32 replies to this topic

[Blether]

I can assure you that I'm using 'subject' to mean the same object, *filling the frame the same amount*

Your perspective on the words is a purists' one, and everything you say about perspective depending purely on distance is correct and consistent within itself. Yes, to the extent that you have resolution, you can shoot with any length of lens (if you shoot in the right direction) and crop to get the same image. But that's not how we photograph, practically, is it ? Generally - certainly with food - we have a specific subject we want to portray. A news photographer will depend daily on cropping from a wide image. Food doesn't move, though. and while there's certainly advantage in shooting somewhat larger than you need, I believe you can get pretty close to the image you want, in the frame you shoot.

A portrait lens lets you back off from the subject so that the subject can feel more relaxed - partly because it lets you see what you're shooting properly in the viewfinder despite being that far away, doesn't it ?

I sympathise with what you say about "a common misconception about perspective and focal length", but even my venerable textbook The Joy of Photography refers to the different perspective that different lenses give. Actually this is a fun conversation and it's been strangely satisfying to be driven to dig the old tome out again.

Coming back to the topic - in the end, I think you're right that perspective 'distortion' is not the problem with Holly's picture. (I do think that filling the frame more with the food and plate, would make it easier to compose a good image in the first place, and to review it on the spot, on the in-camera display).

Looking again more closely, it seems the angle of the light, the shape of the plate, the shape of the food, and the light's single direction conspire to make the plate feel like it's bleeding off to the bottom left.

As far as I can like the picture, if we're determined to keep the plate, I like it rotated - 2 degrees clockwise, here. A bit too much ? Also lightened two steps and sharpened, as others did, and with a little more yellow:

Attached Images

• 

Edited by Blether, 11 September 2009 - 12:35 AM.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Indeed, the reason for this common misconception about focal length and perspective is that it seems to fit with the way we usually work, moving closer with a wide lens and moving back with a long lens. I wouldn't suggest that one should crop in most cases rather than moving closer when it is possible to do so, even if one has plenty of resolution, but the cropping example explains the actual optics of perspective, and sometimes it helps to understand what's really happening.

There is a good explanation of the relation between subject distance and perspective with illustrations, if you're interested, in the chapter of Ansel Adams' The Camera called "Basic Image Management."

[Blether]

I love it when I hear the expression "I could care less". When I knew it, this was always "I couldn't care less". You know - "I could not care less" about something, as in, I care so little, it would be impossible to care less about it. I'm at the absolute zero of caring; I don't give a fig. I care not a jot or a tittle.

"I could care less" sounds like the opposite to me - "I could care less, so right now I'm caring to a certain extent. I care. It's important to me !" But that's not the sense it's used in. What is it, New York sarcasm or something ? You hear it from all over the States, and it sounds so peculiar. That said, I'm not expecting to wake up on some Vanilla Sky morning, and find that the world has turned and things have reverted just to suit me.

Sure, if I stand in the same position and take a series of shots with different lenses, the perspective - according to a strict technical definition - will be the same, but

"My wife's face; outdoors",
"My wife in the garden",
"My wife at the bottom of our garden", and
"My wife in our garden, which gives a panoramic view of the vast woodlands of Appalachia"

- are different subjects; and whether or not the technically-defined perspective is the same, you can't say that the different lenses don't give you a different perspective on what you can see from that place. Yes, it's good to understand the relationships between the various elements, and of course as you said, when it comes to viewing any given image, the size of the reproduction has a bearing on how we perceive it - if we blow a wide-angle shot up big enough (or print a zoom shot small enough), we can lose the distorted perspective.

Thanks to too long an association with Amazon.com, my apartment has enough books, thanks (makes sign of cross, brandishes garlic).

I've decided that I don't see (telephoto / zoom in) pincushioning in Holly's shot - I think there's only 'look-down distortion', if we can call it that - parallel vertical lines appearing to diverge as they come upwards, because we've angled the camera downwards relative to them - camera angle, as you said.

Edited by Blether, 11 September 2009 - 04:04 PM.