Perspective (was Re: Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 9 Aug 2010 12:31 "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit(a)or-this-csas.net.au> wrote in message news:xn0gxodio8omm800i(a)news.aioe.org... > Savageduck wrote: > >>On 2010-08-08 16:37:50 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: >> >>>On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:43:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington" >>><nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>>>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ugar46dfhpou4nimibd86jm53iqo459f99(a)4ax.com... >>>>>On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> >>>>>wrote: >>>>>>In article <5k2r46pe2t2t7tsjn802pa3o5v7lla946f(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>>Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the >>>>>>>lens's >>>>>>>focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its >>>>>>>relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is >>>>>>>irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>>>In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, >>>>>>Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using >>>>>>progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm >>>>>>to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). >>>>>> >>>>>>The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same >>>>>>spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely >>>>>>lady >>>>>>on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each >>>>>>image. >>>>>> >>>>>>It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect >>>>>>perspective. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Yes, that is the classic method of demonstrating that perspective is >>>>>independent of focal length. >>>>> >>>>>It is to be found in many books on photography, yet people still keep >>>>>making the same mistake over and over again, thinking that perspective >>>>>is dependent on focal length. >>>> >>>>But perspective is largely dependent on focal length. >>>> >>>>The the other poster mentioned ". . . how focal length and distance >>>>affect >>>>perspective." >>>> >>>>Focal length is not "irrelevant." Both are important: focal length and >>>>camera position. A shot taken with a wide-angle lens has wide-angle >>>>perspective, which (assuming there are enough objects arranged in the >>>>scene >>>>to establish perspective at all) is easily recognized by anyone looking >>>>at >>>>the resulting photo. To say that focal length is irrelevant is to deny >>>>what >>>>anyone can see with his own eyes. >>>> >>>>(Sorry for being more than a week late in replying to this, but I only >>>>saw >>>>the thread just now. The misunderstanding is important enough to >>>>correct. >>>>The "many books" that support the idea are mistaken, as are the several >>>>people who have repeated it over the years.) >>> >>> >>>The "misunderstanding" is entirely yours, Neil. It is a very common >>>misunderstanding. However, it doesn't matter how many people repeat >>>it, nor how many times, it is still wrong. There is no such thing as >>>"wide angle perspective". >>> >>>Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship >>>with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. >>> >> >>OK. >>I tried the following; >>D300s on tripod 2 shots, position of tripod unchanged, aim point >>unchanged, distance between camera and subject constant, lenses changed, >>EXIF included; >> >>Shot #1 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm (16mm FF equiv.) >>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3876w.jpg > >> >>Shot #2 Nikkor 16-200mm VRII @ 35mm (52mm FF equiv.) >>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3877w.jpg > >> >>Side by-side comparison; >>< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Merc-comp-01.jpg > >> >>It is tough to say that that this is not a demonstration of focal length >>perspective change. >>The view point is constant, the relationship between the subject (the car) >>and the camera remains unchanged. Yet the eye tells the viewer there is a >>dramatic change in perspective, in this case created entirely by a change >>of focal length. > > > I just performed a simple resize of the second image and laid it on > top of the first: > > http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg > > Perspective is unchanged. Perspective *of the resized overlay part* is unchanged, of course. All you have done by resizing is to shrink the long-lens shot so that it matches the homologous part of the wide-angle shot. Likewise, you could crop and expand the same part of the wide-angle shot and (disregarding loss of definition) the perspective *of that part* would then match that of the long-lens shot. But perspective is established by the picture in its entirety, not a small part. It is not valid to take a small part of a picture and say that establishes the perspective of the whole picture. Wide angle shots are very obviously different in perspective than long lens shots. The former create the effect of spatial expansion and the latter create spatial compression -- which anyone can see, and the reason they can see it is because of the difference in perspective.
From: Shiva Das on 9 Aug 2010 12:33 In article <2010080817520211272-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-08-08 16:37:50 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: > > > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:43:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington" > > <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:ugar46dfhpou4nimibd86jm53iqo459f99(a)4ax.com... > >>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> > >>> wrote: > >>>> In article <5k2r46pe2t2t7tsjn802pa3o5v7lla946f(a)4ax.com>, > >>>> Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's > >>>>> focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its > >>>>> relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is > >>>>> irrelevant. > >>>> > >>>> In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, > >>>> Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using > >>>> progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm > >>>> to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). > >>>> > >>>> The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same > >>>> spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady > >>>> on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each > >>>> image. > >>>> > >>>> It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect > >>>> perspective. > >>> > >>> > >>> Yes, that is the classic method of demonstrating that perspective is > >>> independent of focal length. > >>> > >>> It is to be found in many books on photography, yet people still keep > >>> making the same mistake over and over again, thinking that perspective > >>> is dependent on focal length. > >> > >> But perspective *is* largely dependent on focal length. > >> > >> The the other poster mentioned ". . . how focal length and distance affect > >> perspective." > >> > >> Focal length is not "irrelevant." Both are important: focal length *and* > >> camera position. A shot taken with a wide-angle lens has wide-angle > >> perspective, which (assuming there are enough objects arranged in the scene > >> to establish perspective at all) is easily recognized by anyone looking at > >> the resulting photo. To say that focal length is irrelevant is to deny what > >> anyone can see with his own eyes. > >> > >> (Sorry for being more than a week late in replying to this, but I only saw > >> the thread just now. The misunderstanding is important enough to correct. > >> The "many books" that support the idea are mistaken, as are the several > >> people who have repeated it over the years.) > > > > > > The "misunderstanding" is entirely yours, Neil. It is a very common > > misunderstanding. However, it doesn't matter how many people repeat > > it, nor how many times, it is still wrong. There is no such thing as > > "wide angle perspective". > > > > Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship > > with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. > > > > OK. > I tried the following; > D300s on tripod 2 shots, position of tripod unchanged, aim point > unchanged, distance between camera and subject constant, lenses > changed, EXIF included; > > Shot #1 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm (16mm FF equiv.) > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3876w.jpg > > > Shot #2 Nikkor 16-200mm VRII @ 35mm (52mm FF equiv.) > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3877w.jpg > > > Side by-side comparison; > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Merc-comp-01.jpg > > > It is tough to say that that this is not a demonstration of focal > length perspective change. > The view point is constant, the relationship between the subject (the > car) and the camera remains unchanged. Yet the eye tells the viewer > there is a dramatic change in perspective, in this case created > entirely by a change of focal length. Nope. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/52865695(a)N03/4875633691/> All I did was crop the 11mm photo to the same field of view as the 35mm photo. There is absolutely no difference in the perspective.
From: Neil Harrington on 9 Aug 2010 12:35 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:i3o7b5$4p5$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > [] >> Damn! I should have thought of doing that. >> >> So it seems the eye is easily fooled by focal length changes. Thanks for >> the proof you provided, I kind of takes the wind out of my sails, but >> there it is. >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Savageduck > > But you are correct that the resulting image /looks/ different, although > the change is not because of a perspective change as such, but because of > a field of view change. I.e. a narrow-angle shot looks different to a > wide angle shot, perhaps because of the amount of included material and > the context of a part of the image compared to the rest of the image. Those differences establish a difference in perspective. The term "wide angle perspective" is correct -- how else would you describe *how* you can easily tell a wide angle shot from a normal or longer lens shot?
From: Savageduck on 9 Aug 2010 12:37 On 2010-08-09 09:05:28 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> said: > > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2010080818434227544-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2010-08-08 18:27:40 -0700, "Mike Warren" >> <miwa-not-this-bit(a)or-this-csas.net.au> said: > >>> I just performed a simple resize of the second image and laid it on >>> top of the first: >>> >>> http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg >>> >>> Perspective is unchanged. > >> Damn! I should have thought of doing that. >> >> So it seems the eye is easily fooled by focal length changes. Thanks >> for the proof you provided, It kind of takes the wind out of >> my sails, but there it is. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Savageduck > > This shows that there actually *is* one more ingredient to the > conditions-list, the specification of sensor size relative to FL, > which then gives angle of view and an indication of what > perspective "look" might be expected. As I pointed out before, > a 10mm lens (for instance) can be a super-wide on one format, > and a tele on another format with a much smaller sensor... > --DR Not really. What I did does not demonstrate anything relative to sensor size. I did not change cameras, I changed lenses in an attempt to show a change in FL would change perspective. I noted the FF equivalent FL. Mike Warren demonstrated above, with my own shots that I was wrong. Here are those shots again. D300s on tripod 2 shots, position of tripod unchanged, aim point unchanged, distance between camera and subject constant, lenses changed, EXIF included; Shot #1 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm (16mm FF equiv.) < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3876w.jpg > Shot #2 Nikkor 16-200mm VRII @ 35mm (52mm FF equiv.) < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3877w.jpg > Side by-side comparison; < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Merc-comp-01.jpg > and Mike's demonstration of unchanged perspective using those shots. < http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg > -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Neil Harrington on 9 Aug 2010 12:40
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010080818434227544-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-08-08 18:27:40 -0700, "Mike Warren" > <miwa-not-this-bit(a)or-this-csas.net.au> said: > >> Savageduck wrote: >> >>> On 2010-08-08 16:37:50 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: >>> >>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:43:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington" >>>> <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>>>> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:ugar46dfhpou4nimibd86jm53iqo459f99(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> In article <5k2r46pe2t2t7tsjn802pa3o5v7lla946f(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>>> Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the >>>>>>>> lens's >>>>>>>> focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>> relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is >>>>>>>> irrelevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, >>>>>>> Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs >>>>>>> using >>>>>>> progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses >>>>>>> (20mm >>>>>>> to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same >>>>>>> spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely >>>>>>> lady >>>>>>> on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in >>>>>>> each >>>>>>> image. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect >>>>>>> perspective. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, that is the classic method of demonstrating that perspective is >>>>>> independent of focal length. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is to be found in many books on photography, yet people still keep >>>>>> making the same mistake over and over again, thinking that >>>>>> perspective >>>>>> is dependent on focal length. >>>>> >>>>> But perspective is largely dependent on focal length. >>>>> >>>>> The the other poster mentioned ". . . how focal length and distance >>>>> affect >>>>> perspective." >>>>> >>>>> Focal length is not "irrelevant." Both are important: focal length and >>>>> camera position. A shot taken with a wide-angle lens has wide-angle >>>>> perspective, which (assuming there are enough objects arranged in the >>>>> scene >>>>> to establish perspective at all) is easily recognized by anyone >>>>> looking at >>>>> the resulting photo. To say that focal length is irrelevant is to deny >>>>> what >>>>> anyone can see with his own eyes. >>>>> >>>>> (Sorry for being more than a week late in replying to this, but I only >>>>> saw >>>>> the thread just now. The misunderstanding is important enough to >>>>> correct. >>>>> The "many books" that support the idea are mistaken, as are the >>>>> several >>>>> people who have repeated it over the years.) >>>> >>>> >>>> The "misunderstanding" is entirely yours, Neil. It is a very common >>>> misunderstanding. However, it doesn't matter how many people repeat >>>> it, nor how many times, it is still wrong. There is no such thing as >>>> "wide angle perspective". >>>> >>>> Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its relationship >>>> with the subject. The focal length of the lens is irrelevant. >>>> >>> >>> OK. >>> I tried the following; >>> D300s on tripod 2 shots, position of tripod unchanged, aim point >>> unchanged, distance between camera and subject constant, lenses changed, >>> EXIF included; >>> >>> Shot #1 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm (16mm FF equiv.) >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3876w.jpg > >>> >>> Shot #2 Nikkor 16-200mm VRII @ 35mm (52mm FF equiv.) >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3877w.jpg > >>> >>> Side by-side comparison; >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Merc-comp-01.jpg > >>> >>> It is tough to say that that this is not a demonstration of focal length >>> perspective change. >>> The view point is constant, the relationship between the subject (the >>> car) and the camera remains unchanged. Yet the eye tells the viewer >>> there is a dramatic change in perspective, in this case created entirely >>> by a change of focal length. >> >> >> I just performed a simple resize of the second image and laid it on >> top of the first: >> >> http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg >> >> Perspective is unchanged. > > Damn! I should have thought of doing that. > > So it seems the eye is easily fooled by focal length changes. Thanks for > the proof you provided, I kind of takes the wind out of my sails, but > there it is. No, you were right in the first place. The picture *as a whole* provides the perspective of the picture. A small part of it does not. You could, for example, progressively reduce the size of the small part until it provided NO perspective at all -- that would not mean the original picture had no perspective. |