Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,287   Posts: 1,535,333   Online: 855
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    We all know that extreme rises tend to make buildings look a bit TOP-heavy, right?
    Wrong, extreme rise with the wrong kind of lens could make the building look top heavy. But not necessarily is this always the case.

    I am talking about serving a client
    Yep, me too....

    From the pictures you posted, it seem given the space constraints you had to use extreme wide angle, the distortion presented is not due to rise or fall, but to the focal lenght. In these situations I imagine it is your job as the expert to explain this to the customer.

    Rise or fall does not affect image distortion, it simply moves the image circle up or down. Given the circumstances I dont know that a choice of a different lens would have been possible, but I have to agree with your clients assesments, in the retaurant the hanging structure is overpowering, in the office the depth is clearly due to the wide angle and low view point. If this was 4x5 it looks like it was taken with a 65 mm lens, and I am not surprised by the distortion, but make no mistake this is due to the lens, not the rise and fall.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    134
    The visual peculiarities in these last two examples of interiors aren't so much from using front rise as simply from using a very wide angle lens. Depending on the subject, the rendition of perspective can seem disturbing -- close objects off axis can seem too large, and spheres will render as ellipses -- the lights in the upper left corner of the second photo are examples of both effects. (Many photographers call these effects "distortion", though that isn't really the correct usage of the word -- the word "distortion" is properly used for a lens that renders straight lines in the scene as curved lines in the photograph. either barrel or pincushion, depending on the direction of the curvature.) The cause of the exaggerated sizes and shapes changes for both wide-angle and long focus lenses is that we are not viewing the prints at the optical center that would replicate the taking conditions. If you could place your eye much closer to these images and still focus they would look more natural.

    Possible solutions to these problems are: a camera position farther away from all subject elements, or a camera position in which the corners (and edges even) don't have close elements, or simply a longer lens that shows less of the scene. If no better camera position is possible and you must show all the subject elements, then you will just have to use a very wide lens and accept the "distortions".

    For the photo with the lights (of what appears to be an office, not a restaurant), if you had used less front rise, then the near floor might have loomed larger. It probably would have looked less peculiar than way the lights and ceiling now appear, but more boring. Given that there wasn't a better camera position, the best solution might be to crop and show less.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Many photographers call these effects "distortion", though that isn't really the correct usage of the word -- the word "distortion" is properly used for a lens that renders straight lines in the scene as curved lines in the photograph. either barrel or pincushion, depending on the direction of the curvature.
    Sorry, distortion is correctly applied, and it is not confined to pin cushion, etc. In fact the correct term for pin cushion, barrel and comma is lens aberration, which is enterely different than image distortion due to focal lens or tilting the camera up or down.

  4. #24
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Yes, Jorge, so we're in agreement then...! Glad to see it..! Keep smiling.

  5. #25
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    BTW - it was a 75mm Grandagon. Not 65. Apparently we're having a discussion about a semantic issue. I don't see how you can separate talking about the 'results of use of the edge of the field of an extreme wide angle lens' and the concept of 'rise' (though I did not use front std. rise. just rear 'fall'). Anyway - whatever. I'm not getting my point through - so be it.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    134
    Jorge, distortion is one of several of lens abberations. You will find it listed on manufacturer's datasheets under that term. It can be either positive or negative, causing squares to be rendered either as barrels or pin cushions.

    Sparky, the effects that you find unpleasant on your least two examples can be obtained with an extreme wide angle lens without using any camera movements, so in that sense the issues aren't the same as in your first post which asserted that coverage is overrated -- unless you want to take photos with the corners missing.

    (And of course, front rise and rear fall are the same except for the slight change in the view point of the lens.)

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    As I said, distortion is not confined to lens aberrations only. It is also known as the unequal spatial image formation.

    OTOH I agree with you the distortion seen in the photographs would have been present regardless of wether there was any rise used or not.

  8. #28
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Michael,
    I do not find the 'optical rendering' (I'll call it) in either or any of the photographs unpleasant. I don't find the images unpleasant. I think they are superb given the working space I had to shoot in. The last set of photos were posted because Jorge asked me to post something to illustrate an aspect of this - not the actual point of the original post... we were just having a discussion about possible designers' intent vs. perspectival rendering. And yes, it is a perspectival phenomenon - not to do with distortion. Jorge was the one who posited that it was a result of distortion. I guess something good has come out of all this for me though. It's gotten me to pinpoint PERHAPS what it is that I don't like about that whole 'look'... which is perhaps imbalanced 'perspectival field' to coin a term. Anyway - it's absoulutely nothing I need solved... I was just wondering if there were others out there who felt as I do. I was not looking to have my opinion 'corrected'. Clearly, if I think something doesn't look right to my eye - it's my responsibility to take steps with my composition and technique to solve it in a way that suits ME. As we all ought to. And that was more the gist of the original point. I wanted to see how embedded this etiquette actually was. Pretty embedded, I'd say.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Now see, perspective does not apply to the apparent spatial distortion. Perspective when we talk about lenses is when you move back and forth, for example a 75 mm lens and a 150 mm lens will have the same perspective when when the 150 mm lens is placed at twice the focal lenght of the 75 mm. While they both might have the same perspective, both can suffer from spatial distortion, such as if both cameras were pointed up.

  10. #30
    Murray@uptowngallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Holland, MI
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,028
    I think the etiquette is as embedded as other 'parochial' views like photos having to be sharp...my wife refers to pinhole photographers as pinheads :O(

    I only know enough about converging vertical lines to feign arrogance, for example, looking at a local 35mm RF photogs architectural shots with such bad convergence (I'll guess 30% difference in top width vs. bottom width), that they look like bad amateur snapshots. I'm sure it was intentional, but when I look a them, I wonder...why bother to mat & shrink wrap those? I could do that...oops, I also refer to 'I can do that syndrome' with gallery visitors and photography, and now I'm guilty.

    Murray
    Murray

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin