Rongnongno Loc: FL

Trying again. I am stubborn that way.

Vanishing points are important in photography, especially for photographers dealing with large subjects or subjects involving perspective.

I make a sharp distinction between the vanishing point created by a person/camera point of view and the vanishing points created by static objects.

The difference, and it is where I get into conflict with many, is that the vanishing we create while looking at something is dynamic vs static when created by an object. Regardless of the way you look at an object the vanishing lines created by the object will always stay the same and so will their vanishing points. If you cannot understand this, I doubt my posts are any use to you.

In the process I mentioned several things that are important for photographers one of them being the nodal point, located like the vanishing point onto the line of vision which is the same as the vanishing line. I introduced parallax as well as the idea that "quality of image rendition using long lenses is better than when using wider ones". I described the exposition circle created inside the camera by lenses and introduced the idea that using full format lens on a cropped format lens would produce better results than a lens made for the said cropped sensor.

I also mentioned that as people we are conditioned to look down.

Everything I mentioned is simple, self evident and should not be said since I/we can assume that everyone knows it. Trouble is I do not assume anything.

To me, being a photographer is to be open minded first, to be able to see the world in order to interpret it and tell it's story. I have been exposed lately mainly to shortsightedness and boring folks unable to see further than their own small mind, such as it is. These are not representative of UHH. Because of that I will still post challenging concepts and ideas whenever I feel like it.


To the folks who denigrated my posts, concepts and tentative explanations, do me a favor, ignore me and my posts.

Why?
Primarily because while you apparently do not understand what I am offering you are doing a disservice to everyone on this board by trying to drown my 'voice'. I am not deluded enough to believe this will change any time soon. Some of you will never back down for reasons I understand too well. If anything, since some believe I am a fool, let me hang myself, I can do a better job than you ever will. In the process, you will avoid looking like buffoons.

Furthermore, to call me 'Einstein' or anything else just show how ridiculously low some will get to try to disparage me as an individual. For info, Einstein was also disparaged when a young man, as a mathematician, and discriminated against because he was Jew in a world dominated by 'minds' hell bent in keeping humanity down. Instead of insulting me, you are basically honoring me by comparing me to a giant when I am just a speck. The posting of accompanying optical usual illusions drawings is far from original and demonstrates how uninspired the poster is.

busted_shutter

:thumbup: :thumbup: Be all you can be...but mostly be true to yourself.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Wise words!

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Respectfully, I'm not sure why anybody would want to enter into this discussion. The original post reads like someone itching for a fight, not a good civil conversation. Just saying.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The post is indeed aggressive and I have good reasons for that. It does not mean I am looking for a fight. I am tired of users who have nothing to say but try to destroy everything. If I do make a conceptual mistake, correct me but when I know I do not and so do they (know), why post to negate the effort? So, please let them stay silent.

If someone has a better way to explain original, personal/camera dynamic view/vanishing points vs static object vanishing point of view, please do so.

busted_shutter

Totally understand your frustrations, and believe I know your naysayers. Problem is tho...some of us are old school, and want...NO...need to know the aspects of, and what it takes to make a photograph truly a great piece of art. Others...they just want to see that photograph, and yet still others just want to snapshot. Photographs...Snapshots...there IS a BIG difference.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I agree this is not for everyone here.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

R, I have never participated in one of your post. even if it seemed interesting.

The problem for me, and I'm sure it's only me, but your post smack of you being a control freak. In bold red type, you tell me never to post what you don't want me to post. For me, not very inviting.
Your points that I have isolated above, are very negative, angry and controlling remarks.
R, you can't always control your post, but I'll help you out by not being one more person for you to control. That will make your job a little easier and may keep you from having to keep posting the same post, over and over, till it goes your way.
It's just the way my small mind has perceived it.
Good luck
SS

PS, if you want to post authoritative topics, at least give us a decent bio that may at least point to the fact that you may know something, or at least post pics that support that you have the ability to put into practice what you are trying to beat into us, or both. Just saying

Rongnongno Loc: FL

That is your interpretation and instead of addressing the subject you address the 'mood'.

If my post 'sounds' or reads ad 'angry' it is because of the slant you place onto it.

This is just one sample of your misinterpretation:You see this as "looking down on people" when in the context it is about looking, watching, observing something. We do not look horizontally or up because our visual universe is lower than our normal view point.

As examples:
If we are in a valley, we rarely look up the slopes but toward either end of the valley.
On a beach we look at the horizon (down) or on the coast, also down.
We go to 'view points' on a road to look down onto a particular landscape.
All our visual live that what we do: look down before looking up.

Coming from this single misinterpretation, how can I trust your ability to understand what I would call the 'mood' of my post?

When I expose a difference, dynamic vs static and said that there is no need to follow through with a conversation is futile if one does not get the meaning of both words? Is not that correct? If you like pretty 'please' of the like, please do what I request, go away. I state things however I see them. 'Please' will not raise the understanding of a person.

Further: Is also incomplete. What I post is REALLY boring for those who are aware of what I type but I do not fall into the trap that if I know something everyone else does. Hence the part you omit... "Trouble is I do not assume anything." It is called sharing knowledge.

Continuing, point by point on your post...If you like idiots, that is your privilege. I do not. I say so and I ask them to stay away. Once again, as above I state clearly how I feel. I make no excuse for it. You may not like it, no skin off my back.

Still.. Originality demonstrates an ability to think, to offer something one can relate to within a context and in a site like this one 'CREATED' by the person. To copy and paste something is boring, uninspiring and well, common.

I am ending with the last one that I skipped:You sign off with: That is your own view and while trying to be 'self-depreciating' in effect you say that your mind is better, well, it is because you do not have the honestly of saying: "I am better than you" which is what you imply. And YES I imply that at the moment my mind works better than yours. I make no apologies for it.

You do not like my use of the board features. Guess what? They are here for a reason. To use them you have to learn them first. Did you take the time? If so, why are you not using them? On that, I did not select red, I selected brown, I first thought of using Navy but in some insane part of my mind associating the name of the US Navy with something like that would be inappropriate. So brown it became.

As to your PS, 'authoritative', 'decent bio' and the like, that is what I call 'internet child talk'. You have nothing that can decently contradict any of my observations so you go into 'what is your education' 'what diplomas do you have' and so forth. If you like to know I was a high school drop out because I was bored. I since went to college, did not graduate onto anything because I do not see the point of a piece of paper. I took education courses on what interested me at the time from creative writing to computer programing. I did pass numerous professional certifications as those are 'needed' to find employment when you move all the time. I am still a student in college, I am 57. I learn and forget until I need it. And, oh yeah, I do not like little boxes called 'educated minds' and those who take paper as a reference to education, experience and ability to understand.


If I tell you that we do move we vibrate you will not be able to understand at all what it really means. Why? Because your point of view does not use the same references I have. (Good luck with that one).

To those who are now upset and feel like I am an asshole, do not worry I am well aware of your opinions and I share it. So no need to tell me!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

R, I think I understand your needs a little better now.
Good luck with your dogma.
SS

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

We all are familiar with the appearance of conventional vanishing points and have seen many examples in the previous thread.

You still have not given us a lucid and rational explanation of your alternate version or an illustration or explained how you use it to improve your vision.

Cut to the chase. What are you talking about and how do you use it.

Mercer Loc: Houston, TX, USA

Good heavens everybody! If you are tired of Rongo... stop encouraging him. :thumbdown:

reefer7

My dearest WrongBongo:
Have you taken your medication today?

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

Wrongo, Vanishing points are like Time, always there and
neverending. 2 people standing side by side will never see
the same vanishing point, it is only in the eye of the behold-
er. It is nothing you can touch or feel, only see, it is not
static, it goes where you go, you create as you go along.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Ok, So we agree. Now develop this further and look at it from a photographic 'point of view' as the camera has the same dynamism that we do albeit we control it. Relate it to what is going on inside the camera itself then relate it to the lenses we use.