On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Ann Sanfedele <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2/12/2015 21:52, Bruce Walker wrote: >> >> Ann, if we take the telephoto example, you will get pronounced >> compression that your eyes would not have given the scene. > > I'm not sure that is true - it is something I used to think but then > somewhere someone showed something taken with a 50 mm lens and cropped > down to what the 135 tele had captured and the crop and the tele photo > looked the same...
You could well be right about the compression, Ann. But we certainly can't see what the tele is showing us with the unaided eye. That's why we use binoculars. :) >> If I stand on a chair above two people, the taller of who I place >> behind the shorter one, using a wide angle lens I can make them both >> look about the same size. I used this trick during a recent shoot. >> It's an optical distortion that my eye did not make but the >> lens/camera did.And their heads appear much bigger than their feet >> too. > > You didn't see it looking through the viewfinder? Through the viewfinder, and so through the distorting glass, yes. With my eyes, no. >> *** Not extreme distortions, but "unnatural" nonetheless. Our eyes have a >> 35mm equivalent focal length of around 50mm so any lens wider or >> longer than that is going to distort scenes compared to what your eyes >> see.*** >> > Which is why a 50mm lens has always been my preferred one.:-) but that is > the 50 mm lens with a fixed periferal vision - one's own eyes may > have more or less. > > I think it is a complicated optical matter... but at the bottom of it is > that I don't like seeing something beautiful made ugly, that's all Well that I cannot and will not argue with. That is personal preference and personal interpretation of course. My own personal interpretation of Igor's shot is more positive as I like the shot playing with my expectations. I don't expect buildings and tram lines to be bending like putty, so it surprises me and makes me look more closely. Would I put it up on my wall? Unsure; I might, to see other's reactions. My argument was really with the notion that what the photographer has done "should not be done", or "why bother?" Okay, as one final example of distortion -- one that I know you like -- here's a shot with a single distortion applied, not optical. http://www.robertstech.com/pages/gfm_w09.htm > ann > > >> >> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Ann Sanfedele <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Bruce - in all your examples, you are capturing something your eye can >>> see or did see without recording it with a camera... >>> >>> Not the same at all as using a fisheye - >>> which produces an image the human eye can't see - until >>> after the camera has captured it.. >>> >>> So perhaps not the best comparison to fisheye lens photos. >>> >>> I find the fish-eye distortion unpleasant - I don't mind distortion in >>> art in general, if the result is pleasing to look it. >>> >>> Using a wide angle lens too close to someone you are photographing, or >>> looking at yourself in a funhouse mirror also produces an unpleasing >>> distortion... but I never thought "making faces" was amusing either.. >>> but that's a digression. >>> >>> ann >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/12/2015 20:51, Bruce Walker wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, what's the point to shooting through raindropped glass? >>>> WTPT standing on a chair and shooting down on a small group? >>>> WTPT shooting a closeup of a marching band from a great distance with >>>> a telephoto? >>>> WTPT shooting a scene's reflection in a puddle? >>>> WTPT trying anything different? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Jack Davis <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Have never grasp the point to such >>>>> mechanically produced distortion. >>>>> Jack >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 12, 2015, at 4:17 PM, Ann Sanfedele <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see any point to that kind of shot.. It's a beautiful >>>>>> building, >>>>>> don't like seeing it distorted. >>>>>> >>>>>> ann >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/12/2015 01:57, Igor PDML-StR wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Time-to-time I am experimenting with the Korean 8mm fisheye lens. >>>>>>> I've posted a few shots produced with that lens that I liked. >>>>>>> But sometimes I am not sure if the photo works or not. >>>>>>> Here is one of such shots: >>>>>>> http://42graphy.org/misc/Dresden_IR00794.jpg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to hear your honest opinion, if this shot works for you >>>>>>> or >>>>>>> not. >>>>>>> (Other comments and suggestions are also welcome.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Igor >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>>>> follow the directions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>>>> follow the directions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> >> >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
