New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, Oct 20, 2006.

  1. Hi All,

    I've just posted the latest Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasky on DIMi:
    <http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/fototips.php>

    It is on lenses and I can heartily endorse Mark's great advice. Mark is
    a Nikon Mentor in the US.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Coordindinator of Studies, Multimedia and Photomedia, Australian Academy
    of Design
    Personal art site http://www.artinyourface.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Oct 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mr.T Guest

    "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> wrote in message
    news:4539544e$0$22937$...
    > I've just posted the latest Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasky on DIMi:
    > <http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/fototips.php>
    >
    > It is on lenses and I can heartily endorse Mark's great advice. Mark is
    > a Nikon Mentor in the US.


    I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been saying the same thing for years!

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Oct 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mr.T wrote:
    > "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> wrote in message
    > news:4539544e$0$22937$...
    >> I've just posted the latest Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasky on DIMi:
    >> <http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/fototips.php>
    >>
    >> It is on lenses and I can heartily endorse Mark's great advice. Mark is
    >> a Nikon Mentor in the US.

    >
    > I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been saying the same thing for years!
    >
    > MrT.
    >
    >

    No you are not. But of course with newcomers migrating to dSLRs all the
    time it does need to be said again and again. It see it with my incoming
    students all the time. Their idea of a fast lens is f4 and a really fast
    one f2.8. It is the zoom mentality. Now nothing wrong with zooms, I love
    my ones, but they are not the whole answer.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Oct 21, 2006
    #3
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Herb Ludwig Guest

    "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> wrote >>
    > No you are not. But of course with newcomers migrating to dSLRs all the
    > time it does need to be said again and again. It see it with my incoming
    > students all the time. Their idea of a fast lens is f4 and a really fast
    > one f2.8. It is the zoom mentality. Now nothing wrong with zooms, I love
    > my ones, but they are not the whole answer.



    Not mentioned in Mark's article:
    The need for a "fast" lens has become less pressing with today's DSLRs
    providing for 4- stop ISO changes, e.g. from ISO 100 to 800, with virtually
    no sharpness / noise penalties (and decent pictures even at 1600 or 3200),.
    Get me right, I love to use my f1.4 prime lens and agree with the
    "Cartier-Bresson" approach to learn to see through just one focal length. On
    the other hand, Mark's "No more zoom in, zoom out. You've got to look for
    the right subject and the right composition" is misleading. Any decent
    photographer w/o a zoom will use his legs to get the right framing!
    Cheers,
    Hank
     
    Herb Ludwig, Oct 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mike Fields Guest

    "Herb Ludwig" <> wrote in message
    news:CRp_g.94924$...
    >
    > "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> wrote >>
    >> No you are not. But of course with newcomers migrating to dSLRs all
    >> the time it does need to be said again and again. It see it with my
    >> incoming students all the time. Their idea of a fast lens is f4 and a
    >> really fast one f2.8. It is the zoom mentality. Now nothing wrong
    >> with zooms, I love my ones, but they are not the whole answer.

    >
    >
    > Not mentioned in Mark's article:
    > The need for a "fast" lens has become less pressing with today's DSLRs
    > providing for 4- stop ISO changes, e.g. from ISO 100 to 800, with
    > virtually no sharpness / noise penalties (and decent pictures even at
    > 1600 or 3200),.
    > Get me right, I love to use my f1.4 prime lens and agree with the
    > "Cartier-Bresson" approach to learn to see through just one focal
    > length. On the other hand, Mark's "No more zoom in, zoom out. You've
    > got to look for the right subject and the right composition" is
    > misleading. Any decent photographer w/o a zoom will use his legs to
    > get the right framing!
    > Cheers,
    > Hank


    Well, maybe not quite that simple -- a) the refs get a bit
    upset if I am out in the middle of the soccer field during
    the game to "get the right framing" and b) many times,
    I want a different perspective between the foreground
    subject and the background (mountains etc) - it takes
    a different focal length to get the perspective right too
    (yes, you still need to use your legs to get it right though)

    mikey
     
    Mike Fields, Oct 21, 2006
    #5
  6. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Herb Ludwig Guest

    "Mike Fields" <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet> wrote
    > Well, maybe not quite that simple -- a) the refs get a bit
    > upset if I am out in the middle of the soccer field during
    > the game to "get the right framing" and b) many times,
    > I want a different perspective between the foreground
    > subject and the background (mountains etc) - it takes
    > a different focal length to get the perspective right too
    > (yes, you still need to use your legs to get it right though)



    Yes, of course, there are a number of situations where the legs alone won't
    do it.
    Indoors, for instance, where a nasty wall may soon crowd one's effort to
    step back-:)
    Thanks for pointing out the importance of the foreground / background
    perspective.
    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
     
    Herb Ludwig, Oct 21, 2006
    #6
  7. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mike Fields Guest

    "Herb Ludwig" <> wrote in message
    news:AWq_g.324447$...
    >
    > "Mike Fields" <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet> wrote
    >> Well, maybe not quite that simple -- a) the refs get a bit
    >> upset if I am out in the middle of the soccer field during
    >> the game to "get the right framing" and b) many times,
    >> I want a different perspective between the foreground
    >> subject and the background (mountains etc) - it takes
    >> a different focal length to get the perspective right too
    >> (yes, you still need to use your legs to get it right though)

    >
    >
    > Yes, of course, there are a number of situations where the legs alone
    > won't do it.
    > Indoors, for instance, where a nasty wall may soon crowd one's effort
    > to step back-:)
    > Thanks for pointing out the importance of the foreground / background
    > perspective.
    > 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


    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 .. )

    mikey
     
    Mike Fields, Oct 21, 2006
    #7
  8. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Herb Ludwig Guest

    "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
     
    Herb Ludwig, Oct 21, 2006
    #8
  9. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Tuli Guest

    Herb Ludwig wrote:
    > "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


    Beautiful photos!

    Tuli
     
    Tuli, Oct 21, 2006
    #9
  10. The thing is, yes we all know this but many others don't. It is easy to
    forget that new people are coming to photography all the time as a new
    hobby, or moving up in their attention to it. Things like stepping back
    and using a longer lens has to be learned. And even using the feet
    instead of the zoom has to be learned.

    It is not automatic, especially now that the standard lens sold with
    effectively all cameras is a zoom. For beginners, zooms give the
    impression you can stay in one spot and get a range of results, which
    you can. But learning that this is not always what you want to do needs
    to be taught. It is one of the many things we have to teach students.

    Cheers,

    Wayne
    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Oct 22, 2006
    #10
  11. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mike Fields Guest

    "Herb Ludwig" <> wrote in message
    news:JKr_g.324709$...
    >
    > "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
     
    Mike Fields, Oct 22, 2006
    #11
  12. Wayne J. Cosshall

    POTD.com.au Guest

    "Herb Ludwig" <> wrote in message
    news:JKr_g.324709$...
    >
    > "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.
     
    POTD.com.au, Oct 22, 2006
    #12
  13. Wayne J. Cosshall

    JC Dill Guest

    On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:22:08 GMT, "Herb Ludwig" <>
    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
     
    JC Dill, Oct 22, 2006
    #13
  14. Wayne J. Cosshall

    G.T. Guest

    Mike Fields wrote:
    >
    > "Herb Ludwig" <> wrote in message
    > news:JKr_g.324709$...
    >>
    >> "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
     
    G.T., Oct 22, 2006
    #14
  15. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Herb Ludwig Guest

    "POTD.com.au" <> 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."
     
    Herb Ludwig, Oct 22, 2006
    #15
  16. Herb Ludwig wrote:

    > "POTD.com.au" <> 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
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 22, 2006
    #16
  17. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mike Fields Guest

    "G.T." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mike Fields wrote:
    >>
    >> "Herb Ludwig" <> wrote in message
    >> news:JKr_g.324709$...
    >>>
    >>> "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
     
    Mike Fields, Oct 22, 2006
    #17
  18. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mike Fields Guest

    "Herb Ludwig" <> wrote in message
    news:mcI_g.329842$...
    > "POTD.com.au" <> 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
     
    Mike Fields, Oct 22, 2006
    #18
  19. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Herb Ludwig Guest

    "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
     
    Herb Ludwig, Oct 22, 2006
    #19
  20. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mr.T Guest

    "Herb Ludwig" <> wrote in message
    news:JKr_g.324709$...
    > 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.
     
    Mr.T, Oct 23, 2006
    #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. Wayne J. Cosshall

    New Foto Tip

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Sep 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    370
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Sep 16, 2006
  2. Wayne J. Cosshall

    New Foto Tip column by Mark Alberhasky

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Dec 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    797
    Robert Brace
    Dec 20, 2006
  3. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Latest Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasky

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Mar 25, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    366
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasky

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Apr 28, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    291
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Apr 28, 2007
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Latest Foto Tip column by Mark Alberhasky

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Aug 10, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    298
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Aug 10, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page