Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses

Reply
Thread Tools

New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses

 
 
Mike Fields
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006

"Herb Ludwig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JKr_g.324709$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Mike Fields" <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet> wrote:
>> I have seen more people bitten with the foreground/background
>> thing. Out in the open country somewhere with a beautiful
>> mountain backdrop, they shoot the picture of someone from
>> up close with the wide angle then notice when they get home
>> the "magnificent mountain scenery" that was there when they
>> took the picture is just a couple of little bumps behind their
>> subject. Always the same comment "gee I don't understand,
>> the mountains looked so much bigger when we were there".
>> Step back even 10 feet, zoom in a bit to frame the subject
>> and voila - the mountains are there !! (unless you live in
>> Kansas, in which case, there is no hope for mountains .. )

>
>
> When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the condensed
> perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My personal
> taste for landscape images goes rather in the opposite, wide-angle
> direction, where the foreground subject is emphazised and the feeling
> of depth enhanced. Therefore my preference and reliance on the 17-40
> f4 Zoom.
> Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate:
> http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350
>
> Cheers,
> Hank


Excellent pictures. Looks to me like you got it just
right - only thing missing was all the sheep that we
saw when we were over there about 20 years ago.
Seems like EVERYWHERE was sheep !! You are
right about the landscape images and the lens - what
I was thinking more of is when you want a picture
of the kids etc with Mt. Rainier or some such as
a major part of the picture instead of the little bump
in the corner of the picture.

mikey


mikey

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
POTD.com.au
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006

"Herb Ludwig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JKr_g.324709$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Mike Fields" <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet> wrote:
>> I have seen more people bitten with the foreground/background
>> thing. Out in the open country somewhere with a beautiful
>> mountain backdrop, they shoot the picture of someone from
>> up close with the wide angle then notice when they get home
>> the "magnificent mountain scenery" that was there when they
>> took the picture is just a couple of little bumps behind their
>> subject. Always the same comment "gee I don't understand,
>> the mountains looked so much bigger when we were there".
>> Step back even 10 feet, zoom in a bit to frame the subject
>> and voila - the mountains are there !! (unless you live in
>> Kansas, in which case, there is no hope for mountains .. )

>
>
> When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the condensed
> perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My personal taste
> for landscape images goes rather in the opposite, wide-angle direction,
> where the foreground subject is emphazised and the feeling of depth
> enhanced. Therefore my preference and reliance on the 17-40 f4 Zoom.
> Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate:
> http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350
>
> Cheers,
> Hank
>


I think quite a few comments in this thread are a bit missleading.... we
need to remember that perspective does NOT change with focal length.

Perspective will only change when we move our feet and change the subject
distance... this of course means that we will use a longer FL to frame the
subject as tight as being close with a shorter focal length, but the
important fact is that the persective only changed because we moved our
feet.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JC Dill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:22:08 GMT, "Herb Ludwig" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I use my Canon DSLR with 3 lenses (17-40 f4 Zoom, a 50 f1.4 Prime and a
>70-200 f4 Zoom) and find that I take about 50% of my pictures with the 17-40
>f4 lens, because I like its perspective on a 1.6 crop camera.
>Cheers,
>Hank


Meanwhile, I shoot with a 1.3 crop factor camera (1D Mark II) and I
have the opposite reaction. I have a 24-70 and a 70-200, and have
borrowed the 17-40. I ONLY used the 17-40 for fireworks photos. Each
time I put it on the camera thinking I'd try some wider views, I kept
finding myself on the 40 end and wishing I had more telephoto. I've
been using the 70-200 as my primary lens, and only reach for the 24-70
occasionally. The 17-40 is not on my shopping list but the 1.4
extender is.


jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
 
Reply With Quote
 
G.T.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006
Mike Fields wrote:
>
> "Herb Ludwig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:JKr_g.324709$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "Mike Fields" <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet> wrote:
>>> I have seen more people bitten with the foreground/background
>>> thing. Out in the open country somewhere with a beautiful
>>> mountain backdrop, they shoot the picture of someone from
>>> up close with the wide angle then notice when they get home
>>> the "magnificent mountain scenery" that was there when they
>>> took the picture is just a couple of little bumps behind their
>>> subject. Always the same comment "gee I don't understand,
>>> the mountains looked so much bigger when we were there".
>>> Step back even 10 feet, zoom in a bit to frame the subject
>>> and voila - the mountains are there !! (unless you live in
>>> Kansas, in which case, there is no hope for mountains .. )

>>
>>
>> When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the condensed
>> perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My personal
>> taste for landscape images goes rather in the opposite, wide-angle
>> direction, where the foreground subject is emphazised and the feeling
>> of depth enhanced. Therefore my preference and reliance on the 17-40
>> f4 Zoom.
>> Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate:
>> http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hank

>
> Excellent pictures. Looks to me like you got it just
> right - only thing missing was all the sheep that we
> saw when we were over there about 20 years ago.
> Seems like EVERYWHERE was sheep !! You are
> right about the landscape images and the lens - what
> I was thinking more of is when you want a picture
> of the kids etc with Mt. Rainier or some such as
> a major part of the picture instead of the little bump
> in the corner of the picture.
>


You mean like this if someone was in the frame:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3182796

Or with Mt Rainier even bigger?

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
 
Reply With Quote
 
Herb Ludwig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006
"POTD.com.au" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I think quite a few comments in this thread are a bit missleading.... we
> need to remember that perspective does NOT change with focal length.
> Perspective will only change when we move our feet and change the subject
> distance... this of course means that we will use a longer FL to frame the
> subject as tight as being close with a shorter focal length, but the
> important fact is that the persective only changed because we moved our
> feet.


Of course, perspective is not a function of lens focal length. Perspective
is a function of the distance of objects from the lens. However, in common
language usage it is customary to speak in terms of perspective as wide
angle, normal, or telephoto perspective.

Ron Bigelow http://www.ronbigelow.com/ in his excellent tutorial
"Advanced Composition" (Part3) approaches this dilemma as follows:

"The first thing that needs to be done is to destroy a misconception about
perspective. Many people believe that perspective is a function of lens
focal length. This is incorrect. Rather, perspective is a function of the
distance of objects from the lens. However, it is easy to see how this
misconception comes about. When wide angle lenses are used, the foreground
objects are typically placed close to the lens and the background objects
are relatively far away. This creates one perspective. When telephoto lenses
are used, typically, both the foreground and background objects are fairly
far away from the lens. This creates a different perspective. So, it appears
that the two lenses create different perspectives. In reality, this is not
the case -- it is not the lenses that create the different perspectives; it
is how the photographer uses those lenses to change the relative distances
of the foreground and background objects with respect to the lens.

However, in real life, wide angle lenses are used in certain ways, and long
lenses are generally used in different ways. Thus, it is often easier to
think in terms of perspective as wide angle, normal, or telephoto
perspective. Therefore, for the purpose of ease of explanation and
understanding, the rest of this section will cover the topic as if
perspective was a function of lens focal length. In spite of this, those of
us in the know understand that perspective is really a function, not of
focal length, but of how we use that focal length."


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006
Herb Ludwig wrote:

> "POTD.com.au" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I think quite a few comments in this thread are a bit missleading.... we
>>need to remember that perspective does NOT change with focal length.
>>Perspective will only change when we move our feet and change the subject
>>distance... this of course means that we will use a longer FL to frame the
>>subject as tight as being close with a shorter focal length, but the
>>important fact is that the persective only changed because we moved our
>>feet.

>
>
> Of course, perspective is not a function of lens focal length. Perspective
> is a function of the distance of objects from the lens. However, in common
> language usage it is customary to speak in terms of perspective as wide
> angle, normal, or telephoto perspective.
>
> Ron Bigelow http://www.ronbigelow.com/ in his excellent tutorial
> "Advanced Composition" (Part3) approaches this dilemma as follows:
>
> "The first thing that needs to be done is to destroy a misconception about
> perspective. Many people believe that perspective is a function of lens
> focal length. This is incorrect. Rather, perspective is a function of the
> distance of objects from the lens. However, it is easy to see how this
> misconception comes about. When wide angle lenses are used, the foreground
> objects are typically placed close to the lens and the background objects
> are relatively far away. This creates one perspective. When telephoto lenses
> are used, typically, both the foreground and background objects are fairly
> far away from the lens. This creates a different perspective. So, it appears
> that the two lenses create different perspectives. In reality, this is not
> the case -- it is not the lenses that create the different perspectives; it
> is how the photographer uses those lenses to change the relative distances
> of the foreground and background objects with respect to the lens.
>
> However, in real life, wide angle lenses are used in certain ways, and long
> lenses are generally used in different ways. Thus, it is often easier to
> think in terms of perspective as wide angle, normal, or telephoto
> perspective. Therefore, for the purpose of ease of explanation and
> understanding, the rest of this section will cover the topic as if
> perspective was a function of lens focal length. In spite of this, those of
> us in the know understand that perspective is really a function, not of
> focal length, but of how we use that focal length."
>


This attitude only enforces the incorrect use of perspective,
and that leads to more confusion by the beginner. While
Ron's articles in general are great, this is one of his few "hiccups,"
along with previsualization, which is just visualization.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Fields
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006

"G.T." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mike Fields wrote:
>>
>> "Herb Ludwig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:JKr_g.324709$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>> "Mike Fields" <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet> wrote:
>>>> I have seen more people bitten with the foreground/background
>>>> thing. Out in the open country somewhere with a beautiful
>>>> mountain backdrop, they shoot the picture of someone from
>>>> up close with the wide angle then notice when they get home
>>>> the "magnificent mountain scenery" that was there when they
>>>> took the picture is just a couple of little bumps behind their
>>>> subject. Always the same comment "gee I don't understand,
>>>> the mountains looked so much bigger when we were there".
>>>> Step back even 10 feet, zoom in a bit to frame the subject
>>>> and voila - the mountains are there !! (unless you live in
>>>> Kansas, in which case, there is no hope for mountains .. )
>>>
>>>
>>> When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the
>>> condensed perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My
>>> personal taste for landscape images goes rather in the opposite,
>>> wide-angle direction, where the foreground subject is emphazised and
>>> the feeling of depth enhanced. Therefore my preference and reliance
>>> on the 17-40 f4 Zoom.
>>> Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate:
>>> http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hank

>>
>> Excellent pictures. Looks to me like you got it just
>> right - only thing missing was all the sheep that we
>> saw when we were over there about 20 years ago.
>> Seems like EVERYWHERE was sheep !! You are
>> right about the landscape images and the lens - what
>> I was thinking more of is when you want a picture
>> of the kids etc with Mt. Rainier or some such as
>> a major part of the picture instead of the little bump
>> in the corner of the picture.
>>

>
> You mean like this if someone was in the frame:
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3182796
>
> Or with Mt Rainier even bigger?
>
> Greg


Nice pix from the Queen Ann area. That is the idea,
but I was thinking more along the lines of when we
are down there - there are times it is really nice to
bring the mountain right in tight. Then there are other
times as people have pointed out where the wide angle
is best. Took me a while to realize the most useless
lens for me to buy with a 35mm was the normal 58mm
lens - it was either not long enough to bring in what I
wanted or it was not wide enough for the scenery pix
I was taking (I used a 28 and 35mm a lot with film).
Yours is a good example of bringing the mountain
into the view though.

I guess the point I started out trying to make was as
someone else pointed out - there is no "correct" one,
it is a case of recognizing what the effects of different
lenses and relative distances between the foreground
subject and background and how they interact.

mikey


mikey

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Fields
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006

"Herb Ludwig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:mcI_g.329842$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "POTD.com.au" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I think quite a few comments in this thread are a bit missleading....
>> we need to remember that perspective does NOT change with focal
>> length.
>> Perspective will only change when we move our feet and change the
>> subject distance... this of course means that we will use a longer FL
>> to frame the subject as tight as being close with a shorter focal
>> length, but the important fact is that the persective only changed
>> because we moved our feet.

>
> Of course, perspective is not a function of lens focal length.
> Perspective is a function of the distance of objects from the lens.
> However, in common language usage it is customary to speak in terms of
> perspective as wide angle, normal, or telephoto perspective.
>
> Ron Bigelow http://www.ronbigelow.com/ in his excellent tutorial
> "Advanced Composition" (Part3) approaches this dilemma as follows:
>
> "The first thing that needs to be done is to destroy a misconception
> about perspective. Many people believe that perspective is a function
> of lens focal length. This is incorrect. Rather, perspective is a
> function of the distance of objects from the lens. However, it is easy
> to see how this misconception comes about. When wide angle lenses are
> used, the foreground objects are typically placed close to the lens
> and the background objects are relatively far away. This creates one
> perspective. When telephoto lenses are used, typically, both the
> foreground and background objects are fairly far away from the lens.
> This creates a different perspective. So, it appears that the two
> lenses create different perspectives. In reality, this is not the
> case -- it is not the lenses that create the different perspectives;
> it is how the photographer uses those lenses to change the relative
> distances of the foreground and background objects with respect to the
> lens.
>
> However, in real life, wide angle lenses are used in certain ways, and
> long lenses are generally used in different ways. Thus, it is often
> easier to think in terms of perspective as wide angle, normal, or
> telephoto perspective. Therefore, for the purpose of ease of
> explanation and understanding, the rest of this section will cover the
> topic as if perspective was a function of lens focal length. In spite
> of this, those of us in the know understand that perspective is really
> a function, not of focal length, but of how we use that focal length."
>


Yeah, that is what I was trying to say. The bottom line is the
average P&S user in particular has no idea about this and it
makes a BIG difference in how your pictures come out. You
need to decide what effect is the one you want, but you do
need to be aware of the differences (and yes, that also involves
using the legs to get in the right position).

mikey

 
Reply With Quote
 
Herb Ludwig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2006

"Mike Fields" <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet> wrote >
> Yeah, that is what I was trying to say. The bottom line is the
> average P&S user in particular has no idea about this and it
> makes a BIG difference in how your pictures come out. You
> need to decide what effect is the one you want, but you do
> need to be aware of the differences (and yes, that also involves
> using the legs to get in the right position).
>
> mikey




Agreed.

Cheers,
Hank


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr.T
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-23-2006

"Herb Ludwig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JKr_g.324709$(E-Mail Removed)...
> When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the condensed
> perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My personal taste

for
> landscape images goes rather in the opposite, wide-angle direction, where
> the foreground subject is emphazised and the feeling of depth enhanced.
> Therefore my preference and reliance on the 17-40 f4 Zoom.
> Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate:
> http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350


Funny then that that shot has little foreground detail. Whilst it's quite an
OK shot, why would you have to "strive" to emulate it? Are you suggesting
you could not do as well, in the same location, for some reason?

MrT.


 
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
David Mark's Javascript Tip of the Day - Volume #1 - #Tip 14-C David Mark Javascript 16 11-11-2011 02:45 AM
Latest Foto Tip column by Mark Alberhasky Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 0 08-10-2007 10:58 AM
New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasky Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 0 04-28-2007 02:02 AM
Latest Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasky Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 1 03-28-2007 01:30 AM
New Foto Tip column by Mark Alberhasky Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 32 12-20-2006 01:24 AM



Advertisments