artBob Loc: Near Chicago

You prove my point. Perhaps you do not notice a difference, and perhaps that is the problem with many here. I saw it. So, I superimposed the two ice chests, lining up the upper left corner (any spot would do) and voila! The perspective is different.

You can see that, right?

(Download)

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Everyone should read this entire chapter. Thanks for sharing the link, bebulamar!

Any noobs confused at all should click and read at least this section. One of the books that changed my lie and made me a photographer.

Andy

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

You are so right. If you can help right the discussion with insights rather than the insults some post, that would be helpful.
However, I think a post by jcboy3, on page 4, and a follow up by me pinpointed the problem: the heart of the matter for me is that wide and tele lenses distort what we humans consider perspective, which is best explained by linear perspective, not "[b]y others definition, ... the relationship between foreground and background objects," as jcboy noted. In the critical difference in definitions of "perspective," I vote for the human view, since we all seem to be rather stuck with it. ;-)
jcboy added: "Small distortions can change the convergence points significantly, but not be discernable by the viewer."

It is my intent to help beginners understand the basic, so they can be free to shoot. Here's a University of Michigan course segment that teaches the same:https://www.coursera.org/lecture/camera-control/focal-length-perspective-effects-nt6LA

The other "interesting" thing is that nobody actually tested the theory, but rather thought their eye was so good they didn't need to. Some of them even called themselves professional, and may well be, in that they earn money. However, they are deficient in craft and hostile in response to curiosity it seems. I am thankful, and hope some others are too, that those who are really curious and have real professional and artistic experience have helped clarify the situation.

I hope the thread winds down.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Thank you BebuLamar. Even in this age of predominantly digital photography, I still recommend that every aspiring photographer read these classic 3 books.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

I'm new to this forum but have read this being discussed so often.

I have done the picket fence, and all lines up. So here's another one I just did that has very easy reference points within it to assess alignment 'accuracy'. Shot at 28mm and 75mm with 75mm superimposed on the 28mm frame and all lines up, so no change between any points in the image.

(Download)

BebuLamar

Certainly as Adams didn't say a word about triangle.

TonyBot

Bravo, Grahame! Repeated exactly an experiment I did many years ago (too many, perhaps), with exactly the same results. I hope that the OP understands this. I stated earlier that "perspective" is a subjective word, meaning that "beauty is in the eyes of the perceiver". While my definition may not be exact, the *physical/optical proof* cannot be debated. Empirical and repeatable evidence wins!

Good work!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Deficient in their craft? Then you have insulted some excellent (and infinitely more knowledgeable) photographers that participated in the previous thread, and their work is available for anyone to judge. This thread will wind down when either you become enlightened or when those in possession of the actual facts just get sick of trying to prevent this misinformation from being propagated.

Although the subject is explored in detail in the chapter from The Camera that BebuLamar referenced, this sentence from the master should sum it up: “As a result, two photographs made from the same position with different lenses will be identical in scale and perspective; only the subject area revealed in each will change...” Now, do you consider Ansel Adams to be deficient in his craft?

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

[quote=artBob] You are so right. If you can help right the discussion with insights rather than the insults some post, that would be helpful.
However, I think a post by jcboy3, on page 4, and a follow up by me pinpointed the problem: the heart of the matter for me is that wide and tele lenses distort what we humans consider perspective, which is best explained by linear perspective, not "[b]y others definition, ... the relationship between foreground and background objects," as jcboy noted. In the critical difference in definitions of "perspective," I vote for the human view, since we all seem to be rather stuck with it. ;-)
jcboy added: "Small distortions can change the convergence points significantly, but not be discernable by the viewer."

It is my intent to help beginners understand the basic, so they can be free to shoot. Here's a University of Michigan course segment that teaches the same:https://www.coursera.org/lecture/camera-control/focal-length-perspective-effects-nt6LA

The other "interesting" thing is that nobody actually tested the theory, but rather thought their eye was so good they didn't need to. Some of them even called themselves professional, and may well be, in that they earn money. However, they are deficient in craft and hostile in response to curiosity it seems. I am thankful, and hope some others are too, that those who are really curious and have real professional and artistic experience have helped clarify the situation.

I hope the thread winds down.

[/quote]

Yes, I’d hope it winds downs soon if I were you.

At last a link. Even if it doesn’t say what you assert that it does and does not support your unfacts.

I hope this thread continues until you’ve completely outed yourself to the point where nobody is misled.

Except you, of course. You continue to delude yourself but your audience and credibility continue to shrink with each new misstatement.

Andy “wimpy mentally challenged idiot” H

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Looks great.
I wonder why you are the only one able to achieve that. Perhaps if you set the overlying transparency at 50% we could better access the results. Even so, I notice some anomalies, the changing paint on the railings, some off-kilter pixels on the top pic (plants on either side of the leftmost post, strangely fat near upright posts, and a few others. Transparency would help, as would being told that you transformed the top shot keeping its ratio, not distorting it at all. Why not post both shots so we all can tell? It's just strange that you are the only one who managed to do this, and scientific inquiry demands repeatability of experiment.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

Oh Andy, learn how to use commas!

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

You’ve ignored every other proof of this, numerous citations, up to and including Ansel Adams, and now you’re questioning repeatability?

Wow. Just wow. But I still can’t figure out whether you’re that ignorant or that untruthful. Or maybe both.

BebuLamar

The guy in the video was wrong too. So yup it's not "Common Knowledge".

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Now you have your “proof” and the only thing you can pick at are a few pixels likely caused by simple lens distortions. And you want more of the same? When will you have the grace (and intellect) to simply admit you are simply mistaken? You would gain a great deal more credibility than endlessly pursuing this lost cause. It’s not so hard, everyone here, certainly including myself, makes mistaken assertions often, and when we do, we admit our mistake(s), learn from them, and move on.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

They’re your words. Your nasty ad hominem words that you’ve PM’d me. You’ve done the same to any other experienced photographers in these threads who had disagreed with you. You try to appear reasonable in public and turn into a petulant child in private.

You are either stupid or untruthful in defense of your repeated misstatements of fact. I reserve judgment.

But you are unquestionably a hypocrite. Want me to publish your whole nasty screed? Want the other recipients to do so as well?

Time to shut up and return to deleting your unread and unused forum as you’ve threatened or promised to do.

Time to stop misleading those who give you a shred of credibility.