the process seldom works ... you have to convince them by good demonstration and it is up to them to actually comprehend and try to adjust "how they see".

I agree, I had many years of experience before I recognized and solved the 'buildings falling over' problem.

 

[J A C S]

I thought it was kind of poetic how the last post was J A C S conceding that in order for focal length to affect compression you have to **MOVE**

I never claimed otherwise and you know this. That makes you dishonest, again.

You maxed out a whole thread, with multiple people, and you're still going on about whatever you're going on about. Maybe the issue is that no one knows what you're trying to say. I understand what the other people were saying but everyone else keeps having issues with what you're saying.

Would it help if I say it for the 28th time?