Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: New photo on flickr....
Next: Indy Car
From: Shiva Das on 31 Jul 2010 22:01 In article <i3214l$221$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message > news:gpSdnVmNOMIQ6cnRnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > David Ruether wrote: > >> "Robert Coe"<bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message > news:mu98569mi10a4puo7vuv1eu5c384qnighl(a)4ax.com... > > >>> And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as > >>> unfamiliar as > >>> they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a > >>> way > >>> that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and > >>> rotate > >>> your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your > >>> glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit > >>> counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the > >>> scene > >>> that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon > >>> level > >>> while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as > >>> level, even when the camera doesn't. > >>> > >>> Bob > > >> Hmmm.... If you stuck an empty picture frame out in front of you and > >> did the same thing, you would see the same thing, but it's just a tilted > >> frame (so what...?). > > > I can relate to the way he describes it. It's really hard for me to see > > things objectively, even through a viewfinder, till I get > > home & see it again out of context. Chimping helps... or even squinting... > > or just making the effort to step back (in my mind) but > > it doesn't come natural. > > Ah, THAT was the value of a good, sharp, contrasty SLR viewing screen > from the old days, combined with a DOF preview button and a "high > eyepoint" VF. You could see the composition in a well-defined rectangle > within a larger field of black, with the brights/darks compositionally > exaggerated by using the DOF button to darken the VF image. > --DR One of the reasons I still shoot medium and large format is the easy ability to look "at" the composition on the focusing screen rather than "through" an eye-level viewfinder. I've always found it easier to evaluate the image as a 2-dimensional composition that way.
From: David J Taylor on 1 Aug 2010 01:19 "Shiva Das" <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote in message news:shiv-EE4A81.22013031072010(a)news.eternal-september.org... [] > One of the reasons I still shoot medium and large format is the easy > ability to look "at" the composition on the focusing screen rather than > "through" an eye-level viewfinder. > > I've always found it easier to evaluate the image as a 2-dimensional > composition that way. You are going to love the new compact digital cameras with LCD displays ..... no need to view upside down any more! Might need a magnifier though depending on your close vision. <G> Cheers, David
From: Gordon Freeman on 2 Aug 2010 19:51 Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: > For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate > your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see > your glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit > counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the > scene that moves. Actually it's not. If you look in the mirror as you tilt your head from side to side you will find that your eyes swivel in their sockets which is why the scene remains upright. Yhis is also why if you lie on your side as someone else noted, everything looks sideways, since your eyes can't swivel 90 degrees. Looking in the mirror you will find that the scene starts to tilt when your eyes reach the limit of their swivel.
From: Paul Furman on 9 Aug 2010 12:09
Gordon Freeman wrote: > Robert Coe<bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >> For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate >> your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see >> your glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit >> counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the >> scene that moves. > > Actually it's not. If you look in the mirror as you tilt your head from > side to side you will find that your eyes swivel in their sockets which > is why the scene remains upright. Yhis is also why if you lie on your > side as someone else noted, everything looks sideways, since your eyes > can't swivel 90 degrees. Looking in the mirror you will find that the > scene starts to tilt when your eyes reach the limit of their swivel. Thinking of the Dolly Zoom effect discussed above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y48R6-iIYHs .... I'm imagining a setup that shows someone's eyes spinning like you describe and it would look pretty darn freaky! :-) |