50mm pictures with D300

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Sosumi, Jan 21, 2008.

  1. I may have misled you in my answer. I've never been at the edges of a
    pack of presshounds surrounding a celebrity. I answered your question
    from the point of view of someone who has sometimes taken a photograph
    of a person of interest from the edges of a surrounding throng. What I
    described is simply the obvious way of solving the problem.

    Photography is just an interest I've pursued enthusiastically at
    various times in my life. I've never been a professional in the sense
    of earning at least of my living from it. I've picked up occasional
    contracts now and then in order to finance a photographic
    purchase. The house I'm living in now is the first one I haven't set
    up a darkroom in. Seeing digital photography coming I gave all my
    darkroom kit to a young photographer who had been borrowing bits of
    it.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 24, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. A room interior or a table top isn't a flat plane either, but we
    nevertheless consider that natural views of them require lenses of
    shorter focal lengths than the canonical facial portrait lenses.

    The more general photographic point is that what we consider a natural
    perspective of something is the combination of distance and angle of
    view at which we most usually look at it carefully and from which we
    form our canonical impressions of what it looks like.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 24, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sosumi

    Mr.T Guest

    No, we simply accept thats what we get if we want to get everything in
    without knocking down walls.
    Neither case is any more "correct" than the other from a visual point of
    view. One will be far more accurate if we were to attempt to make
    measurements from the photo. That will not be the wide angle view!
    Agreed, but the brain usually does a good job of reinterpreting what the eye
    "sees" to match our experience/expectations in any case.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 24, 2008
  4. Yes, but it's more complicated than that, because what we "see" isn't
    the photograph that would be taken by a camera built like an eye with
    a similarly curved sensor. What we "see" is the result of a great deal
    of complex processing of not just one retinal snapshot, but a kind of
    internal panoramic stitching in the brain from saccadic retinal
    snapshots and interpolations based on expectations, plus two-eye
    stereo, plus what is known as sensory projection, which gives us the
    impression that we're seeing things "out there" at their real
    distances in the world.

    Given the importance of straight lines in navigation, throwing, etc.,
    our brain in conjunction with evolution has "decided" that the most
    sensible image projection to use is one which preserves straight
    lines, hence rectilinear projections look the most realistic to us.

    Not to mention that comprehending a photograph or painting as a
    representation of a seen scene is quite a sophisticated visual trick
    which only animals with the biggest brains are capable of mastering
    :)
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 24, 2008
  5. Taking being accused of misunderstanding something as an insult is an
    obstacle to learning which can sometimes be a serious impediment :)
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 24, 2008
  6. Sosumi

    Wilba Guest

    Try tracing on a pane of glass a scene which contains convergent lines. Then
    tilt the pane. The lines on the glass now converge on a different vanishing
    point to the lines in the scene.
     
    Wilba, Jan 24, 2008
  7. Sosumi

    Tully Guest

    I've never been a newsie either, but I've shot HS and college sports
    (mainly American football) with the occasional shot published in local
    rags, and wasn't shy about putting myself as close to the action as the
    pros were.

    I learned on a TLR, and a standard practice when blocked or boxed in by
    a mob scene was to hold the inverted camera overhead and look up into
    the finder. When I used an SLR to shoot "post-game hysteria", I started
    removing the prism, slipping it into my pocket and looking up into the
    finder screen the same way. Not good for the camera, but Nikon F's led a
    pretty hard life in those days, and dust was the least of it...

    "Rules are made to be broken" applies with a vengeance when it comes to
    photography. My old prejudice against zooms, as well as rigidity of mind
    when choosing the "right" lens for a job, these are long gone. I've
    learned that the sharpest lens is not always the best for portraits,
    mixing light sources is definitely not taboo, "macro" can be done well
    without buying a "macro lens" or even a bellows, and (hardest lesson of
    all) 1/8 sec is a useful shutter speed. Whatta world!
     
    Tully, Jan 24, 2008
  8. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Photography is just an interest I've pursued enthusiastically at
    Did you do colour film / paper in your darkroom?

    Digital really is a lot faster, but I do kind of miss all the dodging and
    fidgeting under the enlarger.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 24, 2008
  9. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    What is the "distance to the subject" in the case of a landscapeSnip ...

    It seems to me that a lot of the confusion of the previous thread came from
    the number of ways in which perspective can be interpreted.

    The term seems to be used to describe the relationship of all the components
    of an image to all the other elements, to explain the progressive reduction
    of image size and spacing as one receeds into the distance, and to describe
    the way in which a three dimensional object is projected onto a flat pane.
    Various names are given to these differing interpretations of the term:
    linear, rectilinear, fish-eye, panorama, vanishing point, etc. And nobody
    has any idea of how the term is being used in any particular segment of the
    discussion.

    To muddy the waters even further there are other, very similar concepts,
    such as distortion which some people (those who adhere to the linear
    perspective mindset) do not accept as affecting perspective but others
    (those who look at perspective as the relationship of objects to each other)
    recognize as a fairly important characteristic, if not an actual determinate
    of how the 3 dimensional object is rendered 2 dimensionally.

    Moreover, the term zoom is multi-facetted. Its most general meaning is to
    move quickly and purposefully in a given direction. But, it also has a more
    specific meaning in that it is accepted by professional and
    semi-professional photographers as the process of changing the focal length
    of a multi-elemented lens.

    Lastly, language has impacted the discussion ie. the concept of metaphore:
    describing one thing by comparing it to another without using words such as
    "like" or "as."

    I think it's safe to say that the previous thread resulted from, not a
    miss-use of the term zoom, but rather a failure of some to accept the
    implied metaphore because it violated the fairly rigid parameters of the
    particular interpretation of perspective the individuals had adopted.

    For the purposes of this discussion, what really interests me, is that some
    of these definitions tend to overlap.

    For instance, perspective is used to describe / understand the relationship
    of the elements of an image to each other and, hence, is a very useful
    concept for an artist to understand -- especially during the design phase
    when the artist is establishing what elements are to be used, and where they
    are to be placed in order to create the final image.
    However, when getting down to the technical details of how to actually
    transfer the three dimensional object from the real world onto the 2
    dimensional plane of the final print, the concepts of linear and rectilinear
    perspective are both important and, sometimes, difficult to separate in a
    given discussion.

    For the purposes of this discussion, would it be useful to establish some
    definitions? And, perhaps, try to establish a framework within which to use
    a particular definition?

    Sounding Way Too Academic,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 24, 2008
  10. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Or, only having a limited selection of lenses to choose from....
    Or, looking for alternate images that may be equally as good as the first
    view, maybe even better...
    Or, the desire to create more than a single object from a single group of
    subjects....
    Or, an attempt to capture a specific lighting affect...
    Or, the desire to improve one's photographic abilities by doing something
    different....

    Growing,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 24, 2008
  11. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Did you ever find yourself following a football receiver with a zoom lens as
    he ran towards your position, zooming out to give yourself more room to
    acommidate the approaching player, only to think to yourself, "Hey, I'm
    running out of zoom; he must be getting close." Snapped the picture and
    jumped backwards just in time to avoid the tackled player and his tackler as
    they land on the spot where you had stood just a second or two before?

    The first time that happened to me, I was about 17 years old, and I had just
    bought a $1,000 camera (hate to think what that would be today). I was
    covering a highschool football tournament, and I nearly crapped my drawers.

    It's funny how the images look so small in the viewfinder, yet so huge as
    you pull the camera away from your eye and the subjects are right there.
    It's also amazing how fast a guy can move when he's trying to save his new
    kit.

    Remembering,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 24, 2008
  12. Sosumi

    Tully Guest

    Snip ...

    It seems to me that a lot of the confusion of the previous thread came from
    the number of ways in which perspective can be interpreted.

    The term seems to be used to describe the relationship of all the components
    of an image to all the other elements, to explain the progressive reduction
    of image size and spacing as one receeds into the distance, and to describe
    the way in which a three dimensional object is projected onto a flat pane.
    Various names are given to these differing interpretations of the term:
    linear, rectilinear, fish-eye, panorama, vanishing point, etc. And nobody
    has any idea of how the term is being used in any particular segment of the
    discussion.

    To muddy the waters even further there are other, very similar concepts,
    such as distortion which some people (those who adhere to the linear
    perspective mindset) do not accept as affecting perspective but others
    (those who look at perspective as the relationship of objects to each other)
    recognize as a fairly important characteristic, if not an actual determinate
    of how the 3 dimensional object is rendered 2 dimensionally.

    Moreover, the term zoom is multi-facetted. Its most general meaning is to
    move quickly and purposefully in a given direction. But, it also has a more
    specific meaning in that it is accepted by professional and
    semi-professional photographers as the process of changing the focal length
    of a multi-elemented lens.

    Lastly, language has impacted the discussion ie. the concept of metaphore:
    describing one thing by comparing it to another without using words such as
    "like" or "as."

    I think it's safe to say that the previous thread resulted from, not a
    miss-use of the term zoom, but rather a failure of some to accept the
    implied metaphore because it violated the fairly rigid parameters of the
    particular interpretation of perspective the individuals had adopted.

    For the purposes of this discussion, what really interests me, is that some
    of these definitions tend to overlap.

    For instance, perspective is used to describe / understand the relationship
    of the elements of an image to each other and, hence, is a very useful
    concept for an artist to understand -- especially during the design phase
    when the artist is establishing what elements are to be used, and where they
    are to be placed in order to create the final image.
    However, when getting down to the technical details of how to actually
    transfer the three dimensional object from the real world onto the 2
    dimensional plane of the final print, the concepts of linear and rectilinear
    perspective are both important and, sometimes, difficult to separate in a
    given discussion.

    For the purposes of this discussion, would it be useful to establish some
    definitions? And, perhaps, try to establish a framework within which to use
    a particular definition?

    Sounding Way Too Academic,
    Dudley[/QUOTE]

    Back in the days when I owned upwards of two dozen Nikkors, my wife
    insisted I needed to put things in perspective, when I announced I was
    thinking of buying another lens (I think the 24/2.8 had just been
    released and we already had a 24/3.5).

    "But that's why I need all these focal lengths: different perspectives."
    I probably thought this was hilarious.

    "I'm talking about a critical thinking perspective. How about making two
    columns on a sheet of paper and looking at which equipment is paying for
    itself?"

    I ended up with a chart dividing the gear into categories like EARNS ITS
    KEEP, SPECIAL PURPOSE, TOO NICE TO SELL, TOO UGLY TO SELL, WILL ONLY
    TRADE FOR A NOCHT-NIKKOR, CAN DO WITHOUT. All the equipment fell in one
    of the first five groups. The last had one entry: "bitching about money".
     
    Tully, Jan 24, 2008
  13. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    At least, John, Rita isn't running around telling people to get their hot
    water heaters fixed.

    Wink,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 24, 2008
  14. Sosumi

    Mr.T Guest

    Sorry, badly worded on my part. I did not mean the convergence would always
    appear constant to the eye, I meant the same as the camera.
    If you change the angle, then both will "see" a different convergence point.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 25, 2008
  15. Sosumi

    Wilba Guest

    No, the eye will still see what it always sees. That's the point.
     
    Wilba, Jan 25, 2008
  16. Sosumi

    Mr.T Guest

    Exactly, the eye "sees" what's there to be seen, but the brain does the
    interpretation.
    Which is?

    Seems like maybe just another pointless argument over semantics and
    linguistics? Or do you not believe the brain often mis-interprets data being
    fed to it by our senses? I suggest a trip to Questicon in the ACT, will
    clearly demonstrate otherwise.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 25, 2008
  17. Sosumi

    textilis Guest

    I'd be more curious as to why a seasoned photographer calls a veiwfinder an
    eyepiece
     
    textilis, Jan 25, 2008
  18. But it doesn't always have a clearly identifiable distance. Consider
    for example standing beneath a long cliff and photographing along its
    length. The subject is the cliff receding into the distance. The
    distance of the nearest part of the cliff at the edge of the image is
    six feet. The distance of the furthest part is several miles.

    What is the distance to the subject in this case?

    Now walk forwards six feet. How has the distance to the subject changed?

    Now change focal length from 24mm (35mm film equiv) to 100mm. The
    distance to the nearest part of the cliff in the image has changed a
    lot. The image also looks quite different. What is more you couldn't
    walk forwards with the 24mm lens to get the same view of the cliff as
    the 100mm lens did. Are you claiming that it is wrong to say that the
    the perspective of the subject is different in these two images taken
    from the same position with two different focal lengths?

    I suspect you are, by your argument that a central crop of the 24mm
    image will look the same as the 100mm image and therefore be the same
    perspective. I agree that it would. So now let's now consider that
    argument.
    By centering your crop around the central axis of the viewing
    direction that test has conveniently cropped off the parts where the
    change in perspective is evident. If you crop to the left hand half of
    the wider image, and then with twice the focal length swing round to
    encompass the same view as the crop, you will get two different
    looking images. What would you call those differences? I would call
    them differences in perspective. And if there were any aids to judging
    the perspective projection in the image, such as people and buildings
    as in a street scene, then there would be something disinctly odd
    looking about the perspective of the side cropped image. Yet the
    photographer hasn't changed position. All distances remain the
    same. All that has been changed is focal length and direction of view.

    These differences are not as some have claimed distortion effects of
    lenses because they're equally evident if you do the same thing with a
    pinhole camera. And if you want to make two accurate perspective
    sketches of the view using the theory of perspective projection as
    elaborated by Renaissance painters with rulers, vanishing points,
    etc., you would change the kind of perspective projection you were
    doing to get the differences between the two images. Similarly if you
    had a three dimensional model of the scene in a computer and wanted to
    generate those two different images you would choose different
    perspective projection parameters.

    My definition of a difference in perspective between two images is
    having to make a change in the perspective projection parameters to
    generate the difference. And any change between two images generated
    soley by a change of perspective projection I would call a change in
    perspective.

    That seems to me to be a logical definition, which could be made
    formally mathematical in terms of the theory of perspective
    projection, and which seems to be reasonably consistent with popular
    uses of the term "perspective" as it applies to paintings and
    photographs.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 25, 2008
  19. Sosumi

    Wilba Guest

    That's irrelevant to the context, which you have removed.
    The perspective of the eye (regardless of interpretation by the brain) is
    not the same as the perspective of an image, once that image is tilted.

    What do you see when you do this?
    Since you're talking about stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm
    talking about, I have to assume that you don't know what I'm talking about.
    :)

    Try the above (yeah, actually do it), and let me know what you find.
     
    Wilba, Jan 25, 2008
  20. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Exactly!

    Impressed,
    Dudley
     
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 25, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.