Perspective (was Re: Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David J Taylor on 10 Aug 2010 01:32 "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message news:r7udnUuvErmG0f3RnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... [] > The problem with "wide angle view" is that it doesn't really convey the > same information at all. Consider some shot of a distant horizon. If > there's nothing else in the picture to serve as a clue, it's likely to > be impossible to tell whether it was taken with a wide lens or a long > one. So it may be a wide angle view, or it may not, and one might look > at the picture for years and never be able to tell. Such a picture has > for all practical purposes *no* perspective. > > With the short-lens shot of Duck's car, though, one instantly sees that > it's taken with a very wide-angle lens, and what announces this is the > unusual perspective. Oh, it's not a perfect term, but possibly a more accurate one than "wide-angle perspective". I have taken distant horizon shots such as you mention, and they are rather boring shots unless you include some clouds! Whilst not being even good illustrations, a couple of "horizon" shots, one 18mm, one 300mm come to hand: http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2009/Antarctica/2009-01-24-1205-02-size.jpg http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2009/Antarctica/2009-02-02-2122-52-size.jpg Cheers, David
From: Bruce on 10 Aug 2010 03:49 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:27:11 -0400, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote: >And since you have amply demonstrated that you do not understand the >first thing about perspective, I will bow out of this waste of time of a >discussion. My sentiments exactly. "There's none so blind as they that won't see." .... attributed to Jonathan Swift, 1667-1745.
From: bugbear on 10 Aug 2010 04:06 Neil Harrington wrote: > 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. I suggest you look up the term "parallax" and consider its implications before continuing. BugBear
From: bugbear on 10 Aug 2010 04:08 Neil Harrington wrote: > "Shiva Das" <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote in message >> <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. > > Cropping the photo changes its perspective. OK. Would you please define, as clearly, carefully and explicitly as you can, what you mean by "perspective" For extra merit, try to avoid circular logic. BugBear
From: Neil Harrington on 10 Aug 2010 08:53
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:i3qoa4$7h4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message > news:r7udnUuvErmG0f3RnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > [] >> The problem with "wide angle view" is that it doesn't really convey the >> same information at all. Consider some shot of a distant horizon. If >> there's nothing else in the picture to serve as a clue, it's likely to be >> impossible to tell whether it was taken with a wide lens or a long one. >> So it may be a wide angle view, or it may not, and one might look at the >> picture for years and never be able to tell. Such a picture has for all >> practical purposes *no* perspective. >> >> With the short-lens shot of Duck's car, though, one instantly sees that >> it's taken with a very wide-angle lens, and what announces this is the >> unusual perspective. > > Oh, it's not a perfect term, but possibly a more accurate one than > "wide-angle perspective". I have taken distant horizon shots such as you > mention, and they are rather boring shots unless you include some clouds! > > Whilst not being even good illustrations, a couple of "horizon" shots, one > 18mm, one 300mm come to hand: > > http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2009/Antarctica/2009-01-24-1205-02-size.jpg > > http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2009/Antarctica/2009-02-02-2122-52-size.jpg Very nice. Of course the subject is not really the horizon in either case, and both do have obvious clues as to the sort of lens used (with respect to focal length). But what's wrong with "wide-angle perspective"? In the first shot it's nothing else but the perspective that tips off that it was taken with a wide-angle lens; and "wide-angle perspective" was freely used by folks to describe exactly that effect before the Perspective Is Determined Solely by Viewpoint Movement introduced that fallacy. :-) |