perspective w/ 35mm lenses?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PrincePete01, Jul 16, 2004.

  1. PrincePete01

    mcgyverjones Guest

    snip
    This is exactly where you are wrong. The tele lens does not give any kind
    of compression at all.
    The apparent compression is purely a result of the camera position.
    The lens simply allows the photographer to crop in camera without losing
    resolution.
    I can't believe we are still going on about this, it's photo 101.
     
    mcgyverjones, Aug 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. PrincePete01

    Nostrobino Guest

    He isn't "cropping" anything, any more than using a normal f.l. lens is
    "cropping" what WOULD have appeared in a wide-angle shot. He's using the
    300mm lens because that is what gives him the perspective he wants. Does
    this also imply a more distant camera position? Obviously!
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. PrincePete01

    Nostrobino Guest

    Dave, I've been making several attempts to reply to this since yesterday,
    but for some reason my server keeps rejecting my posts. It's been doing this
    occasionally lately, no idea why. Today I tried copying my yesterday's reply
    into a fresh post, but it rejects that too. Yet I have no problem replying
    to other posts. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 8, 2004
  4. PrincePete01

    mcgyverjones Guest

    And it's the distance that provides the perspective, not the focal length.
     
    mcgyverjones, Aug 8, 2004
  5. mcgyverjones wrote:
    :: :::

    [...]

    ::: He isn't "cropping" anything, any more than using a normal f.l.
    ::: lens is "cropping" what WOULD have appeared in a wide-angle shot.
    ::: He's using the 300mm lens because that is what gives him the
    ::: perspective he wants. Does this also imply a more distant camera
    ::: position? Obviously!
    :::
    :: And it's the distance that provides the perspective, not the focal
    :: length.

    Surely he is using the 300mm lens to acheive the field of view he wants.
    Perspective is a function of camera to object distance.
     
    Anthony Ralph, Aug 8, 2004
  6. PrincePete01

    mcgyverjones Guest

    Exactly. Now tell Nostrobino that (or beat your head against the wall).
     
    mcgyverjones, Aug 9, 2004
  7. PrincePete01

    Nostrobino Guest

    No, the perspective. Field of view is not what makes the shot look the way
    he wants it to.The field of view is whatever goes with the perspective he
    wants. They go together like bacon and eggs, but bacon is bacon and eggs are
    eggs.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 9, 2004
  8. PrincePete01

    Nostrobino Guest

    I am beginning seriously to doubt that half of you even know what
    "perspective" means. (Other than "duhhhh, something to do with camera
    position.")
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 9, 2004
  9. Nostrobino wrote:

    [...]


    :::::: And it's the distance that provides the perspective, not the
    :::::: focal length.
    ::::
    :::: Surely he is using the 300mm lens to acheive the field of view he
    :::: wants. Perspective is a function of camera to object distance.
    ::::
    ::: Exactly. Now tell Nostrobino that (or beat your head against the
    ::: wall).
    ::
    :: I am beginning seriously to doubt that half of you even know what
    :: "perspective" means. (Other than "duhhhh, something to do with camera
    :: position.")


    Well... you can count me in the half that does know what it is. I also know what field of view is too.
     
    Anthony Ralph, Aug 9, 2004
  10. PrincePete01

    Nostrobino Guest

    And for WHICH of those would you say a photographer selects a 100mm lens (or whatever his choice is) for portraiture?

    Nostrobino wrote:

    [...]


    :::::: And it's the distance that provides the perspective, not the
    :::::: focal length.
    ::::
    :::: Surely he is using the 300mm lens to acheive the field of view he
    :::: wants. Perspective is a function of camera to object distance.
    ::::
    ::: Exactly. Now tell Nostrobino that (or beat your head against the
    ::: wall).
    ::
    :: I am beginning seriously to doubt that half of you even know what
    :: "perspective" means. (Other than "duhhhh, something to do with camera
    :: position.")


    Well... you can count me in the half that does know what it is. I also know what field of view is too.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 9, 2004
  11. Nostrobino wrote:

    [...]


    :::::: And it's the distance that provides the perspective, not the
    :::::: focal length.
    :::::
    ::::: Surely he is using the 300mm lens to acheive the field of view he
    ::::: wants. Perspective is a function of camera to object distance.
    :::::
    :::: Exactly. Now tell Nostrobino that (or beat your head against the
    :::: wall).
    :::
    ::: I am beginning seriously to doubt that half of you even know what
    ::: "perspective" means. (Other than "duhhhh, something to do with camera
    ::: position.")


    :: Well... you can count me in the half that does know what it is. I also know what field of view is too.

    : And for WHICH of those would you say a photographer selects a 100mm lens (or whatever his choice is) for portraiture?

    Assuming a full frame 35mm camera; a 100mm lens gives a suitable field of view to allow the photographer to maintain sufficient distance from his subject to give a suitable perspective for (classic) portraiture and fill the frame.
     
    Anthony Ralph, Aug 9, 2004
  12. PrincePete01

    mcgyverjones Guest

    I don't see a lot of duhhh's here. But we do have a pretty fundamental
    disagreement on what perspective means. As far as I am concerned this feels
    like trying to explain that the earth orbits the sun.

    Perspective in a photograph is a result of camera position.

    Wide angle photographs look different than normal or tele photos, but the
    difference is not perspective (even though lots of people think it is and
    call it that).

    Telephoto lenses do not compress the subject, but the camera to subject
    distances commonly utilized in tele shots show what we call compressed
    perspective.

    If we are having a debate in which the central article of the debate is
    defined differently by each party, then it is an exercise in futility.

    MJ
     
    mcgyverjones, Aug 10, 2004
  13. PrincePete01

    mcgyverjones Guest

    No, it's a common misconception.
    There is a telephoto look, it is derived from the distances that telephoto
    photographs are commonly taken at.
    world.

    So you really are a flat-earther?

    Actually, this whole sphere thing (as fascinating as it may be to some) is
    irrelevant to perspective.

    To demonstrate how perspective can only be affected by camera position,
    imagine various straight lines between the camera and subjects (fore, mid
    and background). These lines represents the path of the cameras line of
    site, or of light travelling from subject to camera. These lines define the
    subject's relationship to one another and the background. Of course they are
    not affected by focal length, but change the camera position and all the
    lines change. This is perspective, the relationships of objects to one
    another.

    A telephoto lens has a look because it is commonly used at greater distances
    from main subject. similarly wide angle lenses have a look because their
    wide field of view and great DOF is commonly used to include subjects close
    to the camera as they relate to subjects further away.

    But the focal length itself has no bearing on the perspective.

    Choices made by lens designers affect how the scene is projected onto the
    film/sensor plane, but they do not affect perspective.

    This is actually pretty fundamental to photography, and the only reason that
    some of us have gone on about this is in the hope that perhaps someone might
    learn something.

    MJ
     
    mcgyverjones, Aug 10, 2004
  14. PrincePete01

    Nostrobino Guest

    You're ducking and running.

    Which is the portrait photographer's chief (if not only) reason for his choice of focal length, perspective or field of view?

    I presume you know the answer as well as I do, and just can't bring yourself to say it.




    Nostrobino wrote:

    [...]


    :::::: And it's the distance that provides the perspective, not the
    :::::: focal length.
    :::::
    ::::: Surely he is using the 300mm lens to acheive the field of view he
    ::::: wants. Perspective is a function of camera to object distance.
    :::::
    :::: Exactly. Now tell Nostrobino that (or beat your head against the
    :::: wall).
    :::
    ::: I am beginning seriously to doubt that half of you even know what
    ::: "perspective" means. (Other than "duhhhh, something to do with camera
    ::: position.")


    :: Well... you can count me in the half that does know what it is. I also know what field of view is too.

    : And for WHICH of those would you say a photographer selects a 100mm lens (or whatever his choice is) for portraiture?

    Assuming a full frame 35mm camera; a 100mm lens gives a suitable field of view to allow the photographer to maintain sufficient distance from his subject to give a suitable perspective for (classic) portraiture and fill the frame.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 10, 2004
  15. PrincePete01

    Nostrobino Guest

    That, and focal length. You cannot produce wide-angle perspective with a
    long-focus lens, regardless of camera position. I have said this several
    times already. No one has refuted it and no one can.

    If perspective really were only "a result of camera position" then obviously
    you could get any perspective you wanted simply by moving the camera around.
    You can't.
    Those lots of people are perfectly correct in doing so. The difference is
    perspective. They can see it, I can see it, and I'll bet you could see it
    before you read some nonsense that told you it wasn't really there.

    How would you define "perspective"? Not what causes it, what IS it? What do
    you see in a picture that you call perspective? Answer that correctly and
    you have to admit that wide-angle perspective (etc.) exists.

    The spatial compression demonstrated by long lenses results from their
    magnification and small angle of view. The change in apparent object
    relationships (position, size, angles etc.) that this produces certainly
    does qualify as a change in perspective.

    A photographer may choose a particular focal length to gain a large field of
    view (as in interior photography), high magnification (wildlife photography)
    or pleasing perspective (portrait photography). While these things are all
    necessarily interrelated, they are entirely different reasons for selecting
    focal lengths.

    In each case, camera position is simply what it has to be in order to get
    the desirted result with the lens selected. Thus you may hear a photographer
    say, "I like to use a 100mm lens for portraits"--rather than, for example,
    "I like to shoot portraits from a distance of about seven feet." He chooses
    the focal length for the perspective he wants, and the camera position
    follows from that. Not the other way around.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 10, 2004
  16. PrincePete01

    Nostrobino Guest

    It's a common and correct perception.

    The telephoto look (i.e., perspective) occurs with long lenses irrespective
    of camera to subject distance. Do table-top photography with a long lens and
    you still have the telephoto look.

    No, I'm a three-dimensionaler. So you're agreeing with Jeremy that it's all
    a spherical projection?

    You will want to talk to Jeremy about that, not me.

    YES! YES! That is exactly what I have been asking people here to do, and
    have had no takers. Just show me how you can get the same perspective with a
    135mm lens (or whatever) that you do with a 28nn lens (or whatever). Use any
    camera position you like to do that.

    So far, so good.

    No, sorry, they do not. They define nothing but the directions from the
    camera to those parts of the subject(s).

    Change the focal length and you get MORE such lines at wider angles, or
    FEWER such lines at narrower angles. The lines you had before the f.l.
    change are either added to, or subtracted from. Ergo, they are indeed
    affected by focal length.

    But that isn't what you've just described. You've only described directions
    from the camera to parts of the subject.

    Again, this is just not necessarily true. That telephoto look occurs
    regardless of distance. Long lenses are often used for portraiture at fairly
    close distances, and I have already mentioned table-top photography. There
    are many macro lenses (i.e., designed expressly for macro work) in the 90mm
    to 200mm range, and of course they are used at close distances. In all of
    these examples the long-lens look is still there. You do not get the same
    perspective with a 180mm macro that you do with a 50mm macro.

    Wide-angle lenses are very commonly used for landscapes and other distant
    shots, and DoF has nothing to do with perspective.

    As just (and repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly) illustrated, it does
    indeed.

    That is my hope. Or at least, UNLEARN some of the nonsense they have
    learned.
     
    Nostrobino, Aug 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.