An exercise in perspective control
rwells
Registered Users Posts: 6,084 Major grins
If one has the time, it's always beneficial to look at a subject from several different perspectives. It's always amazing how different a subject will look from a different angle.
I get comments on composition so I thought with this series of shots I could point out a couple of things.
Hope this helps someone out :thumb
I get comments on composition so I thought with this series of shots I could point out a couple of things.
Hope this helps someone out :thumb
Randy
0
Comments
- Wil
Alright Wil, don't get technical on me
That was the main thrust of this, to MOVE AROUND to get a different perspective...
Notice I did say Zoom IN (actually moved in)
But, I'll give you one to think about:
Take a shot of something with your camera in Landscape mode. Now, stay where you are & don't zoom. Simply turn your camera to Portrait mode and take another shot.
What effectively happens to your subject?
It appears to be much smaller in the image, much the same as if you had either zoomed the lens or physically moved the camera.
This in the real world gives the same basic change of perspective as if you had moved back from your subject. You can now include more, say sky, or foreground and you didn't even move!
So, tell me what you think about that...
Still maintain that the only way to change perspective is to physically move the camera's location toward or away from the subject?
BTW: I'm just pickin' fun back at ya' ~ but do reply!
Move is not the same as zoom…
The subject stays the same; the image of the subject stays the same, but it is cropped different as the sensor (having been rotated 90º) is now looking at a different part of the image… …unless it's an anamorphic lens… …but I don't think that's what you mean
BTW if you tilt the camera up or down or swivel from side to side, you are changing the viewpoint (unless the tilt or swivel is done about the optical centre of the lens); the point I'm making is that if you change the focal length (or zoom, bearing in mind the caveats in my original post) you do not change the perspective.
Nope, I really don't think so; perhaps you'll explain why you think otherwise…
…see above.
Yes; and not just towards or away, but also up or down.
Understood.
- Wil
BTW - Great images!
NOTE: I shot these, then uploaded them directly from the card reader. No cropping or anything else.
Lets just imagine that this is an image of say, a lawn mower.
We've got our shot. But what if we wanted to include more sky? Would we have to move to get that different perspective?
Doesn't look like it.
Or, we decide that we really want to show off that great foreground. Do we need to move to accomplish that?
Doesn't look like it.
Also note, as I stated. When you shoot a subject in Landscape mode it appears a certain size in the image. When you simply change the orientation to Portrait, the subject appears smaller in the image.
Now, I'm a pretty technical guy, and I understand all the physics that your bringing up. But, my post was to show that you really need to move around your subject to get the best perspective for what you are trying to relay in your image.
Outside the lab, in the real world, you can change significantly the perspective (how the scene appears to your eye) by other methods than just physically moving the camera to subject distance. Again, note the above examples.
Now, if you don't want to acknowledge that the above scenes, if say shot up in the mountains, give a significantly different perspective, then were just going to have to agree to disagree.
Here is another good example of what I'm referring:
I was standing in the exact same spot. All I did was to change the Zoom setting from 17mm to 40mm.
That's a very significant difference of perspective in my book!
Are we good
Here's the result and I think you'll see that the perspective is identical (as you would expect since they're taken from the same viewpoint).
Cropped 17mm:
…and original 40mm:
BTW I'll still argue that both pictures of your lawn-mower show the same perspective. I really don't see how changing from landscape to portrait would alter the focal length of the lens; are you sure you didn't zoom? …even just a teensy-weensy bit????
- Wil
Wil,
The perspective is the same after you cropped out allot of the image!
Your wrapped up in "White Paper" stuff. That's OK by me if that's the way you see fit to shoot, but it's been my experience that when you leave that stuff in the "lab", shots turn out a lot more expressive.
I used to be all wrapped-up in each and every technical detail. I've worked hard over time to get more creative while shooting. My shots are better and less sterile for it.
And I'm sure you've got a camera, try the lawn-mower shots yourself so that your sure I didn't fudge, zoom, move, et-al.
Your grinding on a single pinpoint here & missing the big picture
Let's just agree to disagree here.
Actually the perspective is exactly the same before the crop as well (check out the definition of perspective); perhaps we're using the same word to describe two different things.
Fine by me, but I really prefer accuracy especially when I'm describing something or explaining a technique; however that doesn't stop me from enjoying your fine pictures no matter what terminology you might use…
- Wil
Today the Blue Angels were practice flying over my house...yes it was ear numbing....and I practiced taking some photos. My camera was set in Standard mode and now I'm wondering if it should of been set on Landscape only because of color. I've noticed that in Standard mode my photos have less of a color punch in them. It could be how the settings are in each mode, but there really shouldn't be that much of a difference should there?
Question for you Randy.....what setting do you usually have your camera set at? I know this has nothing to do with what you were discussing on this thread, but it could help me.
As for the distance changing by what your camera is set at -- doesn't surprise me a bit. I've always wondered about that and will try it out tomorrow. I see by the lawnmower that it does change.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
If not:
The image of the lawn mower you shot in landscape is displayed as 600x400 on my screen and the portrait shot is 300x450. The images have been scaled differently by the chain of display software fitting your imaged into a region with less height than width. Of course the mowers look different sizes. Try displaying them as 450x300 and 300x450 and see if you find a size difference in the lawn mower between portrait and landscape. If you can't do that, cut equal sized (in pixels) square regions containing the mower from the two originals in different formats and post them to compare.
Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com
...with apology to Archimedies
Hey Mary,
If I'm not shooting sports, then I usually shoot RAW so it doesn't matter what "Style" setting I have.
When I shoot sports or anything else in JPG, I use the "Standard" picture style.
***************************
This thread has taken a turn away from what it was intended to be. The effort here was to show that changing ones position/viewpoint/perspective can often lead to a better, more dynamic image than your first viewpoint alone.
It's gotten pulled aside from that. The point is that you can change your camera position and/or orientation to accomplish such. I really had no intention of getting into technical lens/camera issues, scaling, etc.
Figured this set of images was a good opportunity to show this.
Dale,
Scaling happens... please re-read, I said the subject APPEARS smaller.
But, read my reply above to Mary.
I've managed to make a living with this little black box, so I take this as kind of condescending.
You guys are sidetracking this thread from it's intention. If you want to start a thread about scaling, perspective or whatever you want to address as technical issues, feel free, but I'd appreciate your input about what the thread was intended.
How to make better images by moving your vantage point, camera orientation, zooming or a combination of the above.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
www.tangojulietphotography.com
This is about your claim about scaling from camera orientation. That is not a sidetrack. It is a disagreement with a statement made on the basis of an image presentation an experienced photographer could have made more carefully, not a technical camera issue.
Camera orientation was one of your choices of topic.
Ansel Adams wouldn't have limited himself to vantage point, camera orientation and zooming (or choice of lens for him). I think he would have included shifts and tilts. Even some SLR camera lines have provided lenses with these capabilities. This would allow the capture of more of the verticals in your images as verticals from the same vantage points.
Dale B. Dalrymple
...with apology to Archimedies
Still pretty new here. I get what you are saying about vantage point/perspective and moving around to get an entirely different shot of the same subject--Up until last month all my photos were pretty much taken from the front of any subject--which made for BORING photos.
I've enjoyed looking at many of your photographs and I'm always highly jealous of them and frustrated with my inability to take quality photographs (for the time being).
Anyway just wanted to say thanks for starting this thread. Any tips are always appreciated. Mighty nice of you to do so.
Liz A.
_________
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.
My SmugMug Site
You could be right. But perspective is not a word to avoid when addressing my topic. It was simply something to sidetrack the main topic of this thread. I'll paste here what M-W defines as perspective. For someone to claim only a pinpoint definition is only argumentative.
The intent and context it was used was clear.
*********************************************************
(4) Noun
(1) Adjective
Some have several meanings within each listing.
Perspective:
- Main Entry: <SUP>2</SUP>perspective
- Function: noun
- Etymology: Middle French, probably modification of Old Italian prospettiva, from prospetto view, prospect, from Latin prospectus — more at prospect
- Date: 1563
1 a : the technique or process of representing on a plane or curved surface the spatial relation of objects as they might appear to the eye; specifically : representation in a drawing or painting of parallel lines as converging in order to give the illusion of depth and distance b : a picture in perspective2 a : the interrelation in which a subject or its parts are mentally viewed
3 a : a visible scene; especially : one giving a distinctive impression of distance : vista b : a mental view or prospect <GAIN perspective on the situation>
4 : the appearance to the eye of objects in respect to their relative distance and positions
— per·spec·tiv·al <INPUT class=au title="Listen to the pronunciation of perspectival" onclick="return au('perspe03', 'perspectival');" type=button> <INPUT class=au title="Listen to the pronunciation of perspectival" onclick="return au('perspe02', 'perspectival');" type=button> \pər-ˈspek-ti-vəl, ˌpər-(ˌ)spek-ˈtī-vəl\ adjective
Hey Liz,
Sorry this thread got derailed but hope you got something useful out of it.
Thanks for the comments.
You're correct, that was the original issue, but the later posts were about something else, which I had difficulty in understanding. I had thought the OP was using the terms "landscape" and "portrait" to describe the orientation of the camera, i.e. how the camera was held, and I still think there's no way the focal length would be dependent on the orientation of the camera; however, after reading some of the other posts I've come to believe that perhaps he was in fact referring to a "mode" which could be set in the camera to "landscape" or "portrait".
One of my P&S cameras (Olympus C5050 I think) has various aspect-ratio settings and I was thinking that he might have been talking about something like that, in which case we're both right.
Hope this clears up the misunderstanding -
- Wil
Hey Andrew,
I'm not disputing anything.
I took the time to create a post simply pointing out some photography tips to help compositions. Someone else decided to take issue with the term your talking about.
As I posted above from M-W, definition #3 & #4 are what's being referred to here, but a single, personally defined meaning is what was argued by a poster.
No worries...You seem to have a grasp on it...
Dale,
I post a thread to be helpful. Someone comes along and wants to argue & show how smart he is. I point out that's not what this thread is about, lets agree to disagree. He won't leave it at that.
So, being such a smart guy, I give him something to think about. If you'd bother to read my postings, you'd see that I even told him that I was messing with him.
The lawn-mower pics were to try and also show him that a simple camera orientation change can have a large impact on how your subject is framed. You can include more sky or foreground than in landscape orientation.
Then you, not wanting to add anything constructive to the original post, jump on me about what I posted for the smart guy to figure out on his own.
And you honestly think your NOT sidetracking this post
Then why not post something helpful about compositions?
I've been here a good while and have helped many people, both with tutorials and in PM's. I must say I don't appreciate someone jumping in and pouncing me without even knowing why some info was posted the way it was. If being helpful was your true intent, you should have PM'd me instead of the condescending "are you trying to be funny" remark.
I've looked at your post and your a smart guy, maybe a little tact is in order.
Things like tone, attitude, intent, subtlety and humor don't come clearly through the keyboard and computer screen.
I intended my explaination of the effect you claimed to demonstrate to be helpful to people interested in a correct understanding of perspective. I preceded it with a query about whether I had misunderstood you. Instead of clarifying, you chose to take offense. When you confuse people and chose not to clarify you leave people with nothing to work with but what you actually wrote. I don't seem to be the only reader of this thread to find it difficult to find the intentions you have now stated in the words you wrote earlier.
Sorry I might have sidetracked your opportunity to mess with your smart guy.
I hope we will communicate more effectively in the future.
Dale B. Dalrymple
...with apology to Archimedies
Wow, what a thread. I got done with the first page and skimmed part of the last page, sorry, didn't want to hack through all the dead wood to get to here. ANYHOO, this is my take.
The OP was trying to teach a simple, yet overlooked lesson in the way we view things visually not start a techical scientific debate of what things really are no matter what you've done. Visually, it is different, even if it "technically" the same (still pondering that argument and think both sides of the coin have some worth) but I understood Randy's point, sooooooooo, can that be the end of it, or does it need nit-picking more.
Have a good weekend, i'm outta here.
Lee