Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 26, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Years ago, the average amateur couldn't afford ultra wide angle
    lenses. They cost far more than most could justify. However, as wide
    zooms have appeared (and are relatively cheap) more and more amateurs
    are using these lenses. But once you've seen one ultrawide angle
    shot, of a beach or train station, it starts to get old, fast.
    Ultrawide angle allows most scenes to achieve a kind of dynamic look,
    but that's the problem. Ultrawide angle shots don't need
    compositional thought in order to have an impact. If you will, they
    are an easy out for people who would rather not invest the time and
    thought into working a good composition out of a scene.
     
    RichA, Jul 26, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > Ultrawide angle shots don't need
    > compositional thought in order to have an impact.

    That's an hilariously ignorant statement.
     
    Me, Jul 26, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, Me <> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > > Ultrawide angle shots don't need
    > > compositional thought in order to have an impact.

    >
    > That's an hilariously ignorant statement.


    Seconded. Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
    but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
    it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.

    - --
    - -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
    Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
    Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

    iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMTPmmAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bXY0H/3BOy09pwqovLbI3AJbH4Q7f
    PeHAioeniT/M/KjzRxKptYRMWAQkFB7sruydsd6IdK2fLlLWjARzI4x3SXSqFE+P
    DePFnz+DE0EgH5mhhIZx19bimKMvld8EAPKRVoeS73PnWbyNNXSxD0iZVGahPH5z
    0d8mg3MGHrINjPVlCIv2d2pkQoLP+Qb8OMb7X74u42ElL2P1BYjEemW+aqCTGmWa
    A0K/0uof1Hhnb75Aa6smbDrogRKQLdJ7p2Rw5X3iK8QKhZ3ByU+wmdxp8dcKN7nE
    NnqeVgqvsuTuqjoxLvwPm6IrSVb8BDHfr1RP0ORmSD50hJ9L07MmITveubbUeDU=
    =siiZ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Jul 26, 2010
    #3
  4. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1


    > OK, the storm chasing work is fascinating. You have given us an
    > impressive sample of your work, and a demonstration of your skills as a
    > photographer, and with PP.
    > Now as a matter of curiosity, what equipment, are you/have you been using?
    > Somewhere in that mix of lenses I sense there is at least one fairly
    > wide lens you have used to create a less than "boring-as-crap" ultrawide
    > shot.


    Thanks! Yeah, I generally use ultrawide for the
    up-close-with-the-storms photos; I'm shooting crop-sensor Canon bodies,
    so the 10-22 has been the primary wide lens. I keep a nifty 50 and a
    70-200 in the bag while chasing, too, mostly for panoramic stitch shots
    and for the tornado close-ups.

    I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
    lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
    I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
    symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
    will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
    with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
    interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
    distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
    compose a shot in ultrawide.

    - --
    - -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
    Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
    Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

    iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMTQiVAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bkfwH/RxgSFbTW3uEr8Yfw1wEeacL
    Jn5qDC+G8FKa5uvKN++8DMV3mg9tnxaFQdk4G3PRm/zVkCYaMng3xSrjShGQD/fh
    z6B0W/5XIjbVowwG6L7WS3aw43CcO4iBmZBEYPDekQVICE0hSRw6xIrCmo+trzm4
    L7DrVgU5lwZW7bZnUqpZhBx4b13DP1WT4gBAjaZaaXBa8LLfaXD5xXZMdXk5riCt
    TXgVXUku4o0Xb4hakFBPmL1UgK7AhaICE3E1fqbAZLJFWeoyI5vhDpQu2+J679bs
    oHqTdhUaEEiKIcB/D4Ut98SGUVN1txpIiRpyCWtMcaO1BGz6s1/yOeadCGJgiA4=
    =DwSX
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Jul 26, 2010
    #4
  5. In rec.photo.digital Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1


    > On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, Me <> wrote:
    >> RichA wrote:
    >> > Ultrawide angle shots don't need
    >> > compositional thought in order to have an impact.

    >>
    >> That's an hilariously ignorant statement.


    > Seconded. Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
    > but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
    > it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.


    Thirded. It's easy enough to take weird shots with an ultra wide, if
    that's what the OT meant by "imapct". I find ultra wides the most
    difficult lenses to take *good* shots with, however, and they need a
    lot more compositional thought and experience than any other kind of
    lens. Sounds like the OT hasn't much experience with them, probably
    just looked at other people's photographs.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 26, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 25, 10:57 pm, Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, Me <> wrote:
    >
    > > RichA wrote:
    > > > Ultrawide angle shots don't need
    > > > compositional thought in order to have an impact.

    >
    > > That's an hilariously ignorant statement.

    >
    > Seconded.  Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
    > but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
    > it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.


    Not really. The distortion provided by UW shots automatically conveys
    a dyanamism that non-ultrawide shots don't have, so even if no thought
    has gone into them, they are going to have an emotional impact on most
    viewers.
     
    RichA, Jul 26, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    whisky-dave Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Years ago, the average amateur couldn't afford ultra wide angle
    > lenses. They cost far more than most could justify. However, as wide
    > zooms have appeared (and are relatively cheap) more and more amateurs
    > are using these lenses. But once you've seen one ultrawide angle
    > shot, of a beach or train station, it starts to get old, fast.


    yep I agree, most P&Ss have around 24 to 28mm lens (35mm equiv).
    But do we need a wider angle for anythig more than a speacial effect i.e
    distortion .

    Most cameras also have a stitch facility now, that is meant for peole that
    want to get the whole wedding party in rather than a distorted effect.

    > Ultrawide angle allows most scenes to achieve a kind of dynamic look,
    > but that's the problem. Ultrawide angle shots don't need
    > compositional thought in order to have an impact. If you will, they
    > are an easy out for people who would rather not invest the time and
    > thought into working a good composition out of a scene.


    In 35mm film days stitching wasnt; an option but it is now but not used as
    much as I would have expected.
     
    whisky-dave, Jul 26, 2010
    #7
  8. "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    news:4c4d0899$0$24965$...

    > I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
    > lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
    > I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
    > symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
    > will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
    > with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
    > interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
    > distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
    > compose a shot in ultrawide.
    > - --
    > - -Ryan McGinnis
    > The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
    > Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
    > Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis


    I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
    "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
    characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
    There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
    perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
    not help.
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Jul 26, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether"
    <> wrote:
    >"Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    >news:4c4d0899$0$24965$...
    >
    >> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
    >> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
    >> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
    >> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
    >> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
    >> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
    >> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
    >> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
    >> compose a shot in ultrawide.
    >> - --
    >> - -Ryan McGinnis
    >> The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
    >> Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
    >> Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis

    >
    >I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
    >"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
    >characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
    >There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
    >perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
    >not help.



    It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
    focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
    relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
    irrelevant.
     
    Bruce, Jul 26, 2010
    #9
  10. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether"
    > <> wrote:
    >>"Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    >>news:4c4d0899$0$24965$...


    >>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
    >>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
    >>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
    >>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
    >>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
    >>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
    >>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
    >>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
    >>> compose a shot in ultrawide.
    >>> - --
    >>> - -Ryan McGinnis


    >>I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
    >>"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
    >>characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
    >>There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
    >>perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
    >>not help.


    > It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
    > focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
    > relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
    > irrelevant.


    Correct, and a good point. Also, associating "WA distortion" etc. with
    specific FLs can result in odd results, as in a rectangular-perspective
    10mm can be a super-wide on some formats (with the associated
    "distortions" ;-), and it can also be a "distortionless" long FL on other
    formats. 'Course, a rotating-slit camera or a stitched digital panorama
    with their altered effective sensor shapes can also affect the perspective
    type of the system (in this case, the perspective type is "cylindrical").
    Understanding perspective can be fun! 8^)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Jul 26, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Shiva Das Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether"
    > <> wrote:
    > >"Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    > >news:4c4d0899$0$24965$...
    > >
    > >> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
    > >> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
    > >> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
    > >> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
    > >> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
    > >> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
    > >> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
    > >> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
    > >> compose a shot in ultrawide.
    > >> - --
    > >> - -Ryan McGinnis
    > >> The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
    > >> Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
    > >> Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis

    > >
    > >I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
    > >"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
    > >characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
    > >There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
    > >perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
    > >not help.

    >
    >
    > It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
    > focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
    > relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
    > irrelevant.


    In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics,
    Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using
    progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm
    to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format).

    The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same
    spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady
    on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each
    image.

    It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect
    perspective
     
    Shiva Das, Jul 26, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva Das <>
    wrote:
    >In article <>,
    > Bruce <> wrote:
    >> It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
    >> focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
    >> relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
    >> irrelevant.

    >
    >In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics,
    >Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using
    >progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm
    >to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format).
    >
    >The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same
    >spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady
    >on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each
    >image.
    >
    >It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect
    >perspective.



    Yes, that is the classic method of demonstrating that perspective is
    independent of focal length.

    It is to be found in many books on photography, yet people still keep
    making the same mistake over and over again, thinking that perspective
    is dependent on focal length.
     
    Bruce, Jul 26, 2010
    #12
  13. "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:i2k3ml$8ac$...
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>>"Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:4c4d0899$0$24965$...


    >>>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
    >>>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
    >>>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
    >>>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
    >>>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
    >>>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
    >>>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
    >>>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
    >>>> compose a shot in ultrawide.
    >>>> - --
    >>>> - -Ryan McGinnis


    >>>I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
    >>>"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
    >>>characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
    >>>There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
    >>>perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
    >>>not help.


    >> It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
    >> focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
    >> relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
    >> irrelevant.


    > Correct, and a good point. Also, associating "WA distortion" etc. with
    > specific FLs can result in odd results, as in a rectangular-perspective
    > 10mm can be a super-wide on some formats (with the associated
    > "distortions" ;-), and it can also be a "distortionless" long FL on other
    > formats. 'Course, a rotating-slit camera or a stitched digital panorama
    > with their altered effective sensor shapes can also affect the perspective
    > type of the system (in this case, the perspective type is "cylindrical").
    > Understanding perspective can be fun! 8^)
    > --DR


    Ooops! I let slip by, "Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and
    its relationship with the subject." "Perspective" is also a function of the
    specific perspective type the lens/sensor-shape renders when making
    the image...
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Jul 26, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Twibil Guest

    Have paint brushes become cliched for painting things?

    (Hint: It's a tool. And like all tools it doesn't tell you how to use
    it. You could paint like Monet or you could paint a house.)

    Same tool.
     
    Twibil, Jul 26, 2010
    #14
  15. In rec.photo.digital David Ruether <> wrote:

    > "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c4d0899$0$24965$...


    >> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
    >> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
    >> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
    >> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
    >> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
    >> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
    >> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
    >> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
    >> compose a shot in ultrawide.


    > I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
    > "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
    > characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
    > There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
    > perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
    > not help.


    I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
    miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
    lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
    excellent!

    Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
    what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
    can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
    recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
    calling it "distortion".

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 28, 2010
    #15
  16. "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In rec.photo.digital David Ruether <> wrote:
    >> "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4c4d0899$0$24965$...


    >>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
    >>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
    >>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
    >>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
    >>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
    >>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
    >>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
    >>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
    >>> compose a shot in ultrawide.


    >> I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
    >> "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
    >> characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
    >> There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
    >> perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
    >> not help.


    > I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
    > miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
    > lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
    > excellent!
    >
    > Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
    > what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
    > can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
    > recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
    > calling it "distortion".
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm


    Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular
    perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing
    familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate
    conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-).
    So much of this is simply logical! ;-)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Jul 28, 2010
    #16
  17. "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:i2pjoa$m58$...
    > "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> In rec.photo.digital David Ruether <> wrote:
    >>> "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4c4d0899$0$24965$...


    >>>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
    >>>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
    >>>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
    >>>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
    >>>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
    >>>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
    >>>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
    >>>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
    >>>> compose a shot in ultrawide.


    >>> I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
    >>> "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
    >>> characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
    >>> There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
    >>> perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
    >>> not help.


    >> I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
    >> miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
    >> lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
    >> excellent!
    >>
    >> Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
    >> what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
    >> can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
    >> recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
    >> calling it "distortion".
    >> --
    >> Chris Malcolm


    > Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular
    > perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing
    > familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate
    > conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-).
    > So much of this is simply logical! ;-)
    > --DR


    Ah, a bit more to add to the above... If a "distorted" fisheye photo is
    projected onto a hemispherical surface and the eye is placed properly
    at the center of the circle at the hemisphere's rear, the view will also
    be undistorted, and an angle of view that is impossible to achieve with
    rectangular perspective can easily be achieved with the fisheye view.
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Jul 28, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:52:42 -0400, "David Ruether" <>
    wrote:
    :
    : "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    : news:...
    : > In rec.photo.digital David Ruether <> wrote:
    : >> "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    : >> news:4c4d0899$0$24965$...
    :
    : >>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
    : >>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
    : >>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
    : >>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
    : >>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
    : >>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
    : >>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
    : >>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
    : >>> compose a shot in ultrawide.
    :
    : >> I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
    : >> "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
    : >> characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
    : >> There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately
    : >> the perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two
    : >> does not help.
    :
    : > I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
    : > miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
    : > lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
    : > excellent!
    : >
    : > Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
    : > what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
    : > can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
    : > recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
    : > calling it "distortion".
    : > --
    : > Chris Malcolm
    :
    : Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular
    : perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing
    : familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate
    : conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-).
    : So much of this is simply logical! ;-)
    : --DR

    And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as
    they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way
    that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate
    your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your
    glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit
    counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene
    that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level
    while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as
    level, even when the camera doesn't.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 31, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:19:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : On Jul 25, 10:57 pm, Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:
    : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    : > Hash: SHA1
    : >
    : > On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, Me <> wrote:
    : >
    : > > RichA wrote:
    : > > > Ultrawide angle shots don't need
    : > > > compositional thought in order to have an impact.
    : >
    : > > That's an hilariously ignorant statement.
    : >
    : > Seconded.  Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
    : > but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
    : > it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.
    :
    : Not really. The distortion provided by UW shots automatically conveys
    : a dyanamism that non-ultrawide shots don't have, so even if no thought
    : has gone into them, they are going to have an emotional impact on most
    : viewers.

    Perhaps, but that emotional impact may not be what you hoped for. I'm still
    getting used to my new ultrawide and adjusting to the fact that the tricks one
    uses to compensate for inadequate lens width, such as photographing a wide
    building with the camera pointed at its corner, can produce garish results
    with an ultrawide. The emotional impact of more than a few of my recent
    pictures has been to make me want to retch. ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 31, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:32:07 -0700, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    : RichA wrote:
    : > On Jul 25, 10:57 pm, Ryan McGinnis<> wrote:
    : >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    : >> Hash: SHA1
    : >>
    : >> On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, Me<> wrote:
    : >>
    : >>> RichA wrote:
    : >>>> Ultrawide angle shots don't need
    : >>>> compositional thought in order to have an impact.
    : >>
    : >>> That's an hilariously ignorant statement.
    : >>
    : >> Seconded. Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
    : >> but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
    : >> it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.
    : >
    : > Not really. The distortion provided by UW shots automatically conveys
    : > a dyanamism that non-ultrawide shots don't have, so even if no thought
    : > has gone into them, they are going to have an emotional impact on most
    : > viewers.
    :
    : Yeah but a poorly composed ultra wide shot is likely to invoke disgust
    : rather than the boredom of a poorly composed normal view <g>. So it's
    : not exactly a safe shortcut to fame. The exception is an ultra wide shot
    : at the beach with no foreground, which will indeed look boring. Fisheye
    : lenses are really tough to make good photos with because it usually just
    : looks weird and bad.

    So far, Bowser is the only photographer in our group who has shown that he can
    consistently produce good pictures with a fisheye. And he chooses his subjects
    very carefully to make it happen.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 31, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stephanie

    Computer has become ridiculously slow!

    Stephanie, Oct 8, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    709
    °Mike°
    Oct 8, 2003
  2. Stephanie

    Re: Computer has become ridiculously slow!

    Stephanie, Oct 11, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    2,738
    Helen
    Oct 11, 2003
  3. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    731
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
  4. Jas
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    641
  5. shilla
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,733
    DasFox
    Jan 22, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page