If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
"Nostrobino" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... SNIP Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most people use it, it definitely is related to focal length. It is important to understand that perspective is only(!) influenced by distance from the (front) principal point of the lens to the subject. *If* most people use it as a *combination of* distance and field-of-view, they are wrong. Bart |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
"Nostrobino" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01) wrote: what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a digital body (effective 75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens? peter Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most people use it, it definitely is related to focal length. In fact perspective wasn't even invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/ wideangle look If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a wide angle or telephoto look. and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place. This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is irrelevant. The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take two photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto lens. Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in perspective. But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its field of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens, then the perspective would also be exactly the same. Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a wide angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a telephoto lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop out everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done is EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed by what you removed. This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance is focal length times magnification. But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room just so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact, defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place. Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was shot with an ultra-wide lens. This does mean the proper viewing distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact is a given on at least one news list. This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's still nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated. If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm or other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be viewed from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance? READ AND LEARN PLEASE: perspective, (per-spèk¹tîv) in art, any method employed to represent three-dimensional space on a flat or relief surface. Linear perspective, in the modern sense, was probably first formulated in 15th-cent. Florence by the architects Brunelleschi and Alberti. It depends on a system in which objects are foreshortened as they recede into the distance, with lines converging to a vanishing point that corresponds to the spectator's viewpoint. Used by such Renaissance artists as Donatello, Masaccio, and Piero della Francesca, the technique of linear perspective exerted an enormous influence on subsequent Western art. Its use declined in the 20th cent. Aerial (atmospheric) perspective, which is based on the perception that contrasts of color and shade appear greater in near objects than in far, and that warm colors appear to advance and cool colors to recede, was developed primarily by Leonardo da Vinci, in the West, and was often used in East Asian art, where zones of mist were often used to separate near and far space. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
"Nostrobino" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01) wrote: what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a digital body (effective 75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens? peter Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most people use it, it definitely is related to focal length. In fact perspective wasn't even invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/ wideangle look If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a wide angle or telephoto look. and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place. This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is irrelevant. The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take two photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto lens. Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in perspective. But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its field of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens, then the perspective would also be exactly the same. Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a wide angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a telephoto lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop out everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done is EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed by what you removed. This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance is focal length times magnification. But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room just so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact, defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place. Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was shot with an ultra-wide lens. This does mean the proper viewing distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact is a given on at least one news list. This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's still nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated. If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm or other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be viewed from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance? READ AND LEARN PLEASE: perspective, (per-spèk¹tîv) in art, any method employed to represent three-dimensional space on a flat or relief surface. Linear perspective, in the modern sense, was probably first formulated in 15th-cent. Florence by the architects Brunelleschi and Alberti. It depends on a system in which objects are foreshortened as they recede into the distance, with lines converging to a vanishing point that corresponds to the spectator's viewpoint. Used by such Renaissance artists as Donatello, Masaccio, and Piero della Francesca, the technique of linear perspective exerted an enormous influence on subsequent Western art. Its use declined in the 20th cent. Aerial (atmospheric) perspective, which is based on the perception that contrasts of color and shade appear greater in near objects than in far, and that warm colors appear to advance and cool colors to recede, was developed primarily by Leonardo da Vinci, in the West, and was often used in East Asian art, where zones of mist were often used to separate near and far space. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
In article , Nostrobino
writes wrote in message .. . On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01) wrote: what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a digital body (effective 75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens? peter Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most people use it, it definitely is related to focal length. That's not the way most people use it. It means (in this context) the apparent size of various parts of the scene relative to one another. Objects further from the camera are reproduced at smaller magnification than those closer to it, but the percentage change varies as the camera is moved towards or away from the objects. Perspective is determined by position only. Focal length determines field of view. BTW, there is another apparently different use of "perspective" in referring to the convergence of parallel lines which are at an angle to the lens axis. However, on closer analysis, this is in fact exactly the same phenomenon, i.e. the lines appear to get closer together as they get further away from the photographer because the magnification is lower. In fact perspective wasn't even invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/ wideangle look Perspective was well known to artists (well, some artists at any rate) long before railways were built. If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a wide angle or telephoto look. The only reason there is a "telephoto look" is because the pictures are taken from a great distance. and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place. This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is irrelevant. The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take two photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto lens. Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in perspective. No they won't. They will simply see differences in the field of view, and probably at different magnifications (and probably some differences in grain or pixellation). Otherwise the two will be identical. The fact that you think differently suggests that you can never have tried it. But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its field of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens, then the perspective would also be exactly the same. Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a wide angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a telephoto lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop out everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done is EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed by what you removed. No it hasn't. The field of view has been changed; the perspective remains exactly the same. This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance is focal length times magnification. But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room just so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact, defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place. Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was shot with an ultra-wide lens. The only point of defining a print viewing distance is that it aims to put you in the same relative position as that in which the photograph was taken. I agree it's a pretty pointless exercise though, as mostly one wants to have the perspective effect created by the original taking position. This does mean the proper viewing distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact is a given on at least one news list. This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's still nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated. The reason the contrary view has "been often repeated" is that it is true. Most of what you say is totally incorrect; I suggest you try looking in some reputable textbooks. If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm or other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be viewed from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance? One uses a long lens to get a bigger magnification without having to use excessive enlargement post-taking; this would result in very pronounced grain or pixellation, and much lower resolution. -- David Littlewood |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
In article , Nostrobino
writes wrote in message .. . On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01) wrote: what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a digital body (effective 75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens? peter Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most people use it, it definitely is related to focal length. That's not the way most people use it. It means (in this context) the apparent size of various parts of the scene relative to one another. Objects further from the camera are reproduced at smaller magnification than those closer to it, but the percentage change varies as the camera is moved towards or away from the objects. Perspective is determined by position only. Focal length determines field of view. BTW, there is another apparently different use of "perspective" in referring to the convergence of parallel lines which are at an angle to the lens axis. However, on closer analysis, this is in fact exactly the same phenomenon, i.e. the lines appear to get closer together as they get further away from the photographer because the magnification is lower. In fact perspective wasn't even invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/ wideangle look Perspective was well known to artists (well, some artists at any rate) long before railways were built. If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a wide angle or telephoto look. The only reason there is a "telephoto look" is because the pictures are taken from a great distance. and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place. This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is irrelevant. The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take two photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto lens. Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in perspective. No they won't. They will simply see differences in the field of view, and probably at different magnifications (and probably some differences in grain or pixellation). Otherwise the two will be identical. The fact that you think differently suggests that you can never have tried it. But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its field of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens, then the perspective would also be exactly the same. Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a wide angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a telephoto lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop out everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done is EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed by what you removed. No it hasn't. The field of view has been changed; the perspective remains exactly the same. This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance is focal length times magnification. But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room just so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact, defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place. Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was shot with an ultra-wide lens. The only point of defining a print viewing distance is that it aims to put you in the same relative position as that in which the photograph was taken. I agree it's a pretty pointless exercise though, as mostly one wants to have the perspective effect created by the original taking position. This does mean the proper viewing distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact is a given on at least one news list. This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's still nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated. The reason the contrary view has "been often repeated" is that it is true. Most of what you say is totally incorrect; I suggest you try looking in some reputable textbooks. If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm or other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be viewed from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance? One uses a long lens to get a bigger magnification without having to use excessive enlargement post-taking; this would result in very pronounced grain or pixellation, and much lower resolution. -- David Littlewood |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
"Nostrobino" writes:
wrote in message ... On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01) wrote: what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a digital body (effective 75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens? peter Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most people use it, it definitely is related to focal length. Um, no. If you show people two photos taken from the exact same location with widely differing focal lengths and ask them if the perspective is the same or different, they'll either have no idea what you're talking about, or decide it's the same in the two photos. If you're standing on a spot and want to change the perspective of your view, changing lenses will not help. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
"Nostrobino" writes:
wrote in message ... On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01) wrote: what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a digital body (effective 75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens? peter Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most people use it, it definitely is related to focal length. Um, no. If you show people two photos taken from the exact same location with widely differing focal lengths and ask them if the perspective is the same or different, they'll either have no idea what you're talking about, or decide it's the same in the two photos. If you're standing on a spot and want to change the perspective of your view, changing lenses will not help. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
"David Littlewood" wrote in message ... In article , Nostrobino writes wrote in message .. . On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01) wrote: what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a digital body (effective 75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens? peter Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most people use it, it definitely is related to focal length. That's not the way most people use it. You've never heard anyone speak of "wide-angle perspective" for example? It means (in this context) the apparent size of various parts of the scene relative to one another. Objects further from the camera are reproduced at smaller magnification than those closer to it, but the percentage change varies as the camera is moved towards or away from the objects. Yes. However, a wide-angle lens includes more objects and therefore has more and different relationships, than a long lens. Wide-angle lenses tend to exaggerate differences in distance, while telephoto (or more correctly, long-focus lenses whether they are true telephotos or not) produce the effect of spatial compression. These are clearly differences in perspective, as it is perceived by the viewer. Perspective is determined by position only. Focal length determines field of view. If that were true, wide-angle photos and long-lens photos would appear to have the same perspective. They do not. I know you know this as well as I do. BTW, there is another apparently different use of "perspective" in referring to the convergence of parallel lines which are at an angle to the lens axis. However, on closer analysis, this is in fact exactly the same phenomenon, i.e. the lines appear to get closer together as they get further away from the photographer because the magnification is lower. In fact perspective wasn't even invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/ wideangle look Perspective was well known to artists (well, some artists at any rate) long before railways were built. If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a wide angle or telephoto look. The only reason there is a "telephoto look" is because the pictures are taken from a great distance. Wide-angle photos taken from the same distance do not have a "telephoto look," do they? If I shoot buildings with an ultra-wide lens with the camera tilted upward, the sides of those buildings will converge toward the top in a way that appears very distorted, very spatially exaggerated. This is clearly a matter of perspective, and meets every ordinary definition for perspective. If I shoot the same buildings from the same position with a long lens, there will be no such effect; on the contrary there will be a flattening and spatial compression as verticals are made more parallel and distance differences are made to appear less. This too is a perspective. and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place. This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is irrelevant. The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take two photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto lens. Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in perspective. No they won't. They will simply see differences in the field of view, and probably at different magnifications (and probably some differences in grain or pixellation). Otherwise the two will be identical. The fact that you think differently suggests that you can never have tried it. Of course I've tried it. Try it yourself, in the example I've given just above. But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its field of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens, then the perspective would also be exactly the same. Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a wide angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a telephoto lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop out everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done is EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed by what you removed. No it hasn't. The field of view has been changed; the perspective remains exactly the same. Changing the field of view (from the same position) CHANGES the perspective, is what I am saying. This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance is focal length times magnification. But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room just so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact, defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place. Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was shot with an ultra-wide lens. The only point of defining a print viewing distance is that it aims to put you in the same relative position as that in which the photograph was taken. I agree it's a pretty pointless exercise though, as mostly one wants to have the perspective effect created by the original taking position. And focal length, yes. This does mean the proper viewing distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact is a given on at least one news list. This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's still nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated. The reason the contrary view has "been often repeated" is that it is true. Most of what you say is totally incorrect; I suggest you try looking in some reputable textbooks. I understand perfectly what you and your "reputable textbooks" are claiming. I am saying that it's demonstrably wrong, which you can easily prove to yourself. Just remember that perspective is something that involves THE WHOLE PICTURE. Once you accept that, your argument collapses. If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm or other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be viewed from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance? One uses a long lens to get a bigger magnification without having to use excessive enlargement post-taking; this would result in very pronounced grain or pixellation, and much lower resolution. Those things aren't what matters as much as perspective. With 35mm for example, why does anyone use a 105mm or so lens for portraiture? Because a longish lens gives a more flattering perspective. You could use a 28mm lens and move in to fill the frame just the same, couldn't you? But the results would be horrid. Perspective is what makes the difference. If you used the 28mm from the original 105mm position would the perspective be the same (this is what you're claiming, right)? No, it would not. The 28 would produce not only a smaller image of the subject, but also more convergence in parallel lines outside of the subject and, all in all, the wide-angle perspective that you claim does not exist--but which anyone can, in fact, see with their own eyes. How often do you have to see a certain look with your own eyes before you admit that that look does, in fact, exist? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
"David Littlewood" wrote in message ... In article , Nostrobino writes wrote in message .. . On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01) wrote: what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a digital body (effective 75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens? peter Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most people use it, it definitely is related to focal length. That's not the way most people use it. You've never heard anyone speak of "wide-angle perspective" for example? It means (in this context) the apparent size of various parts of the scene relative to one another. Objects further from the camera are reproduced at smaller magnification than those closer to it, but the percentage change varies as the camera is moved towards or away from the objects. Yes. However, a wide-angle lens includes more objects and therefore has more and different relationships, than a long lens. Wide-angle lenses tend to exaggerate differences in distance, while telephoto (or more correctly, long-focus lenses whether they are true telephotos or not) produce the effect of spatial compression. These are clearly differences in perspective, as it is perceived by the viewer. Perspective is determined by position only. Focal length determines field of view. If that were true, wide-angle photos and long-lens photos would appear to have the same perspective. They do not. I know you know this as well as I do. BTW, there is another apparently different use of "perspective" in referring to the convergence of parallel lines which are at an angle to the lens axis. However, on closer analysis, this is in fact exactly the same phenomenon, i.e. the lines appear to get closer together as they get further away from the photographer because the magnification is lower. In fact perspective wasn't even invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/ wideangle look Perspective was well known to artists (well, some artists at any rate) long before railways were built. If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a wide angle or telephoto look. The only reason there is a "telephoto look" is because the pictures are taken from a great distance. Wide-angle photos taken from the same distance do not have a "telephoto look," do they? If I shoot buildings with an ultra-wide lens with the camera tilted upward, the sides of those buildings will converge toward the top in a way that appears very distorted, very spatially exaggerated. This is clearly a matter of perspective, and meets every ordinary definition for perspective. If I shoot the same buildings from the same position with a long lens, there will be no such effect; on the contrary there will be a flattening and spatial compression as verticals are made more parallel and distance differences are made to appear less. This too is a perspective. and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place. This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is irrelevant. The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take two photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto lens. Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in perspective. No they won't. They will simply see differences in the field of view, and probably at different magnifications (and probably some differences in grain or pixellation). Otherwise the two will be identical. The fact that you think differently suggests that you can never have tried it. Of course I've tried it. Try it yourself, in the example I've given just above. But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its field of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens, then the perspective would also be exactly the same. Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a wide angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a telephoto lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop out everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done is EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed by what you removed. No it hasn't. The field of view has been changed; the perspective remains exactly the same. Changing the field of view (from the same position) CHANGES the perspective, is what I am saying. This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance is focal length times magnification. But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room just so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact, defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place. Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was shot with an ultra-wide lens. The only point of defining a print viewing distance is that it aims to put you in the same relative position as that in which the photograph was taken. I agree it's a pretty pointless exercise though, as mostly one wants to have the perspective effect created by the original taking position. And focal length, yes. This does mean the proper viewing distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact is a given on at least one news list. This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's still nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated. The reason the contrary view has "been often repeated" is that it is true. Most of what you say is totally incorrect; I suggest you try looking in some reputable textbooks. I understand perfectly what you and your "reputable textbooks" are claiming. I am saying that it's demonstrably wrong, which you can easily prove to yourself. Just remember that perspective is something that involves THE WHOLE PICTURE. Once you accept that, your argument collapses. If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm or other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be viewed from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance? One uses a long lens to get a bigger magnification without having to use excessive enlargement post-taking; this would result in very pronounced grain or pixellation, and much lower resolution. Those things aren't what matters as much as perspective. With 35mm for example, why does anyone use a 105mm or so lens for portraiture? Because a longish lens gives a more flattering perspective. You could use a 28mm lens and move in to fill the frame just the same, couldn't you? But the results would be horrid. Perspective is what makes the difference. If you used the 28mm from the original 105mm position would the perspective be the same (this is what you're claiming, right)? No, it would not. The 28 would produce not only a smaller image of the subject, but also more convergence in parallel lines outside of the subject and, all in all, the wide-angle perspective that you claim does not exist--but which anyone can, in fact, see with their own eyes. How often do you have to see a certain look with your own eyes before you admit that that look does, in fact, exist? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
perspective w/ 35mm lenses?
"DSphotog" wrote in message . net... "Nostrobino" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On 16 Jul 2004 02:16:09 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01) wrote: what i'm really trying to get is this....would a 50mm lens used on a digital body (effective 75mm coverage) be an acceptable portrait lens? peter Actually, it will not make any deifference at all. Lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. That depends on how you use the term "perspective." In the way that most people use it, it definitely is related to focal length. In fact perspective wasn't even invintet until railroads became popular. There is no such thing as a telephoto/wide angle look. I just looks like there is a telephoto/ wideangle look If it "just LOOKS" that way, then obviously there IS such a thing as a wide angle or telephoto look. and if you really knew how to look, it wouldn't look like there is a telephoto/wideangle to look at in the first place. This is the fallacy of that whole argument. People look at photos as they are, and any different appearance "if [they] really knew how to look" is irrelevant. The way this argument usually goes is something like this: If you take two photos of the same subject from the same position they have the same perspective, whether you shoot with a wide angle, normal or telephoto lens. Anyone who actually does this will see VERY OBVIOUS differences in perspective. But the argument goes along these lines: Aha, but if you took the central portion of the wide angle shot and enlarged it so that its field of view would be exactly the same as that of the normal or tele lens, then the perspective would also be exactly the same. Yes, that's true, but people DON'T do that. The full shot taken with a wide angle lens has a wide-angle perspective, and the shot taken with a telephoto lens has a telephoto perspective. If you take a wide-angle shot and crop out everything except what would appear in a telephoto shot, all you've done is EMULATED the telephoto lens. The original PERSPECTIVE has been destroyed by what you removed. This can be proven by always using a 7mm lens (any format) and adding a twelve foot post to your enlarger. You do have to protect your wideangle prints from nose gease because the proper viewing distance is focal length times magnification. But no one CARES about "proper viewing distance." If we see a shot taken with a very long telephoto, we do not put it at the far end of a room just so we can look at it in the "proper perspective." That would, in fact, defeat the whole purpose of using a long lens in the first place. Similarly, no one puts his nose down on the print just because it was shot with an ultra-wide lens. This does mean the proper viewing distance for an 8X10inch print from a full from a 35mm camera equiped with a 500mm lens is eighty inches. Everyone know all this and in fact is a given on at least one news list. This sort of nonsense has been often repeated, that much is true. It's still nonsense, no matter how often it's repeated. If it were true and/or relevant, no one would ever bother using a 500mm or other long tele lens. What would be the point, if the print had to be viewed from some unnaturally and inconveniently long distance? READ AND LEARN PLEASE: perspective, (per-spèk¹tîv) in art, any method employed to represent three-dimensional space on a flat or relief surface. Linear perspective, in the modern sense, was probably first formulated in 15th-cent. Florence by the architects Brunelleschi and Alberti. It depends on a system in which objects are foreshortened as they recede into the distance, with lines converging to a vanishing point that corresponds to the spectator's viewpoint. Used by such Renaissance artists as Donatello, Masaccio, and Piero della Francesca, the technique of linear perspective exerted an enormous influence on subsequent Western art. Its use declined in the 20th cent. Aerial (atmospheric) perspective, which is based on the perception that contrasts of color and shade appear greater in near objects than in far, and that warm colors appear to advance and cool colors to recede, was developed primarily by Leonardo da Vinci, in the West, and was often used in East Asian art, where zones of mist were often used to separate near and far space. Yes, there are several definitions for perspective. Here are some from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lanuage, Third Edition: per·spec·tive (p?r-spek'tiv) noun 1. The technique of representing three-dimensional objects and depth relationships on a two-dimensional surface. 2. a. A view or vista. b. A mental view or outlook: "It is useful occasionally to look at the past to gain a perspective on the present" (Fabian Linden). 3. The appearance of objects in depth as perceived by normal binocular vision. 4. a. The relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole: a perspective of history; a need to view the problem in the proper perspective. b. Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view: the perspective of the displaced homemaker. c. The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance: tried to keep my perspective throughout the crisis. These are ordinary, everyday definitions in Standard English., which everyone can easily understand. Note that there is NOTHING in them--any of them--which declares that distance alone must be the determinant of perspective. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can Nikon DX lenses be used on 35mm bodies? | Paul Crowder | Digital Photography | 6 | July 11th 04 09:32 PM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
35mm C vs 35mm N mamiya 645 lenses | Stacey | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | May 16th 04 07:06 AM |
Asking advice | Bugs Bunny | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 69 | March 9th 04 06:42 AM |
FA: Ricoh KR-10 35mm Camera, lenses, flash extras | jon | Other Photographic Equipment | 1 | February 8th 04 11:10 PM |