What is the Best Way To Learn About How Different Lenses Effect the Perspective and Apparent Depth of a Photo (Page 4): Your lack of comprehension is evidence of your limited...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Apaflo wrote:

Focal length does not change perspective! That single fact makes your entire "discussion" meaningless.

Your lack of comprehension is evidence of your limited perspective (narrow mind).

You can't reduce the concept to a simple phrase and claim that it is a "fact" like, "What is art? What isn't?" That just shows you incapable of appying the thought process.

Maybe if you Googled the term up you might learn what it is all about. You can start with:

https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-perspective-in-photography-492660
http://photoinf.com/General/Klaus_Schroiff/Perspective.htm
https://www.lightstalking.com/using-perspective-in-photography/

I guess I can add "perspective" to the long list of photographic concepts that are over your head.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

selmslie wrote:

Maybe if you Googled the term up you might learn what it is all about. You can start with:

https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-perspective-in-photography-492660

"This is because perspective is determined not by focal length, but by the relative distance between objects."

selmslie wrote:

http://photoinf.com/General/Klaus_Schroiff/Perspective.htm

Poor! Just clueless. Nice pictures though. But it falls under the category of you can find anything on the Internet...

selmslie wrote:

https://www.lightstalking.com/using-perspective-in-photography/

"Well first of all lets get one of the myths of perspective out of the way, perspective does not change when you change your lens."

Two out of three that are correct, and say exactly the same as what I've been saying, isn't bad. You probably should have read all three before citing them, eh? Nice of you to post supporting documentation for me though!

marki3rd Loc: Columbus, Indiana

bkellyusa wrote:

A few days ago I saw a two photographs taken of th... (show quote)

Here are a couple of links that will clearly show the answer to your questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3A3SnPFPk0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkRKkcilho4

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Quote:

Apaflo]Just clueless. Nice pictures though. But it falls under the category of you can find anything on the Internet...

That pretty well sums up your relationship to the Internet. You can find anything and you do, even when you are dead wrong.

Apaflo wrote:

"Well first of all lets get one of the myths of perspective out of the way, perspective does not change when you change your lens."

Two out of three that are correct, and say exactly the same as what I've been saying, isn't bad. You probably should have read all three before citing them, eh? Nice of you to post supporting documentation for me though!

That's as deep as your understanding of the topic will allow. However, you leave out one important piece. You will also note that the article stated, "Changing your lens does not change your perspective – changing position does!"

He did not mention changing your distance to the subject. He was talking about changing the position from which you take the image and that can include remaining at the same distance. That changes the visual clues from the surroundings.

When some of the clues from the surrounding environment get cropped out of the image by using a longer focal length, you lose your point of reference. That can happen when you switch to a longer focal length. You only need to look at the first image in that article to see what would happen if you doubled or tripled the focal length and cut out the foreground. Your perspective would change just as if those flowers never existed.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Nice try with weasel words, but claiming I am the one who found your cites on the Internet is a bit much. But you should have read them before posting the links.

Fact: Focal length does not affect perspective!

Everyone really does need to learn that basic truth. You need not actually understand why though... But the idea that focal length changes perspective is detrimental to a photographer's ability to make good photographs. However talented a photographer is they will benefit, with even better images, from knowing that fact.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Apaflo wrote:

Nice try with weasel words, but claiming I am the ... (show quote)

You seem to be stuck in a rut. We all understand what you are saying and why you say it. You don't seem to comprehend what any of the rest of us are saying.

I will give you one more example.

If you shoot from the audience at an event on stage, your perspective will be different if you remain seated, stand up or climb on top of your chair. It will also change if, from any of those positions, you change from a 24 mm lens to a 600 mm lens because the entire context (composition) of the image changes.

If you still don't understand the difference then there is no hope for you. You are either too stubborn or lack the intelligence to understand anything but your single interpretation.

I am done trying to get thorough to you. Goodbye.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

selmslie wrote:

You seem to be stuck in a rut. We all understand ... (show quote)

We can hope that at some point you will begin to understand. Your apology for all of this will be accepted.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Apaflo wrote:

We can hope that at some point you will begin to understand. Your apology for all of this will be accepted.

You are delusional.

Here an the updated list of topics you do not understand:

Algebra, calculus, logarithms, decibels, power and amplitude ratios, differential equations, physics and optics (beyond 6th grade general science), perspective, enlargers and enlarger lenses and flatness of field, electronics (do you still claim that cameras operate on A/C power rather than D/C?), ETTR, DOF and circle of confusion (still confuses you), diffraction for different film/sensor formats and small pixels, long exposure noise reduction, the loss of resolution from the presence of a Bayer array, sensor electronics, lens resolution and MTF measurements, raster images, shutter speed and flash duration needed to stop subject movement, banding, 16-bit editing, visible vs. statistical noise, dew point, thermodynamics, wind chill, zoom vs. prime lenses.

Come back whenever you understand any of these.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

selmslie wrote:

Come back whenever you understand any of these.

Projection like that is creating a major roadblock for you.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

This is the definition of perspective that I’ve been taught:
“Perspective in photography can be defined as the sense of depth or spatial relationships between objects in the photo, along with their dimensions with respect to the viewpoint (camera lens or the viewer).” (http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/perspective-in-photography/)
If we use this definition, does the sense of depth or spatial relationships change by moving up or down, or to one side or another, while remaining at the same distance?
I’ve no desire to enter into an argument, just curious.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

RWR wrote:

This is the definition of perspective that I’ve be... (show quote)

The key part of that definition is the "spatial relationships between objects" - objects being plural.

Objects move around in relation to the main subject when the camera moves up or down, left or right.

And if the subject is a collection of several objects, when you move around, the distance from the camera to any one of them is likely to change even if the distance to one of them remains constant.

They can also disappear from view altogether when you move to a different position or when you zoom in.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Apaflo wrote:

Projection like that is creating a major roadblock for you.

Not for me. You are the one with the ego and mental block that does not understand those topics.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

RWR wrote:

This is the definition of perspective that I’ve be... (show quote)

It appears the author is planning a second article that will answer the question directly, but it seems that to date it has not been posted.

However, the article (which is fairly good!) does provide an example from which the answer becomes very obvious... Scroll down to the second image, by Boris Thaser right at the end of Section 1 on blocking, overlap, or obstruction. Imagine moving the camera in any direction. Forward or backward movement will change the size of the "ring" in the foreground much more than the size of the man in the center. Likewise either vertical or horizontal movement will change what is blocked and what is not!

That image requires just the right positioning in all axes to retain the effect.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

selmslie wrote:

The key part of that definition is the "spati... (show quote)

Right, to move the camera and maintain the same distance, you have to pick an object and move in an arc from that object, and your distance from other objects will definitely change, but will not all objects retain their same spatial relationships? I’m thinking that moving the camera, while maintaining the same distance, mainly changes the framing.
Disclaimer: I do not pretend to be a deep thinker on this subject!

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Apaflo wrote:

It appears the author is planning a second article... (show quote)

I didn’t read the rest of the article before posting. It would be good to see the second article. Somehow none of this seems over-complicated - sure would be good if everyone could come to some sort of agreement on what perspective actually is, and what does and does not affect it!