know what? You don't understand perception
You don't understand at all. Firstly, the Photographic article says "distorts perspective." Nobody said that. In fact, what we're saying is wide angle lenses, because they get you close and allow relationships to become different, change perceptions of perspective. And, DOH, they say, put on a wide angle lens and move in close if you want to expand the perception of perspective. Wow. what a concept. Are you reading? Does that sound like anything anyone's said in this thread before?
I come back to the key point. OK, you want to argue with using short focal length lenses to cause a perception of distance between close in subject and farther away ones. Correct?
And, therefore, using a longer lens at a longer distance shouldn't change things. Is that what you're saying?
Tell me then - if shooting with shorter lenses doesn't change the perceived difference in distance between close up objects and further ones, what is your conclusion from an artistic or photographic approach? If shorter lenses closer up don't change our perception of perspective, are you shooting portraits with wide angles? Have the courage of your convictions, shoot portraits with a 17mm lens and I"ll believe you.
Or. Tell me what, exactly, your conclusions lead to in terms of being able to better control the viewer's experience in photography.
Some people argue just to argue, I think. Bores me to tears. Talk with Meyerowitz, the reason he used a 28mm lens all the time was to put NY backgrounds farther away from his subjects, when you looked at his pictures.
You're horribly stuck at an inability to deal with the difference between perceived and actual. Science versus art. If you can't distinguish between perception and science, this is the wrong avocation for you. This is a perceptual art. All that actually matters is what the brain of the viewer perceives. All else is for those who measure pixels.
Iliah said:Links with examples:
"Because this would cause the perspective to change, lenses with different focal lengths are said to "have" a different perspective. Note however that changing the focal length without changing the subject distance will not change perspective, as shown in the example below" - from
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Perspective_01.htm
http://www.oncloserinspection.com/Photomacrography/Photo_Myths/Perspective/perspective.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
In "Photographic Magazine" you can read: "It's commonly believed that wide-angle lenses "distort" perspective. Actually, focal length doesn't change perspective. Perspective is an effect of camera location—how far the camera is from the subject. Folks generally move a lot closer when using wide-angle lenses, and it is the close shooting distance that "expands" the perspective—not the short focal length. So, if you want to expand perspective—make close objects appear much larger than more distant ones, and seemingly increase the distance between them—move in close with a wide-angle lens. You'd get the same expansion with a longer lens, but its narrower angle of view wouldn't include anything but the immediate subject, so you won't notice the effect. Conversely, if you crop in on the center of a shot made with a wide-angle lens, you'll get a "telephoto compression" effect—only the most distant portion of the scene will be included in the picture, just as if you'd shot from the same spot with a longer lens."
And here is from the Glossary: "Perspective: Perspective refers to the spatial relationships and relative sizes of objects in a scene. It is commonly—and incorrectly—believed that changing the focal length of the lens will change the perspective in the photograph. Why do photographers get the ideas that long lenses compress perspective and short ones expand it? Because we generally move closer to the subject (which expands perspective) when using short lenses, and we generally shoot from far away (which compresses perspective) when using long lenses. But it is the camera-to-subject distance that produces the perspective, not the lens focal length."
You don't understand at all. Firstly, the Photographic article says "distorts perspective." Nobody said that. In fact, what we're saying is wide angle lenses, because they get you close and allow relationships to become different, change perceptions of perspective. And, DOH, they say, put on a wide angle lens and move in close if you want to expand the perception of perspective. Wow. what a concept. Are you reading? Does that sound like anything anyone's said in this thread before?
I come back to the key point. OK, you want to argue with using short focal length lenses to cause a perception of distance between close in subject and farther away ones. Correct?
And, therefore, using a longer lens at a longer distance shouldn't change things. Is that what you're saying?
Tell me then - if shooting with shorter lenses doesn't change the perceived difference in distance between close up objects and further ones, what is your conclusion from an artistic or photographic approach? If shorter lenses closer up don't change our perception of perspective, are you shooting portraits with wide angles? Have the courage of your convictions, shoot portraits with a 17mm lens and I"ll believe you.
Or. Tell me what, exactly, your conclusions lead to in terms of being able to better control the viewer's experience in photography.
Some people argue just to argue, I think. Bores me to tears. Talk with Meyerowitz, the reason he used a 28mm lens all the time was to put NY backgrounds farther away from his subjects, when you looked at his pictures.
You're horribly stuck at an inability to deal with the difference between perceived and actual. Science versus art. If you can't distinguish between perception and science, this is the wrong avocation for you. This is a perceptual art. All that actually matters is what the brain of the viewer perceives. All else is for those who measure pixels.