perspective w/ 35mm lenses?

Nostrobino wrote:

All that was covered in my very first post, which I suggest you read since I
don't want to repeat it all over and over and over again.

The problem is that you are utterly and completely wrong about it, and saying
that you already said it before doesn't make your previous comments correct.

Your issue seems to be that you are using a different definition of the word
"perspective" than the rest of the world is. That's fine, I guess, but when
you invent your own meanings for words, communication is going to become
troublesome for you.

Perspective is a quality of the ENTIRE PICTURE. When you crop out a large
part of the picture, you change the perspective.

Cropping out a large part of the picture changes the perspective only when
you have invented your own meaning of the word "perspective". For the rest
of us, the perspective has not changed, only the field of view.

No location change. Wide-angle lens = wide-angle perspective. Telephoto lens
= telephoto perspective. Again, all covered previously, several times.

And it was just as wrong then as it is now.

No, you're correct. What I meant was that I have taken wide-angle shots of
buildings and long-lens shots of the same and/or similar buildings, not
necessarily from the same location since I had no reason to do that. The
wide-angle shots all LOOK like wide-angle shots, i.e. they have the
"wide-angle look" which others here are claiming there is no such thing as;
and the long-lens shots all have the "telephoto look" which, again, people
on the other side of the argument are claiming does not and cannot exist.

It is not the perspective that gives the pictures the "look" you are
talking about.

--
Jeremy |

Nostrobino wrote:

All that was covered in my very first post, which I suggest you read since I
don't want to repeat it all over and over and over again.

The problem is that you are utterly and completely wrong about it, and saying
that you already said it before doesn't make your previous comments correct.

Your issue seems to be that you are using a different definition of the word
"perspective" than the rest of the world is. That's fine, I guess, but when
you invent your own meanings for words, communication is going to become
troublesome for you.

Perspective is a quality of the ENTIRE PICTURE. When you crop out a large
part of the picture, you change the perspective.

Cropping out a large part of the picture changes the perspective only when
you have invented your own meaning of the word "perspective". For the rest
of us, the perspective has not changed, only the field of view.

No location change. Wide-angle lens = wide-angle perspective. Telephoto lens
= telephoto perspective. Again, all covered previously, several times.

And it was just as wrong then as it is now.

No, you're correct. What I meant was that I have taken wide-angle shots of
buildings and long-lens shots of the same and/or similar buildings, not
necessarily from the same location since I had no reason to do that. The
wide-angle shots all LOOK like wide-angle shots, i.e. they have the
"wide-angle look" which others here are claiming there is no such thing as;
and the long-lens shots all have the "telephoto look" which, again, people
on the other side of the argument are claiming does not and cannot exist.

It is not the perspective that gives the pictures the "look" you are
talking about.

--
Jeremy |

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:

And what is it about the picture that conveys its field of view?

Er... its field of view. I don't know what you're even asking.

What I'm asking is, How can you tell what the field of view is by looking at
the picture? SOMETHING tells you it's a wide or narrow field of view,
obviously. But what?


You can
see more stuff with a wide field of view, in a greater range of
directions.
It's rather self-evident.

Yes, but how do you know?

In the example I used before, if you take a photo of a house with a 24mm
lens from 24 feet away, and another photo of the same house with a 200mm
lens from 200 feet away, the house will be the same size on both prints. Yet
one photo will have a "wide-angle look" and the other will have a "telephoto
look," despite the fact that you deny any such looks actually exist. So if
you're right, how can you tell anything about the field of view? If the
house fills the frame in both shots, you will have nothing else to judge
field of view by--nothing but the house itself. So how will you know, if as
you insist there are no different "looks" between such lenses?

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:

And what is it about the picture that conveys its field of view?

Er... its field of view. I don't know what you're even asking.

What I'm asking is, How can you tell what the field of view is by looking at
the picture? SOMETHING tells you it's a wide or narrow field of view,
obviously. But what?


You can
see more stuff with a wide field of view, in a greater range of
directions.
It's rather self-evident.

Yes, but how do you know?

In the example I used before, if you take a photo of a house with a 24mm
lens from 24 feet away, and another photo of the same house with a 200mm
lens from 200 feet away, the house will be the same size on both prints. Yet
one photo will have a "wide-angle look" and the other will have a "telephoto
look," despite the fact that you deny any such looks actually exist. So if
you're right, how can you tell anything about the field of view? If the
house fills the frame in both shots, you will have nothing else to judge
field of view by--nothing but the house itself. So how will you know, if as
you insist there are no different "looks" between such lenses?

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:

For example, take a shot of a house with a 24mm lens from 24 feet away,
and
a shot of the same house with a 200mm lens from 200 feet away. In both
shots
the house will be the same size on the print (i.e., the same final
magnification), but it will look RADICALLY different in the two shots.
The
24mm shot will have the "wide-angle look" which you claim does not
exist,
and the 200mm shot will have the "telephoto look" which you also claim
does
not exist.

You've changed the perspective in that example, by moving to a different
position. If you had stayed at the same position, the perspective would
not have changed.

So you now agree that there IS a "wide-angle look" after all, and it is also
a wide-angle perspective?

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:

For example, take a shot of a house with a 24mm lens from 24 feet away,
and
a shot of the same house with a 200mm lens from 200 feet away. In both
shots
the house will be the same size on the print (i.e., the same final
magnification), but it will look RADICALLY different in the two shots.
The
24mm shot will have the "wide-angle look" which you claim does not
exist,
and the 200mm shot will have the "telephoto look" which you also claim
does
not exist.

You've changed the perspective in that example, by moving to a different
position. If you had stayed at the same position, the perspective would
not have changed.

So you now agree that there IS a "wide-angle look" after all, and it is also
a wide-angle perspective?

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:
[ . . . ]
Perspective is a quality of the ENTIRE PICTURE. When you crop out a
large
part of the picture, you change the perspective.

Cropping out a large part of the picture changes the perspective only when
you have invented your own meaning of the word "perspective". For the
rest
of us, the perspective has not changed, only the field of view.

You are not answering my earlier argument. The perspective of any picture
(photo or otherwise) is made up of several elements--vanishing points,
parallel lines converging into the distance, and so on.

If you don't understand this, you ought to get a book on the basics of
perspective before we proceed further. Any good library that has books on
drawing, etc., should have something that covers this subject.

Once you have gained an understanding of that, you should realize this: ALL
the elements that contribute to the perspective of any picture do just that.
There are no such elements in the picture that DO NOT contribute to the
perspective. When you start throwing those elements away willy-nilly (as by
radical cropping), you are also changing the perspective of the picture.
What remains is still a perspective of some sort, but not the ORIGINAL
perspective.

For this reason it is false to say that you can crop a wide-angle photo down
to the point where it looks like a telephoto shot and "the perspective will
still be the same." The perspective of THE PART YOU HAVE LEFT will still be
the same as that part was in the original, of course. No one has ever
disputed that, and it's irrelevant anyway. You could cut a wide-angle photo
up into a dozen pieces; each piece would have its own perspective, and none
would be the ORIGINAL perspective.

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
Nostrobino wrote:
[ . . . ]
Perspective is a quality of the ENTIRE PICTURE. When you crop out a
large
part of the picture, you change the perspective.

Cropping out a large part of the picture changes the perspective only when
you have invented your own meaning of the word "perspective". For the
rest
of us, the perspective has not changed, only the field of view.

You are not answering my earlier argument. The perspective of any picture
(photo or otherwise) is made up of several elements--vanishing points,
parallel lines converging into the distance, and so on.

If you don't understand this, you ought to get a book on the basics of
perspective before we proceed further. Any good library that has books on
drawing, etc., should have something that covers this subject.

Once you have gained an understanding of that, you should realize this: ALL
the elements that contribute to the perspective of any picture do just that.
There are no such elements in the picture that DO NOT contribute to the
perspective. When you start throwing those elements away willy-nilly (as by
radical cropping), you are also changing the perspective of the picture.
What remains is still a perspective of some sort, but not the ORIGINAL
perspective.

For this reason it is false to say that you can crop a wide-angle photo down
to the point where it looks like a telephoto shot and "the perspective will
still be the same." The perspective of THE PART YOU HAVE LEFT will still be
the same as that part was in the original, of course. No one has ever
disputed that, and it's irrelevant anyway. You could cut a wide-angle photo
up into a dozen pieces; each piece would have its own perspective, and none
would be the ORIGINAL perspective.

In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

Certainly not, because perspective is a function of the picture in its
entirety. When you crop out parts of the picture as you describe, you
change
its perspective.

so if i take a print and then crop away parts of it by cutting it with
scissors, i am changing the perspective of the remaining parts of the
picture?

Exactly.

ok, how does the inner portion of a picture change by cutting the outer
portion off? or better yet, what if i just put my hands over the outer
portion, blocking it from view. same net effect, but no paper cutting,
and the ability to 'undo' it at any time.

great! no more need to buy expensive and heavy telephoto lenses when i
can get the same effect with just scissors!

I am always glad to be of help.

you are a great help - for today's entertainment. for that, i am
grateful.

However, telephoto lenses are useful anyway since they allow you to get
telephoto perspective without having to cut away most of that paper that you
paid for, which is not only a waste of materials but also tends to result in
rather tiny final prints. But you knew that anyway, right?

i know that paper, even a fair amount of it, weighs less and certainly
costs substantially less than a bulky heavy telephoto lens. infact, it
can replace several different telephoto lenses. therefore, i don't
really mind a little waste. its even less fragile too. all in all, a
win-win. the only glitch i see is that it is easier to bring a
telephoto lens thru airport security than it is to bring scissors.
maybe i'll keep a telephoto lens just for air travel.

In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Nostrobino
wrote:

Certainly not, because perspective is a function of the picture in its
entirety. When you crop out parts of the picture as you describe, you
change
its perspective.

so if i take a print and then crop away parts of it by cutting it with
scissors, i am changing the perspective of the remaining parts of the
picture?

Exactly.

ok, how does the inner portion of a picture change by cutting the outer
portion off? or better yet, what if i just put my hands over the outer
portion, blocking it from view. same net effect, but no paper cutting,
and the ability to 'undo' it at any time.

great! no more need to buy expensive and heavy telephoto lenses when i
can get the same effect with just scissors!

I am always glad to be of help.

you are a great help - for today's entertainment. for that, i am
grateful.

However, telephoto lenses are useful anyway since they allow you to get
telephoto perspective without having to cut away most of that paper that you
paid for, which is not only a waste of materials but also tends to result in
rather tiny final prints. But you knew that anyway, right?

i know that paper, even a fair amount of it, weighs less and certainly
costs substantially less than a bulky heavy telephoto lens. infact, it
can replace several different telephoto lenses. therefore, i don't
really mind a little waste. its even less fragile too. all in all, a
win-win. the only glitch i see is that it is easier to bring a
telephoto lens thru airport security than it is to bring scissors.
maybe i'll keep a telephoto lens just for air travel.