Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Is wide-angle over-used?

Reply
Thread Tools

Is wide-angle over-used?

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-14-2011
Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
enough away in order to frame what they wanted?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nervous Nick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2011
On Apr 14, 6:23*pm, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
> perhaps wildlife shooters. *Wide angle does have some weird attraction
> to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
> pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
> become too used in magazines. *Maybe what we could use more of are
> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?


What tittie magazines are you "reading" these days?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2011
On Apr 15, 12:23*am, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
> perhaps wildlife shooters.


Well it does make some sense, it;'s easier to zoom in on a distant
object
than zoom out to get a wide angle with most kit and standard lenses.

>*Wide angle does have some weird attraction
> to the human eye


Well you get to see more than you normally do wihout having to move
yuor head about.

>(maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
> pleasant drug-trips?)

What of unpleasant trips ? They're just as valid.


> but it seems like in the last few years, it has
> become too used in magazines.


Maybe but maybe it depends on the magazine and or the subject.
I doubt many photographers will be shooting Kate and wills wedding
with a wide angle lens.

> *Maybe what we could use more of are
> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?


I didn't think the distance from camera to subject changed the angle
of view of any lens.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2011
Possibly.
But less so than your keyboard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2011
In rec.photo.digital RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
> perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
> to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
> pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
> become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?


In the majority of my wide angle shots the only way to get further
back in order to use a less wide lens would be to demolish the
building at my back.

If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
the perspective distortion will have disappeared.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2011
On 17 Apr 2011 21:53:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
>> perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
>> to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
>> pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
>> become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
>> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
>> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?

>
>In the majority of my wide angle shots the only way to get further
>back in order to use a less wide lens would be to demolish the
>building at my back.
>
>If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
>photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
>the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
>the perspective distortion will have disappeared.


OMG! How does it know?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2011
In rec.photo.digital John A. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2011 21:53:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:


>>In rec.photo.digital RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
>>> perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
>>> to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
>>> pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
>>> become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
>>> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
>>> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?

>>
>>In the majority of my wide angle shots the only way to get further
>>back in order to use a less wide lens would be to demolish the
>>building at my back.
>>
>>If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
>>photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
>>the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
>>the perspective distortion will have disappeared.


> OMG! How does it know?


Nothing needs to know anything. It's a simple consequence of
perspective geometry. You don't even need to understand lenses. It
works with pinhole cameras, i.e. every point on the image connected by
a straight line through the pinhole to the point in the world it's
imaging. That gives linear perspective projection where the
straightness of lines is preserved between world and image. Very
simple geometry.

Don't they teach this stuff at school any more?

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2011
> Nothing needs to know anything. It's a simple consequence of
> perspective geometry. You don't even need to understand lenses. It
> works with pinhole cameras, i.e. every point on the image connected by
> a straight line through the pinhole to the point in the world it's
> imaging. That gives linear perspective projection where the
> straightness of lines is preserved between world and image. Very
> simple geometry.
>
> Don't they teach this stuff at school any more?
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm


Looks like they don't even teach one how to find out for oneself either!
You would have thought that with Wikipedia and Google.....

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2011
On 18 Apr 2011 23:15:14 GMT, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital John A. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 17 Apr 2011 21:53:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:

>
>>>In rec.photo.digital RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
>>>> perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
>>>> to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
>>>> pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
>>>> become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
>>>> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
>>>> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?
>>>
>>>In the majority of my wide angle shots the only way to get further
>>>back in order to use a less wide lens would be to demolish the
>>>building at my back.
>>>
>>>If the perspective distortion upsets you, move your eye closer to the
>>>photograph. When the angle of view of the photograph to your eye is
>>>the same as the angle of view of the camera lens in the original shot,
>>>the perspective distortion will have disappeared.

>
>> OMG! How does it know?

>
>Nothing needs to know anything. It's a simple consequence of
>perspective geometry. You don't even need to understand lenses. It
>works with pinhole cameras, i.e. every point on the image connected by
>a straight line through the pinhole to the point in the world it's
>imaging. That gives linear perspective projection where the
>straightness of lines is preserved between world and image. Very
>simple geometry.
>
>Don't they teach this stuff at school any more?


LOL. Sorry. Thermos joke.

Yeah, I get it. I once managed to write a rudimentary ray-tracing
program that displayed images using 80x25 16-color CGA text mode,
dithered by using spaces and characters 176 through 178 and 219.
( http://telecom.tbi.net/asc-ibm.html ) I later upgraded it to 80x50
characters when I got hold of a VGA adapter. All before I ever took a
trig class. (The whole like-triangles thing just kinda clicked in my
head.) I think I had it able to render in a few graphics modes too,
but it's been over 20 years and my memory's a little fuzzy.

I also had done a wireframe model renderer as a teen, but only
projected the endpoints. IIRC, I had asked a neighbor who was studying
architecture for help with a formula to rotate a point with X,Y
coordinates about another point so many degrees and return a new set
of coordinates. He came up with a method that found the angle &
distance, added the rotational angle, and calculated the new
coordinates from that. It seemed slow to me, so I thought about it for
a while and realized it would be much faster just to rotate the
component vectors and add the results.

Thanks for reminding me of all this. Really takes me back.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-20-2011
On 4/14/2011 9:40 PM, Nervous Nick wrote:
> On Apr 14, 6:23 pm, RichA<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Seems like that is what most people want first and foremost, except
>> perhaps wildlife shooters. Wide angle does have some weird attraction
>> to the human eye (maybe the perspective distortion reminds some of
>> pleasant drug-trips?) but it seems like in the last few years, it has
>> become too used in magazines. Maybe what we could use more of are
>> prime "normal" shots where the person made the effort to get far
>> enough away in order to frame what they wanted?

>
> What tittie magazines are you "reading" these days?




He probably reads all of them.


--
Peter
 
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




Advertisments