Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
Quote Originally Posted by Lex Jenkins
It's natural to see converging verticals with tall buildings. The eye expects it. By overcorrecting these lines from ground level using a shift lens or camera movements we create a perspective that doesn't exist in nature. It looks odd.

The perspective "sensed" by the human eye is approximately equivalent to the image from a 100mm lens in the 35mm format, which translates to something like 160mm in 2 1/4 and ... whatever would be mathematically the same for 4" x 5" and 8" x 10" (Sunday morning and I haven't had breakfast yet). Everything is approxinmate, as no one yet has found a way to make accurate measurements of human perception.

Any image taken with a lens *greatly* longer or shorter in focal length (tilts and swings not considered) results in an unnatural convergence of line and area scale... NOT to be confused with distortion (i.e., barrel, pincushion, or random abberation) - all lens - optical - errors.

Never have I had to amke morecorrections to a message. I NEED coffee.

That is interesting. I had always heard that the so called normal lenses (related to equivalent human vision) were those that were near the diagonal of the format. That would be near 50 mm for 35, 75 or 80 for 6X4.5, 150 for 4X5 and 300 for 8X10. I don't know where this "normal' designation came from. However, I don't know that I personally see the world at the 150 focal length in 6X 4.5, 300 mm length in 4X5, or 600 mm in 8X10 which is what your comment would indicate. That seems to be a fairly strong telephoto view. (It could be that maybe I am just not focused enough in my perceptions)...

At any rate, explain further...I have a feeling that I am about to learn something here.