Change your perspective & lens - now you're a real photographer ;)

tektrader

Wonder how many people here actually know what we are talking about?

sevencrossing

The frequent misadvice "zoom with your feet" is proof many people have not got the foggiest clue about perspective

Perspective has nothing to with, zooms vs primes or digital vs film

Sadly many online tutorials don't seem to understand the subject ether

This my Bible. it is out of print but copies do come up on ebay

Lens work: the Canon guide to interchangeable lenses and single lens reflex photography Paperback – 1981

Yes it was written in 1981
Yes its about Canon glass
Yes its from the day of film
but little has changed since the time Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446)

tektrader

Back in the old days, I only had one lens, a 50mm f1.8 prime. I remember drooling over the 50 f1.2 Zuiko. Buying a selection of lenses was a pipe dream.

Bit hard to control depth perspective with one lens.

I had a rough equivalent of your Canon book. It was an Olympus one called "The Olympus OM way" Circa 1978 It was a very detailed text back then. Then again, College photography class probably helped.....

sevencrossing

Bit hard to control depth perspective with one lens.

Difficult yes but far from impossible
Perspective is not a simple subject
but to start to understand it, you don't even need a camera
It should be covered by most beginners art classes

tektrader

Plenty of those Canon text books to be had........... A quick search has dozens of them up for grabs.....

I am not sure where you are going with your statements, But I am interested in your comment "Difficult yes but far from impossible"

Please elaborate on the difficulties of controlling Depth perspective with one focal length of lens, because as far as I know besides the obvious ruse of moving distant objects closer to the foreground to create the illusion of a relative flattened perspective. It cant be effectively used with one focal length lens while keeping the objective at a constant height.........But I am happy to be corrected....

sevencrossing

while keeping the objective at a constant height...........

Correct. Changing height will change perspective
But the critical thing is distance
With just one lens you do have the option of cropping or stitching
Perspective is all about the position of the camera relative to the subject(s) ( or the eye of the artist) not the lens

ggbutcher

Kinda funny, learning photography in the '70s, focal length was about perspective and depth-of-field, at least with the folks I learned from. So, I put it aside for a few decades, and when I came back in mid 2000s two things have surprised me: 1) how much easier digital has made things, and 2) focal length seems to be all about reach and framing. I get some funny looks from family when I crank my zoom out, then take 10-15 steps back to shoot, but less now that they've seen the results.

The zoom gives me perspective options without having to fumble a lens change. I then frame with my feet, and I don't feel bad about aggressive cropping later on. I also chimp a bit, but I guess I'm too old to care about how I look...

sevencrossing

The zoom gives me perspective options without having to fumble a lens change. I then frame with my feet,

Very sorry IMHO I think you have this the wrong way round

Your feet will change the perspective the zoom will change the framing
If we go back to Joe Mcnally. In the second shot the model will appear smaller as Joe has moved further away from her. The sun (149,600,000 km away) will seem the same size, Joe uses a 600mm lens to fill the frame and make the model look bigger ( the sun still looks the same size). He would get the same effect had he not changed lenses but simply cropped

WestEndFoto

while keeping the objective at a constant height...........

Correct. Changing height will change perspective
But the critical thing is distance
With just one lens you do have the option of cropping or stitching
Perspective is all about the position of the camera relative to the subject(s) ( or the eye of the artist) not the lens

This is one reason I started out with a prime (and a superzoom) in the 90s on my F80 (first SLR, still have it). It is also one reason I advocate a prime for a beginner assuming the beginner wants to learn.

It is not about zooming with your feet but one of the byproducts of zooming with your feet. If you can see and are observant of your surroundings, sooner or later you will catch on to perspective.

Actually, to be honest, I did not start out with the prime for that reason. I wanted low light. But I caught on when using the prime.

sevencrossing

sooner or later you will catch on to perspective.

I am afraid it's later. It took mankind about 40,000 years

WestEndFoto

sooner or later you will catch on to perspective.

I am afraid it's later. It took mankind about 40,000 years

Very very funny!

ggbutcher

The zoom gives me perspective options without having to fumble a lens change. I then frame with my feet,

Very sorry IMHO I think you have this the wrong way round

Your feet will change the perspective the zoom will change the framing
If we go back to Joe Mcnally. In the second shot the model will appear smaller as Joe has moved further away from her. The sun (149,600,000 km away) will seem the same size, Joe uses a 600mm lens to fill the frame and make the model look bigger ( the sun still looks the same size). He would get the same effect had he not changed lenses but simply cropped

seven, we're probably talking around each other. Take a look at these:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/basics/19/03.htm
Toward the bottom of the page are series of photographs where the model is kept the same size in the frame with different focal lengths. Note how much of the wall in the background varies from then wide angle to telephoto shots. Different camera-subject distances were required to keep the subject the same size in the frame, which is the thing for me: what do the foreground and background do in relation to the subject? The lens changes that, not anything I can do with my distance...

So, when I want compressed fore- and background, I rack out the zoom, then go wandering to find my frame. The rest of the time, I rack it in, and go wandering to find my frame... seven, thanks for making me think about this more deeply...

WestEndFoto

That is an excellent example ggbutcher.

Another think I like which that example illustrates is the ability to remove unwanted distractions from the background. I find that even with an ugly background, there is usually a less ugly part of that background. With a telephoto, it is easier to reduce the background with that part.

And then if you can shoot wide open, you can turn that less ugly but still ugly part of the background into a mush of bokeh and it might even start to look good.

And then go one step further and imagine what the parts of the background might look like blurred out. You might find that the ugliest part of the background when sharp is the nicest when blurred.

tektrader

The Interesting part about this discussion is. Back in the film days I thought way more deeply before shooting off a frame. I only had 36 of them on one roll of film and I didn't want to waste any of them.

I wonder if we can now say Digital imaging has negatively impinged on the quality of frames taken? I know the disposability of frames has had that effect on me. I now may take 4-5 frames of the same subject.

The speed of shooting and the excellent quality and ease of use of zoom lenses now, is something I have to pit against the thought process involved. I truly believe my photography has suffered quality wise because of this.

spraynpray

I wonder if we can now say Digital imaging has negatively impinged on the quality of frames taken? I know the disposability of frames has had that effect on me. I now may take 4-5 frames of the same subject.

The opportunity to get that shot is there and then. with film, it's too late if you got it wrong. With digital, you get to go again after a glimpse. I am just going back to film for the self discipline - it's going to be interesting!

tektrader

This thread had me looking at F5's and F6's last night..........

F5's are really cheap now.....

sevencrossing

I wonder if we can now say Digital imaging has negatively impinged on the quality of frames taken?

Not for me
Like Cartier Bresson, I am a believer in the decisive moment
If I see a potential shot, I grab it, It might be possible to improve on it later but often it is gone forever
Had over 40 years shooting film, I would not go back

sevencrossing

F5's are really cheap now.....

Not when you add the cost of film and processing

JonMcGuffin

If it's all about the moment what difference does it make whether you shoot film or digital anyway? I never shot film, but I find this whole film makes you a better photog thing that I hear on occasion silly. I'm not saying anybody is s i'm not saying anybody is saying that here.

WestEndFoto

I think shooting film would make you think very carefully as it is a long time to get feedback.

But feedback is instant with digital.

And then there is nothing like a darkroom to teach you about exposure.

I would say that all of the above would make you a better photographer.

JonMcGuffin

I think shooting film would make you think very carefully as it is a long time to get feedback.

But feedback is instant with digital.

And then there is nothing like a darkroom to teach you about exposure.

I would say that all of the above would make you a better photographer.

Sure, not to hijack my own thread on an alternate topic but there's no reason when you're holing a digital camera in your hand you can't think carefully. No reason you can't tell yourself, I'm going to go out and take 24 frames and that's it. Or you could even tape over your LCD if you'd like.

I'm just saying, the digital tool isn't any better or worse at taking a picture (well, it's actually better now right, but you know what I mean)... it's always been the brain behind the camera and that hasn't changed with digital. So I think like a calculator can make you lazy if you let it, a digital camera can prevent you from taking your time to look - but only if you let it. The flipside is, the calculator (and computer) opened up an entire world not possible previously. Same with digital cameras, look at what we can do too process digital negatives with our computers now? Things that were literally impossible with film.

I'm just saying the tools isnt what makes/breaks the ability for people to be better, it's the people's choice.

JonMcGuffin

And on the note of compression and Joe's 600mm picture. It's not the sun that got compressed so much rather the electric wire tower that was very far behind the model. Bringing that up and framing her with that I think was rather special.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that could have only been possible with a 600mm focal length correct? You guys are not saying if he stood back there at the same exact position, pulled off the 600mm, stuck on a 50mm and shot a pic (with the girl now tiny in the frame) THAN turned around and just cropped the 5% of the entire image to frame up the scene it would have looked identical?

If that's true, then every time the MP count rises on these cameras, it probably means we don't need such long lenses.

WestEndFoto

I think shooting film would make you think very carefully as it is a long time to get feedback.

But feedback is instant with digital.

And then there is nothing like a darkroom to teach you about exposure.

I would say that all of the above would make you a better photographer.

Sure, not to hijack my own thread on an alternate topic but there's no reason when you're holing a digital camera in your hand you can't think carefully. No reason you can't tell yourself, I'm going to go out and take 24 frames and that's it. Or you could even tape over your LCD if you'd like.

I'm just saying, the digital tool isn't any better or worse at taking a picture (well, it's actually better now right, but you know what I mean)... it's always been the brain behind the camera and that hasn't changed with digital. So I think like a calculator can make you lazy if you let it, a digital camera can prevent you from taking your time to look - but only if you let it. The flipside is, the calculator (and computer) opened up an entire world not possible previously. Same with digital cameras, look at what we can do too process digital negatives with our computers now? Things that were literally impossible with film.

I'm just saying the tools isnt what makes/breaks the ability for people to be better, it's the people's choice.

Technically you are correct, but this is something that we know from experience and research. Most people will not think of this and being forced to undergo the respective dark room, film and digital experiences will be what is required for the learning. Can they be worked out later? Sure, but they usually won’t be.

WestEndFoto

And on the note of compression and Joe's 600mm picture. It's not the sun that got compressed so much rather the electric wire tower that was very far behind the model. Bringing that up and framing her with that I think was rather special.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that could have only been possible with a 600mm focal length correct? You guys are not saying if he stood back there at the same exact position, pulled off the 600mm, stuck on a 50mm and shot a pic (with the girl now tiny in the frame) THAN turned around and just cropped the 5% of the entire image to frame up the scene it would have looked identical?

If that's true, then every time the MP count rises on these cameras, it probably means we don't need such long lenses.

Actually, it is possible with any lens shorter than 600mm, but not longer.

Yes, more megapixels can mean that you can achieve the same thing with a shorter lens, but that assumes that the lens has enough resolution to benefit from the extra megapixels.

And lens resolution can only go so far, as lens resolution improvements are incremental, almost linear and slow on an annual basis, not like digital technology which is exponential and fast.

Then there is the cold hard brick wall of diffraction, which like the speed of light, no amount of engineering can overcome. Cheap lenses are likely diffraction limited at f/8 and higher. Great ones at f/5.6. F/4.0 would be truly exceptional: Not sure such an animal exists.

And the diffraction issue is bigger as the lens format size decreases. Less resolution is possible with DX due to diffraction.

It is why a phone camera with more than a dozen (and perhas 4 or 5) megapixels is a marketing gimmick.

And it is why I keep harping, to everyone’s annoyance, that it is lenses, lenses and lenses, not sensors nor sensors nor sensors. Despite any temporary technological advances that might be introduced in a smaller format first, lens quality and format size are the true bottlenecks to improved image quality. Ever wonder why Ansel Adam’s landscapes from the 30s and 40s are so sharp even by today’s standards. The inherent advantage of a 4 by 5 inch (or an 8 by 10) sensor (which happened to be film) is nearly insurmountable, even after 70 years of advances in lens design. Sorry, but I will not shut up about this.

tektrader

Guys, This is probably one of the best threads on here for quite a while............