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?

 
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
"Jules Vide" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> 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.
>


If you want to see how various lenses produce that three-dimensional effect
that you desire, check out this link. It is oriented toward film cameras,
but it does have examples of what you are describing.

In fact, you just might benefit from getting a classic film camera and a
couple of good prime lenses. You can scan your film and then edit the
results on your computer if you want to do digital darkroom work.

I am partial to Pentax lenses, because of their generally-gorgeous bokeh.
For less than $100 you can get a very nice P3n or P30t body (featuring
metered manual and 3 automatic modes--you choose what you want, not the
camera) along with a 50mm normal lens.

Check this eBay search:

http://search.ebay.com/pentax-p3_Cam...fsopZ2QQfsooZ2

Check this link for a column named "My Favorite Lens:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-11-24.shtml

Check this link for a column named, "The 50mm Lens and Metaphysical Doubt"

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-09-22.shtml

For lots of user comments on many Pentax lenses check here:

http://stans-photography.info/LongCo...5%20mm%20f/1.8

You might find that classic film photography will give you more of what you
want. Granted you lose the convenience of digital photography, but I think
you will find that P&S cameras (film OR digital) are compromises that
require you to trade off control for small size and convenience. I use P&S
cameras myself, but only for snapshots or casual use. They have a
place--but they have a narrower range of uses than SLRs.

As for film vs. digital I am not one that blindly follows the crowd, and I
did not ditch my film gear. I am a relatively low-volume shooter, so the
cost of film and processing are not that big a factor. I also prefer to be
out shooting, rather than agonizing about whether to buy the next generation
of digital wondercameras every 18 months.

You should check out the options and choose for yourself. Only you can know
which system is right for best achieving YOUR particular photo objectives.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
On 7/14/06 1:43 AM, Neil wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Damn, that's one of my favorites, but I was shocked- Shocked!!- to read
recently that the only bears in the Americas are the brown bears. Maybe
it was said (by the US Forest Service) that they're the only indigenous
bear... In any event, so what about grizzlies in the USA? Are there
some? How did they get there?

And was Grizzly Adams all sizzle and no steak?

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

> Damn, that's one of my favorites, but I was shocked- Shocked!!- to read
> recently that the only bears in the Americas are the brown bears. Maybe
> it was said (by the US Forest Service) that they're the only indigenous
> bear... In any event, so what about grizzlies in the USA? Are there
> some? How did they get there?


The Grizzly Bear is a sub-species of the Brown Bear.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, John
McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Damn, that's one of my favorites, but I was shocked- Shocked!!- to read
>recently that the only bears in the Americas are the brown bears. Maybe
>it was said (by the US Forest Service) that they're the only indigenous
>bear... In any event, so what about grizzlies in the USA? Are there
>some? How did they get there?
>
>And was Grizzly Adams all sizzle and no steak?
>

More than you probably want to know about your bears here!

http://www.bear.org/

Regards
--
Neil Pugh
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>John McWilliams wrote:
>
>> Damn, that's one of my favorites, but I was shocked- Shocked!!- to read
>> recently that the only bears in the Americas are the brown bears. Maybe
>> it was said (by the US Forest Service) that they're the only indigenous
>> bear... In any event, so what about grizzlies in the USA? Are there
>> some? How did they get there?

>
>The Grizzly Bear is a sub-species of the Brown Bear.


Not even a sub-species. A Grizzly is a Brown Bear. Typically
any inland brownie is called a Grizzly, and any coastal grizz is
called a Brownie.

It's all the same bear, just with a different diet.

Yup'ik Eskimos have the right name though, "Carayuk".
Pronounced something like "Char-EYE-uk". In English that
translates to "monster".

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger Whitehead
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
In article <wzMtg.8050$Th7.6623@trnddc05>, Jeremy wrote:
> Most automatic consumer cameras do not allow you to select your own aperture
> choice, and you end up with whatever the camera sets.


FWIW, the Canon PowerShot A620 that Jules uses offers shutter priority AE,
aperture priority AE and manual settings, as well as full auto and various
program modes.

Roger

 
Reply With Quote
 
tomm42
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006

Jules Vide wrote:
> Hello. I'm going to change my screen name to AsTheCameraTurns. I
> bought a Canon PowerShot A620 two weeks ago, took it back after you
> guys told me it was no good for depth of field, bought a Kodak Z650,
> took that back because it got bad reviews from DPREVIEW, then finally
> ('cause Adorama, NYC, was offering the Canon PowerShot for $50 less
> than I paid in my superstore) bought the Canon PowerShot A620 again.
>
> 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.
>
> Well, I tried taking some photos "manually." The PowerShot just WILL
> NOT SHOOT when it decides it doesn't want to, which I suppose means
> when it decides the moron manning it has the dt's. So I set it on our
> deck rail and just shot randomly at a very baroque evening forest.
> VERY high contrast between the bright setting sun and the green leaves.
>
>
> 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?


Jules,
1) Stabilization has its place, good lenses and good technique win out
in the end, but stabilization is just another helpful tool. Tripods are
too.
2) Read your manual, amatuer cameras are getting infuriatingly
independent. There is generally a work around.
3) Most P&S cameras have tons of depth of field due to the low
magnifications required on their small sensors.
4) Don't get confused with what you see and what's in a picture. The
eye is really a scanner scanning and remarkable adjusting to variations
in a scene. A camera can only do one part of the scene on each
exposure. The scene you describe sounds correct, the camera exposes for
the sun setting through the leaves. The leaves outside the sun's rays
will be dark and look flat. Your eyes will adjust to the nuances of the
scene the camera can't, by slightly adjusting exposures you can improve
things, but it is a difficult shot to pull off well. This is all part
of learning photography.

Tom

 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Damn, that's one of my favorites, but I was shocked- Shocked!!- to read
>recently that the only bears in the Americas are the brown bears. Maybe


The American Black Bear has been in North America for perhaps 3.5 million
years.

>it was said (by the US Forest Service) that they're the only indigenous
>bear... In any event, so what about grizzlies in the USA? Are there
>some? How did they get there?


Brown bear bones have been dated at least to 40K year old, and
black bear bones to at least 35K years old, both from the same
cave on Prince of Wales Island. They are thought to have
migrated across Beringia as far back as perhaps 50,000 to
100,000 years ago.

Until relatively recently no bones that old had been found outside
of what could be called the "Beringia" area though, which caused
speculation that ice blocked the path from Alaska to the Lower-48
and that bears did not migrate south until relatively recent times,
such as less than perhaps 15K years ago.

However, 26,000 year old brown bear bones have been identified
from Alberta Canada (and DNA tests even indicated it is related
to the current population of brown bears in that area), and that
more or less throws the whole speculation about southern
migration into question. Prior to that it had appear that bears
came to North America in three differen migrations, and each
became extinct and was later replaced by a later migration. But
that particular set of bones crosses between the last two
suggested dates for bear populations.

Polar bears are an evoluationary offshoot from brown bears maybe
a million years ago, and can still interbreed with them.

>And was Grizzly Adams all sizzle and no steak?


Good entertainment, perhaps.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gene Palmiter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
Good Answer! Good Answer!

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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
 
Jules Vide
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2006
jeremy wrote:

> If you want to see how various lenses produce that three-dimensional effect
> that you desire, check out this link. It is oriented toward film cameras,
> but it does have examples of what you are describing.


I definitely will, if only for the courtesy and professionalism of your
reply.

> You might find that classic film photography will give you more of what you
> want. Granted you lose the convenience of digital photography, but I think
> you will find that P&S cameras (film OR digital) are compromises that
> require you to trade off control for small size and convenience. I use P&S
> cameras myself, but only for snapshots or casual use. They have a
> place--but they have a narrower range of uses than SLRs.


I find myself, at this point, wondering if digital photography does not
encourage the development of nascent schizophrenia! I mean it. The
obsession of trying to "descry" (on an underpixelated computer monitor)
whether a particular camera fulfills ones needs and justifies the money
laid out-- It's almost like a bad drug. All I know is that this
camera, and maybe all digital cameras, achieves a Maxfield Parrish-like
precision without capturing a "je ne sais quoi..." (Jesus, what a
sentence.)

Anyway, I just returned inside after playing with the settings on the
camera and taking another round of bright sunshine-y forest shots, and
one scene of the grass I just mowed almost looks like a Seurat
painting. Just don't look real.

> As for film vs. digital I am not one that blindly follows the crowd, and I
> did not ditch my film gear. I am a relatively low-volume shooter, so the
> cost of film and processing are not that big a factor. I also prefer to be
> out shooting, rather than agonizing about whether to buy the next generation
> of digital wondercameras every 18 months.


Because you're obviously a wise man.

> You should check out the options and choose for yourself. Only you can know
> which system is right for best achieving YOUR particular photo objectives.


True. I have to admit I come back to the sheer convenience of the d*#n
things! Digital camera are the Circes of my technological odyssey. If
not schizophrenia, they encourage/appeal to obsessive compulsion
because of how fast you can see if you "got the shot."

Thank you for two great posts.

 
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