Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > What Is the Name For "Perspective" in Digital Photography?

Reply
Thread Tools

What Is the Name For "Perspective" in Digital Photography?

 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Jules Vide wrote:
>
> > What Is the Name For "Perspective" in Digital Photography?

>
> It's still called perspective.
>
>> Obviously it has no kind of image stabilization, but my sister told me
>> that our Dad, a M.F.A. grad, said once that all claims of image
>> stabilization are fool's gold; use a tripod.

>
> Ever try and use a tripod on horseback? On a small boat?
> In a museum that bans tripods? In a park in Paris without
> a permit? (you'll be called a professional and you must get a permit)
> From an airplane?
>
> So your hiking down a trail, turn a corner and a bear is there
> in the middle of the trail. Do you:
>
> 1) Take you pack off, set the pack down, and lean over
> to get out your tripod, mount the camera
> and take the picture as the bear charges at you
> after you bent over?
>
> 2) Take a quick snapshot with your image stabilized camera
> that was hanging around your neck while you are slowly
> backing up?
>
> 2A) Take a flash picture as the bear is about to pounce on
> you so people will know how you died.
> The bear gets startled by the flash and runs off (true
> story reported in Popular Photography a few years ago).
>
> 3) Fall to a fetal position, play dead and hope?
> (hint: if it is a black bear, this one might get you killed.)
>
>
>
> Roger


Number 3, without a doubt, probably because I fainted. In any case,
your chances of survival aren't all that good.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Randy Berbaum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
: >
: > So your hiking down a trail, turn a corner and a bear is there
: > in the middle of the trail. Do you:
: >
: > 3) Fall to a fetal position, play dead and hope?
: > (hint: if it is a black bear, this one might get you killed.)
: >
: >

Reminds me of the old joke my cousin (a former National Park Ranger) told
me. How do you tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly
bear? Slap it and climb a tree. If it comes up after you, its a black
bear. If it shakes you down, its a grizzly.

To the prior point, counting on IS to completely replace a tripod is a bad
idea. Just as bad is to count on a tripod to be as effective or useable in
all situations as IS. Depending on the user and the types of photographs
the photographer is looking to take, IS may be more useful to some people
than others. Also it is one more "gadget" that may confuse those who are
easily overwhelmed. And it could conceivably add to the "button press to
image capture" delay that many find upsetting. That last will depend on
how the IS is implemented. Having no direct evidence I can't say for sure.
But if the IS is physically implemented after the auto focus, it COULD
make the delay worse. IMHO. On the other hand, as mentioned (with tongue
in cheek) above, in some situations IS is definately the best, or only,
way to go.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
In message <e97ki1$arq$(E-Mail Removed)>, Randy Berbaum
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>Reminds me of the old joke my cousin (a former National Park Ranger) told
>me. How do you tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly
>bear? Slap it and climb a tree. If it comes up after you, its a black
>bear. If it shakes you down, its a grizzly.
>


The other old bear joke is:

The Forest Service has issued a bear warning in the national forests for
this summer. They're urging everyone to protect themselves by wearing
bells and carrying pepper spray.

Campers should be alert for signs of fresh bear activity, and they
should be able to tell the difference between Black Bear dung and
Grizzly Bear dung.

Black Bear dung is rather small and round. Sometimes you can see fruit
seeds and/or squirrel fur in it.

Grizzly Bear dung has bells in it, and smells like pepper spray.

Regards
--
Neil Pugh
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger Whitehead
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
In article <5rDtg.35686$(E-Mail Removed)>, Joseph Meehan
wrote:
> > Hello. I'm going to change my screen name to AsTheCameraTurns...

>
> I vote this one as our weekly troll.


Seconded.

Roger

 
Reply With Quote
 
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
Jules Vide wrote:
> Hello. I'm going to change my screen name to AsTheCameraTurns.
> ...took it back after you guys told me it was no good...
> ...took that back because it got bad reviews
> ...but my sister told me that our Dad said once...


But my brother's friend's cousin once had a mate who...

> ...The PowerShot just WILL NOT SHOOT


RTFM.

> ... I suppose .. it decides the moron manning it...


Got that right..

> ... just shot randomly at a very baroque evening forest.


Puts a lot of thought into *all* his work, doesn't he..

> ...but the depth of field (or what *I* call depth of field) in
> far-off leaves is very flat.


Uhuh. Far off leaves, and they are 'flat'. And he's talking about
depth of field. Yep, right, that's all pretty clear. ?????

> So is this what you guys meant when you
> said a 4X optical zoom wouldn't give me good focal length?



Not a (expletive deleted) clue.

But at least he will always be able to blame 'us', his equipment,
dpreview, his sister and his dad for the fact that his images will
*always* be crap. (O;


I note he has not returned. And yep, I'm probably replying to a troll
post, but I'm bored..

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jules Vide
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Uhuh. Far off leaves, and they are 'flat'. And he's talking about
> depth of field. Yep, right, that's all pretty clear. ?????


No, I'm not a troll. Several posters here have been extremely generous
to me the past few weeks, speaking in laymen's terms about a subject
that to someone unacquainted with the lingo can be extremely
complicated. I've returned here (in a friendly way, I might add, not
in the haranguing tone of a troll) to ask how to articulate the problem
I have with a low-end camera. Mr. Clarke, for example, helped me
articulate what I posted about.

(I wish I were affluent like you, Mr. Meehan, et al, and could afford a
variety of cameras to take shots of black bears who chase me in
national forests. I can't and so take the risk of posting on Usenet,
where (according to the time stamp of posts) you often meet rude and
disrespectful posters, just as you do in bars.)

I also don't know too many trolls who act on advice from strangers.
That I ended up buying the A620 again has to do with what the
collective wisdom of rec.photo.digital advised (by referring me to
dpreview).

To return to the subject of this thread, I therefore conclude that no
cheap (I'm getting tired of the euphemism "low-end") camera will take
consistently "three-dimensional" pictures. Thank you to those posters
who saw fit to explain it without resorting to insulting or ignoring my
original question.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
Neil <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In message <e97ki1$arq$(E-Mail Removed)>, Randy Berbaum
><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>
>>Reminds me of the old joke my cousin (a former National Park Ranger) told
>>me. How do you tell the difference between a black bear and a grizzly
>>bear? Slap it and climb a tree. If it comes up after you, its a black
>>bear. If it shakes you down, its a grizzly.
>>

>
>The other old bear joke is:
>
>The Forest Service has issued a bear warning in the national
>forests for this summer. They're urging everyone to protect
>themselves by wearing bells and carrying pepper spray.
>
>Campers should be alert for signs of fresh bear activity, and
>they should be able to tell the difference between Black Bear
>dung and Grizzly Bear dung.
>
>Black Bear dung is rather small and round. Sometimes you can see
>fruit seeds and/or squirrel fur in it.
>
>Grizzly Bear dung has bells in it, and smells like pepper spray.


This is all true, of course.

However, there are easy ways to protect yourself from bears.
The "Buddy System" is the easiest to implement, requiring only a
small caliber .22 pistol and a buddy to be your constant hiking
companion. Additional accessories are optional.

If you are ever attacked by a bear it is 4 step proceedure:

1. Yell
2. Pull the .22 pistol from your pocket
3. Shoot your buddy in the leg, and
4. Then run like Hell.

Optionally you may want to have a good pair of tennis shoes or
even running shoes to wear when in bear country; however, that
does tend to tip off acquantances, hence it is an optional
accessory that should be used with caution.

Also, you must *never* disclose to anyone that you own or use
a .22 caliber weapon for bear protection.

Depending on just how smart your buddies aren't, you might
actually use a Magnum caliber pistol and wear it openly. The
problem of course is the weight of the weapon and smart buddies
mean you have to use a .22 and hide it. But average dummies
might accept an openly carried .44 Mag if you can deal with
carrying the weight around, and for real first class idiots you
could even substitute a small .357.

If you can't find a buddy, you'll have to carry a shotgun with
slugs or a large caliber rifle, and shoot the bear instead.
This is not recommended, however, because it takes *so* damned
long to fill out the paperwork.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
Bill wrote:

> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
>
>> 1) Take you pack off, set the pack down, and lean over
>> to get out your tripod, mount the camera
>> and take the picture as the bear charges at you
>> after you bent over?
>>
>> 2) Take a quick snapshot with your image stabilized camera
>> that was hanging around your neck while you are slowly
>> backing up?
>>
>> 2A) Take a flash picture as the bear is about to pounce on
>> you so people will know how you died.
>> The bear gets startled by the flash and runs off (true
>> story reported in Popular Photography a few years ago).
>>
>> 3) Fall to a fetal position, play dead and hope?
>> (hint: if it is a black bear, this one might get you killed.)

>
>
> Phht!
>
> What do you know about bears? Probably never even seen one in the wild,
> right...?
>
>

See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
Randy Berbaum wrote:

> To the prior point, counting on IS to completely replace a tripod is a bad
> idea. Just as bad is to count on a tripod to be as effective or useable in
> all situations as IS. Depending on the user and the types of photographs
> the photographer is looking to take, IS may be more useful to some people
> than others. Also it is one more "gadget" that may confuse those who are
> easily overwhelmed. And it could conceivably add to the "button press to
> image capture" delay that many find upsetting. That last will depend on
> how the IS is implemented. Having no direct evidence I can't say for sure.
> But if the IS is physically implemented after the auto focus, it COULD
> make the delay worse. IMHO. On the other hand, as mentioned (with tongue
> in cheek) above, in some situations IS is definately the best, or only,
> way to go.


I don't know about all cameras, but on Canon SLRs/DSLRs, IS does
no cause any delay. In fact, the cameras and lenses are top
performers in wildlife action and sports. The fastest DSLR
on the market, last time I saw data, is the Canon 1D Mark II.
With extremely fast auto focusing, a lens does
not change autofocus speed whether IS is on or off.
As son as you push the shutter button half way, then autofocus
turns on, and stays on continuously. The only delay would
be from the cold start, for which I have never noticed an
excessive delay with my 1D Mark II when photographing action.
When you have a football game (or soccer or US football),
notice the photographers with the big lenses. The white
lenses are Canon's, almost all image stabilized. I use my
telephotos, e.g. 500 mm f/4 L IS, on a tripod with
IS on when going wildlife. E.g., see bird and bear photos at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
"Jules Vide" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>
>
> Well, the depth of field in some pictures it decided to take is good,
> particularly if there's some large object in the frame (like a tree
> trunk); but the depth of field (or what *I* call depth of field) in
> far-off leaves is very flat. So is this what you guys meant when you
> said a 4X optical zoom wouldn't give me good focal length?
>


I'd like to respond to your question, but there is too much ambiguity in the
way you posed it. "Depth-of-field" describes how much of the scene remains
in sharp focus. Shooting with the lens at maximum aperture typically
results in "shallow depth-of-field."

Is that what you are referring to? If your camera sets the aperture for
you, then you have little control over this. If you are shooting
landscapes, for example, you would typically want maximum depth-of-field, so
everything in the shot is in sharp focus. On a manual camera, the way to
accomplish this would be to stop down the lens, and compensate for the
reduction in light by slowing down the shutter speed to let more light in
(this usually requires a tripod, to avoid camera shake).

In contrast, if you are taking a portrait, and you want to visually isolate
the subject from the background, you would open the aperture up wide, to
blur the background, and you would speed up the shutter to get the correct
exposure.

Most automatic consumer cameras do not allow you to select your own aperture
choice, and you end up with whatever the camera sets. That is the major
reason that I don't use P&S cameras for any work where I want maximum
control.

Some P&S cameras offer "shooting modes," where you can instruct the camera
to take portraits, action shots, etc., but you don't have full control.

I cannot be more specific in my response until you use correct terminology
and describe what you are having a problem with. You may have meant
something other than "depth-of-field" in your original post.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
adding a variable name to a hash to name is part of the variable name Bobby Chamness Perl 2 04-22-2007 09:54 PM
print("my name is {name}, and {age}-year old {gender}", name, age, gender); =?iso-8859-1?B?bW9vcJk=?= Java 7 01-02-2006 04:39 PM
IE name="name" & form.name property bug Java script Dude Javascript 5 06-30-2004 03:07 AM
name = name.substring(0, name.lastIndexOf('.')); Help please Jack-2 Javascript 3 12-24-2003 04:39 PM
Re: Urgent! how to get object name, method name and attribute name based on the strings? ding feng C++ 2 06-25-2003 01:18 PM



Advertisments