Vanishing point 2 (Page 2): Trying to recall the definition of a narcissist individual..

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

Trying to recall the definition of a narcissist individual..

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

It really has nothing to do with the camera or lens, it is only
an extension of your eye and what you see thru the view
finder.

Rongnongno wrote:

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.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

It has everything to do with the camera as the extension of our view point (your own words). Once you consider that the nodal point is part of the vanishing line you create with the camera you can see the immediate application.

Further, the lens aberrations originate onto the vanishing line (look it up). The reason for that is that the nodal point becomes a series of points vs a optimal single one.

Note that at the moment this thread has nothing to do with composition but what is going on within the lens/camera combination. THAT is what is important to understand, in my opinion.

Do we need to understand this to take pictures? Of course not. Can understanding help us take better pictures? Yes.

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

My friend, I do oil paintings, the brushes do paint on their
own, nor do they mix the paint, I do that. The camera is the same, it is just a box, metal, plastic and glass, it can not focus and take pictures on it own, it can not think. It
is not an entity waiting for you to take the best picture that
you possibly can, it is just a camera. In the hands of a good
photographer it will do everything asked of it, nothing more.

Rongnongno wrote:

It has everything to do with the camera as the ext... (show quote)

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Rongnongno wrote:

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.

b Trying again. I am stubborn that way. /b br ... (show quote)

Aside from discussion about vanishing points or any discussion regarding anything else here on the uhh yours is perhaps the most pompous and arrogant posting I have ever seen. The fact that there are different opinions other than yours seem for some reason to offend you. My response to this is. " GET OVER IT" and yes i am shouting!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

R, why don't you go into your foto archives and post for us a pic of exactly what you are trying to explain. So many here are visual learners, and need that vision. After all, photography can be argued as theory forever, and thats actually not so beneficial, untill the rubber actually hits the road.
And that a picture is worth a thousand words is true. All of us have a different conceptualized vision of your words, but just one pic and we will all be in consensus.
My own small mind, such as it is, is having trouble with the concept and needs an example. I hope you can produce it.
SS

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Rongnongno wrote:

It has everything to do with the camera as the ext... (show quote)

What is clear is that you are in well beyond your depth and that you do not have a very firm grasp of the basics. First it was vanishing points and now it is nodal points, which have no practical significance outside the realm of stitched images.

Much of what you have stated appears to be disjointed gibberish. Nobody has been able to follow your reasoning and you have not been able to explain it, probably because you do not have a clear understanding of it yourself.

So far you have not managed to enlighten any of us although these discussions have been entertaining. I suggest that you lay off for a while and do some serious learning.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

To paint, did not you not learn about pigmentation, media support, brushes, strokes, fluids and the like? Do you not use different brushes to achieve different results?

Do you think someone like me will ever be able to use something other than roll to paint a room? Give me the information on what you learned and I will understand the difficulties of painting, expressing yourself. Understanding will not make me a good painter but it will give me a better appreciation, even if I do not like the final product.

I once saw a painting in the museum of Detroit. It was a large (9 feet by 9 feet). The canvas was painted white. On the bottom left corner was a tiny red dot. I looked at it, puzzled then with a dismissive 'I can do that' walked away. Years later I finally understood it, possibly not the way the artist meant it. I still think and know that I can do the same thing, meaning reproduce it but the original idea and concept? Nope. What I mean to say is that creativity is boundless and the message needs not to be understood (correctly) to exist.

A camera is a tool that needs to be learned like one needs to learn what type of hammer to use depending on the job to be done. You give 'life' to your brushes when you use them, same as we give 'life' to a camera.

Learning a camera is not only learning a manual (that you discard if you are always on manual mode). It is learning about light and how light is used by the camera in order to produce the image. You learned light to paint. The quality of light entering inside the camera depends on the nodal point.

The nodal point being on the axe of the camera center line it is also on the vanishing line that also happens to be the camera vanishing point location. Why is that point so important? Because it will determine the quality of lens just as the nodal point precision does.

From there what do we have? Lens distortion that augments as the lens shorten (Camera vanishing point is 'further away', loss of precision), we all know that, right? Do we know that the center of every image is exact? Do we know that the projection of the image is also accurate only within a disk? Do we know where that 'disk' is created first then where it is correctly reproduced?

Note that 'disk' applies only to the sensor image as the focus area/plan should be really called 'spherical sector'.

I know that my 'discourse' does not make sense to many, it does not matter, same a the Detroit painting later it may be understood later, that is all that is important to me.

Going back to hammer and throw a monkey wrench to a few... How is laminating a sheet of glass related to hammering?

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

oh, heck, here i go again.
since i'm an old geek, i've run across some really great photographers, especially when i was young (yup, there were cameras then).
in grammar school, in my painting class, i was introduced to the vanishing point. so, years, and i do mean years, later, i happened to chance upon a large format photographer. we were talking about portraiture and landscape subjects. i asked him about the vanishing point in photography. and what he said has always stayed with me. and i do quote "walk around to the back of your subject and look at it, that's your vanishing point."
that has stayed with me all my life. sometimes i pay attention to it and sometimes i don't; like the parson's eggs.

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

Yes I did all that but I simply do not understand what you
want, no answer seems to satisfy you. You are reaching
for an answer that quite possibly can not be answered.
On canvas I create the vanishing point, that also goes for
my camera. There is no magic in there, just the human eye.

Rongnongno wrote:

To paint, did not you not learn about pigmentation, media support, brushes, strokes, fluids and the like? Do you not use different brushes to achieve different results?

Do you think someone like me will ever be able to use something other than roll to paint a room? Give me the information on what you learned and I will understand the difficulties of painting, expressing yourself. Understanding will not make me a good painter but it will give me a better appreciation, even if I do not like the final product.

I once saw a painting in the museum of Detroit. It was a large (9 feet by 9 feet). The canvas was painted white. On the bottom left corner was a tiny red dot. I looked at it, puzzled then with a dismissive 'I can do that' walked away. Years later I finally understood it, possibly not the way the artist meant it. I still think and know that I can do the same thing, meaning reproduce it but the original idea and concept? Nope. What I mean to say is that creativity is boundless and the message needs not to be understood (correctly) to exist.

A camera is a tool that needs to be learned like one needs to learn what type of hammer to use depending on the job to be done. You give 'life' to your brushes when you use them, same as we give 'life' to a camera.

Learning a camera is not only learning a manual (that you discard if you are always on manual mode). It is learning about light and how light is used by the camera in order to produce the image. You learned light to paint. The quality of light entering inside the camera depends on the nodal point.

The nodal point being on the axe of the camera center line it is also on the vanishing line that also happens to be the camera vanishing point location. Why is that point so important? Because it will determine the quality of lens just as the nodal point precision does.

From there what do we have? Lens distortion that augments as the lens shorten (Camera vanishing point is 'further away', loss of precision), we all know that, right? Do we know that the center of every image is exact? Do we know that the projection of the image is also accurate only within a disk? Do we know where that 'disk' is created first then where it is correctly reproduced?

Note that 'disk' applies only to the sensor image as the focus area/plan should be really called 'spherical sector'.

I know that my 'discourse' does not make sense to many, it does not matter, same a the Detroit painting later it may be understood later, that is all that is important to me.

Going back to hammer and throw a monkey wrench to a few... How is laminating a sheet of glass related to hammering?

To paint, did not you not learn about pigmentation... (show quote)

busted_shutter

Again R!! Thought out photograph.....or.....Quick snapshot

Some folk want to understand what it takes to do the "photograhic eye" eye shot...others don't, they just want to do...still others just want to see a pretty scene w/o caring one iota how it was achieved.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

busted_shutter wrote:

Again R!! Thought out photograph.....or.....Quick snapshot

I know....

busted_shutter

Rongnongno wrote:

I know....

You're took quick...lol. To hard to read...so I bolded.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

busted_shutter wrote:

...

:shock: :oops: :mrgreen: Sorry. :lol: :lol: :lol:

RKraatz Loc: New Castle, DE

Whew, kinda interesting discussion. Just wondering if the drugs have worn off yet?