Yes, perspective for a photographer is different from the geometric perspective described in the video. "Lessons" like that are needlessly confusing.
On Feb 18, 2016 1:36 PM, "Randy Little" <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ok Yorman I understand your point a little but I don't' think that a newbie would be watching that video.
Lew, I think you just proved Yorman's point because I never thought he was trying to discuss the proper lens for a given object. But perspective is exactly what you just described in object to frame ration and what lens choice to make. That is perspective.On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Lew Schwartz <lew1716@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:+1 ....and what about size? I think most would agree that the size of objects within the frame most often dictates the choice of focal length, not perspective.-Lew SchwartzOn Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:53 PM, YGelmanPhoto <ygelmanphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I agree that's the point he is trying to get across. But my point is that he makes it confusing because there are related issues; he does not isolate what he's trying to show.For instance (and I'm trying to think how a beginning photographer would be thinking), by using the word "focus" when he does, he brings in the possibility that the other objects might or might not stay in focus.So all I'm saying is that this video, used alone, is a poor teaching tool.On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:huh? The only time he uses the work focus is when he points out that the hulk is the thing he is using as his focus point.
Its teaches pretty clearly that a lens doesn't compress space. (distortions aside)On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:21 PM, YGelmanPhoto <ygelmanphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:It seems to me the the Youtube confuses two related issues -- which is probably why Kostas Papakotas replied "Huh?" when he posted the link. The video mentions "compression" and then uses the term focus at a different point. For experienced photographers there is nothing wrong with what he said; for newbies, however, he's confusing.Our comments here introduced the term "perspective" and should also have brought in "depth of field" but that would have necessitated "aperture" as well.So a beginning photographer would look at the video and probably toss it away because it really teaches nothing useful -- at least that's the way I see it.On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:All this make me realize how lucky I am to have just ‘picked up’ this info rather than sitting in a class to get it. I think I got it out of Popular Science or similar.On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Ok, Andy, that bit about too complex for freshman is scary. Do the Admin really believe that? Advanced math background? Who thought it takes advanced math. Jack Karpen made us take a 28, 50, and some telephoto and on the same tripod take the same picture not moving the camera. Then blow up the 2 shorter lenses to match the telephoto, TADA! I'm not sure where the advanced math part comes into play in learning the basic principle. explaining it with Math sure ok math then. I don't recall doing any math in Jacks first year JPHL class. I hated M&P with a crazy passion, I recommend the textbook to people at least 10 times a year. Your comments at the end of the link are just kind of a sad comment on the state of things photography. That's basic math. It doesn't go into why the distant object is not affected (measurably by eye) by the camera move. So kind of just sad.On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Andrew Davidhazy <andpph@xxxxxxx> wrote:In brief , perspective is a matter of camera location. As Randy states it is a subject covered in
a freshman course and the link to an exercise related to this subject might clarify this in
practical terms. I believe but may be wrong that sadly this project is no longer included in
the course as it was deemed too hard for freshmen to deal with and solve.
http://www.davidhazy.org/andpph/text-perspective-exercize.html
Andy
> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:33 AM, Kostas Papakotas <clenchedteethphotography@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> huh?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtCI_hSzio
>
>
Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
