Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: when is wide too wide?  (Read 57549 times)
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #100 on: May 25, 2013, 06:18:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Original poster here. Shall I change the subject title to: 'when is much too much?'? :-)

Not necessary. I think we are now in a better position to answer your original question, which was 'When is wide too wide?'

Answer: When your printer is not big enough, or your wall not big enough, or your room not big enough, to accommodate the size of print required so that you are able to appreciate a correct perspective from your normal viewing distance, or the viewing distance you will conveniently adopt.

I'm pretty sure Bart would agree with that answer.  Wink
Logged
cjogo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1466



« Reply #101 on: June 02, 2013, 12:24:47 PM »
ReplyReply

When the angle does not lend itself to the image .. otherwise you are the guide.   I shot a very large portion of my images with a 38 Biogon ( 21mm) for almost 25 years...
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #102 on: June 05, 2013, 11:02:03 AM »
ReplyReply

When is wide too wide? When I can't get my butt through the door.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3908


« Reply #103 on: June 05, 2013, 11:34:22 AM »
ReplyReply

When is wide too wide? When I can't get my butt through the door.

No, that means the door is not wide enough ... Wink

Afterall, it's all a matter of perspective.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1076


« Reply #104 on: June 11, 2013, 11:19:35 AM »
ReplyReply

theguywitha645D definitely "wins" best answer on this thread.
Personally, I love working with ultra-wide angle lenses because I tend to be forced to consider different composition methods and viewpoints to make things interesting.

Here's one at 8mm focal length, APS-C: Squirrel's-eye view of a Bald Eagle
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #105 on: June 11, 2013, 01:34:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Nancy, what lens is that?  8mm are generally a fisheye but that doesn't show the usual fisheye effect.
Logged
NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1076


« Reply #106 on: June 11, 2013, 06:34:40 PM »
ReplyReply

APS-C-only lens: Sigma 8-16mm f/3.5-4.5 at 8mm, with Canon 60D. I used the Adobe lens profile correction.

I plastered myself and camera against the bark of this old tree, and took a series of images at different f/ stops and with slight variations in positioning of the tree's crown. One of the pictures had a bald eagle - I didn't notice at the time. I had been shooting a lot of 400mm eagle-in-flight and eagle-at-rest at a popular-for-eagles area just downstream of the Winfield Locks and Dam on the Mississippi, just north of St. Louis. I wanted a rest and change, so switched to the Sigma at 8mm and started photoing the bluffs, river, trees.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #107 on: June 12, 2013, 07:31:42 PM »
ReplyReply

theguywitha645D definitely "wins" best answer on this thread.
Personally, I love working with ultra-wide angle lenses because I tend to be forced to consider different composition methods and viewpoints to make things interesting.

Here's one at 8mm focal length, APS-C: Squirrel's-eye view of a Bald Eagle

An excellent example, Nancy, of the way in which a wide-angle lens can change the appearance of the perspective of objects within an image.  Wink
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #108 on: June 14, 2013, 11:15:32 PM »
ReplyReply

This entire discussion is interesting for me because I see in it an example of how people can sometimes overlook the most basic requirement of scientific procedure when promulgating a particular idea which they are convinced is right.

When examining the effect of one specific change in any system, such as a change in the focal length of lens used to take a photograph, one should try to avoid simultaneously making other changes within the system, otherwise the consequences of the one change which is being examined may be confused by the effects of the other changes.

This is clearly what has happened in these discussion about perspective and focal length of lens.

If one wishes to be rational, logical and scientific about an issue, which is what I've attempted to be in these discussions, then, when comparing two images taken with different focal lengths of lens in order to determine if there is any difference in perspective apparent in the resulting images, one should make only the one change that one is examining.

That change in this case should be the change in FL of lens, because that's what we are examining.

The position of the photographer should remain the same. The camera body should remain the same. The lighting conditions should remain the same. The f/stop and shutter speed should remain the same. The processing, as far as reasonable, should remain the same. The final print size should remain the same, and the viewing distance to the final image or print should remain the same.

Having met these conditions, we are then in a position to see clearly what changes in perspective may have resulted from the use of different focal lengths of lenses. Or to be more precise, what changes in 'apparent' perspective may have taken place, because it should be understood that everything about a photograph is apparent. I'm reminded here of that anecdote about Pablo Picasso. When he was confronted by some bloke who criticised his paintings of women, claiming that they were distorted and unrealistic, unlike a photograph, Picasso asked the bloke if he had a photograph of his wife to demonstrate what he meant. The bloke pulled out a photo of his wife from his wallet. Picasso studied the photo for a while, then asked, "Surely your wife is not this small?"

Because this issue is not serious and not likely to affect anyone's health, I find it very amusing that someone would crop the wider angle shot to the same FoV as the narrower angle shot when making the comparison, or attempt to produce different size prints and/or view them from different distances in order to compensate or correct for any apparent changes in perspective, then claim that there is really no change in perspective.

Do some people really not understand that this is tantamount to scientific fraud, destroying and/or manipulating evidence?

If one wishes to demonstrate that an image from a wider focal length of lens when cropped to the same FoV as an image from a narrower focal length, will result in the same perspective, when the shots are taken from the same position, then one clearly must crop the wider image because that's the purpose of the experiment.
The conclusions that can be drawn from such an experiment is that focal length of lens in itself does not necessarily have any bearing on perspective. What is critical is that the 'equivalent' focal lengths be the same in order for perspective to be the same, and what is also demonstrated is that a wider-angle shot can always be cropped to produce the same equivalent focal length of a narrower-angle shot. If the equivalent focal length is the same, and if the position from which the shots are taken is the same, then the perspective will be the same, excluding such issues as differences in lens distortions.

However, when photographers select a wider lens for a particular shot, it is usually not for the purpose of cropping the image to emulate the effect of a narrower lens, with consequent loss of resolution. It is usually for the purpose of including additional elements in the composition. At least, that's why I select a wide lens for any particular shot.

The inclusion of other elements in the image, such as large features in the foreground, by necessity diminishes the size of the more distant objects within the photographic composition, and the perspective of those more distant objects, in relation to the additional elements that the wider-angle lens has included in the composition, has unavoidably changed.

Thus endeth the lesson in clear thinking.   Wink
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 15, 2013, 03:08:37 PM »
ReplyReply

This entire discussion is interesting for me because I see in it an example of how people can sometimes overlook the most basic requirement of scientific procedure when promulgating a particular idea which they are convinced is right........<snip>........Thus endeth the lesson in clear thinking.   Wink
I think you'll find that ended many, many posts back Ray.  Tongue
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #110 on: June 15, 2013, 08:02:15 PM »
ReplyReply

It certainly didn't end with anyone admitting he was wrong, or anyone explaining clearly and precisely why he thought I was wrong. Whenever it is demonstrated that I am wrong on any issue, I admit that I am wrong, and I'm often pleased to be proved wrong because I feel I have learned something. Simply telling someone he is wrong teaches him nothing, apart from raising a suspicion that the person making the pronouncement that someone is wrong, may not understand the issue and may be just parroting the opinions of others.

In summary I would say that a change in the position of the photographer will always change the perspective as it appears in a photographic print. A change in focal length of lens will also always change perspective, provided that no other compensatory changes are made to the photographic image, such as cropping, or changing the print size and/or changing the viewing distance to the print.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 21, 2013, 08:14:38 AM »
ReplyReply

It was explained fairly clearly and precisely, but the fact you completely failed to grok the explanations is not something any of us can help you with I'm afraid.   Tongue
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #112 on: June 21, 2013, 09:31:18 AM »
ReplyReply

The fact that I have failed to be persuaded by weak and inadequate explanations riddled with logical flaws and absurdities is quite understandable.

You haven't even provided a definition of perspective so we know what you have been talking about.

However, there can be a certain humour in absurdity, so don't think I have any hard feelings.  Grin

I mean...fancy cropping a wide angle shot which appears to have a different perspective to a narrower-angle shot, in order to demonstrate that the perspective, after cropping, is really the same as in the narrow-angle shot, and that cropping has had nothing to do with it being the same. Really!  Grin
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #113 on: June 21, 2013, 05:34:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm an atheist, but am willing to pray please God let this thread die. ::
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #114 on: June 21, 2013, 08:44:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I get the impression that you didn't finish that sentence, Bob.

Shouldn't you have written: "I'm an atheist, but am willing to pray please God let this thread die.....so I can continue believing in my fallacies"?   Grin
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #115 on: June 22, 2013, 06:53:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I get the impression that you didn't finish that sentence, Bob.

Shouldn't you have written: "I'm an atheist, but am willing to pray please God let this thread die.....so I can continue believing in my fallacies"?   Grin

No, Ray, if I were going to continue I would have said 'because I'm tired of reading Ray's nonsense.'  Roll Eyes
Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1336



WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 22, 2013, 07:22:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When is wide too wide?.

When you see the width before seeing the picture.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad