Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 89 of 89

Thread: Portrait perspective: Quiz and two questions

  1. #81

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Tracy, California
    Posts
    134

    Re: Portrait perspective: Quiz and two questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Helen Bach
    Leonard wrote:

    Gregory, it is usual practice to refer to the front (first) planes and points for object-space calculations ('object' being synonymous with 'subject' in this case), and the rear (second) planes and points for image-space calculations. An obvious exception is the use of film plane to object distance markings on lenses in focusing mounts.
    Hi Helen,

    I am not an engineer; I used the nomenclature in Adams book, The Camera. He used the definition, "the distance from the object to the lens rear nodal plane," in reference to "u."

    I would consider Adam's treatment of the subject matter somewhat superficial and perhaps overly simplified for the lay reader like myself. In his discussion, Adams used a simple, not a compound, lens. Nevertheless, I take responsibility for what I posted.

    Stroebel states more correctly, as you have pointed out, "u," or object distance, should be measured, in direction parallel to the lens axis, from the object to the lens front nodal plane, and "v" (image distance) should be measured from the lens rear nodal plane to the in-focus image (presumably on the ground glass, although Stroebel does not elaborate to that level of specificity). He goes on to say, however, that for most photographic situations in which conventional view camera lenses are used measuring from the lens center (i.e., lens board) will not introduce significant errors. My experience agrees with Stroebel's assessment.

    Stroebel suggests that one can determine the lens rear nodal plane by focusing the camera on infinity, and then measuring "one focal length forward (e.g., 210mm for a 210mm focal length lens) from the ground glass. The location of the front nodal plane can be determined by turning the lens around and repeating the process.

    Although Ansel Adams book, The Camera, is very useful, I find Stroebel's View Camera Technique more complete and precise, and I recommend it highly to anyone interested in learning more about using the view camera.

    Best regards,

    Greg

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York
    Posts
    525

    Re: Portrait perspective: Quiz and two questions

    Thanks for explaining that Gregory. It all makes sense now. Adams' The Camera is the only one of the three that I haven't read.

    Best,
    Helen

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Tonopah, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    6,334

    Re: Portrait perspective: Quiz and two questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Fusselman
    Jim, do you recall some details of how you shot these? Any movements? Do you recall the taking apertures approximately?
    Sorry, just returned to the discussion after a week away. I doubt anything I might add would be useful. Both of the photos I shared in post # 15 that were done on 8X10 with the 13" Pinkham & Smith lens were done very near f7. DOF is so shallow that I often try a little back tilt to get a little more tip of nose to eyes in focus if possible. No other movements. When I say f7, I mean that is what the scale is pointing at. But since the bellows is at 20 + or - inches I calculate true aperture for my exposure. I do find it interesting that lenses like the P&S IV that were designed to cause an effect between f4 and f8 will have the same effect between those apertures at infinity as it will at 1:1. ie. at a true f4 at infinity it is just as fuzzy as it is at 1:1 f4 indicated which is really f8. Maybe we can chatter on for 5 or 10 more pages about that phenomenon.

    The big 22" voigtlander has a single waterhouse stop that would bring it to around f11 at infinity. DOF is so extremely shallow that I've used it in every exposure so far. With bellows draw it usually lands somewhere around f19-f22. Same minor movements at the back of the 11X14.

    My sitters usually are intolerant of yellow 8.5X14.5 legal tablets filled with calculations, but might in fact crack a curious smile for me if I whip out the old Keuffel & Esser slide rule.

  4. #84

    Re: Portrait Perspective: Response -- Part 1

    Gregory,

    You wrote, "I don't mean to be disrespectful, but after reading your original post, some of which I found confusing, and all the responses to it, especially your attached paper, it's clear that you might already know the answers to your questions. So what is the real reason for your inquiry?"

    Which parts did you find confusing? Sorry about that! I always want to learn how to write better. You (and anyone else) can send writing improvement ideas to me privately, if you prefer. It is very interesting for a writer to find where the reader got lost.

    As for my real reason for my inquiry, since others seem confused by this too, I guess I better reveal it---though you will be disappointed.

    Where I went to school, the person who gives a quiz thinks he already knows the answers. For the quiz I gave, I knew, or thought I knew, the answers. At the time, I had thought that everyone agreed this is what quiz means. Many of you must have gone to schools where the teacher gave quizzes with no idea as to the answers.

    I originally thought that some better writer than me might grace the thread with the answers, but since that did not happen, I was required by custom to submit my answers.

    After the quiz in my original post came my questions. Those are the things I did not know the answers to. Clear? The quiz has parts A and B. The questions are numbered 1 and 2. The things I labelled questions were my questions---not the quiz. To me, it is really quite simple why I asked the questions. The real reason I asked the questions 1 and 2 was the reason I stated.

  5. #85

    Re: Portrait Perspective: Response -- Part 2

    Gregory,

    You bring up several issues.

    You, and several others, wonder, Does any 35mm-portrait photographer really think that a 300mm focal length can be clearly superior to 85mm? I never said most 35mm portrait shooters think so. My task is only to show that some do.

    Please recall from my initial post that a 14-foot shooting distance corresponds to a 35mm photographer's 300mm lens, and a 4-foot shooting distance corresponds to an 85mm lens. (More accurately, the numbers are 14.32 and 4.06 feet.) For the upcoming quote, please remember 14 feet and 4 feet as distances that determine two quite different perspectives.

    For my demonstration about 300mm lenses for 35mm portrait photographers, I start with quotes from a photo.net article called "Portrait Photography":

    "If you want to flatter your subject, you'll probably want to deemphasize his nose. That means you want to stand at 10 or 15 feet away from him so that his nose isn't significantly closer to you than the rest of his face. However, at such a large distance from the camera, if you want to fill the frame with just your subject's face, then you need a high magnification ( i.e., telephoto) lens. . . . Many professional fashion photographers use 300mm or 600mm lenses"
    And here are two examples from the photo.net thread "300f4 as a portrait lens":

    "I watched a fashion photographer in Miami doing his stuff with a 300mm f2.8 lens on a F5."

    "Most of my family members who are by no means "model types" like the thinning effect the longer lens shots. They don't know why, but they usually pick them as keepers..."
    Even if someone has signed affidavits of one thousand 35mm portrait pros who despise 300mm lenses, even if so, I have now established all that I want to about 300mm for the purpose of my questions.

    Actually, what other photographers do matters very little to me when their "common knowledge" leads to inferior practice. And I generally like my images more than other photographers', so why should I copy others? My attitude is not that unusual, is it? (Galen Rowell's wife, Barbara, generally liked her own images best at locations also photographed by her husband.)

    Then why am I personally interested in 300mm? Well, I noticed in my own 35mm portrait shots that my 300mm images seemed especially pleasing. I had used that huge, heavy lens almost by accident---only to keep my equipment safe and out of the water for a special location on a Lake Michigan beach. My sitter and I thought the resulting perspective strikingly good compared to the various shorter focal lengths I used for a couple thousand other shots. The 300mm images really seemed somehow more beautiful and glamourous. That is how I got the idea of trying for more resolution in a larger format---but with that same perspective!

    Some may say, well, 300mm shots (on 35mm) look better just because you had extra control over the background with the longer lens. But my answer is that that is a major benefit of the longer perspective, so if the better background is the 35mm pro's reason for the longer lens, then I probably want that with large format too.

    You admit, "The longer lens also makes it easier to throw the background out of focus, making the subject's face standout from any distracting elements. In this regard, the 300mm is often used on location, like the beach."

    The longer lens allows more control over what parts of the background show, but it does not materially affect depth of field if you hold image magnification and f/stop constant, as I explained earlier in this thread. I hope you agree with this. Many posters think focal length materially affects depth of field in this context, but it doesn't. Remember, we are talking about head-and-shoulders portraits in a given format, so we take magnification as given. It is easy to check the numbers if you doubt it: Focal length has no material affect on depth of field for this image.

    First you assert, "When a longer focal length lens is used, less of the scene is included, but perspective remains unchanged," and several posters in this thread agree with you, but later you quote Stroebel, who says the exact opposite: "It is not correct, however, to say that focal length has no effect on perspective." I cannot tell which position you agree with, but personally, I agree with Stroebel.

    Stroebel defines the terms weak perspective and strong perspective, but he does not mean any value judgement by the terms. The fact that a longer focal length gives you a weaker perspective does not mean longer focal lengths necessarily give inferior results.

    This leads to the question, Does it makes any sense to choose your perspective first if you want an excellent result? Many posters on this thread seem to say "no" when it comes to portraits. And your post contradicts itself on this issue. First you say, "a photographer can use ANY camera and ANY lens to make a portrait. I cannot emphasize this observation enough." This is the lens-first, framing-second, perspective-last school. You say one should choose the lens, "ANY lens", choose the desired image size, and then accept the resulting perspective.

    My preferred alternative to this thinking can be called the perspective-first school. Here, you choose the lens only after deciding on your desired perspective. These two schools are opposites from the standpoint of perspective, because one has your perspective chosen last, and the other has it chosen first. It is crucial to see the difference.

    You started by endorsing school #1, the perspective-last school, but your post later inexplicably shifts to endorse school #2 (the perspective-first school) by saying, "Stroebel goes on to say that it's best to select camera position first based on the perspective desired, and then choose the lens focal length that will produce the appropriate image size. (I agree with this assertion.)" You go back to school #1 in your closing paragraph of your part 2 (which ironically rejects using math immediately after listing more than 30 equations).

    This paragraph from Stroebel (p. 130), even though you cited part of it, clarifies what I just tried to say:

    "Inexperienced photographers usually select the camera position on the basis of factors other than perspective. The tendency is to adjust the distance between the camera and the subject to obtain the desired image size and angle of view or to select the most convenient location for the camera without giving consideration to the perspective. . . . Professional photographers learn to control perspective to obtain the desired effect. To do this, it is first necessary for the photographer to be aware of the subtle as well as obvious perspective effects. The camera position is then selected on the basis of the perspective desired, and finally, the focal length lens that will produce the appropirate image size is used."

    Do you see? Your endorsment of "ANY lens" (your caps) matches the way inexperienced photographers do it. The fully professional way is to think about perspective first, and only after satisfying your perspective goals do you choose your focal length. Someone asked, "Why all the math?"---the answer is simply that I want to see how to achieve a certain perspective.

    Why discuss angle of view? Actually, I think angle of view should be ignored, but you wrote this: "It's my impression that you may have confused angle of view – what the lens "sees" (or the angle of subject area projected on the film) – with perspective – the distance from subject to the lens rear nodal plane, or "v" in commonly used lens formulas."

    I offer three corrections: Perspective does not equal that distance, but it may be determined by that distance. And that distance is determined by a point closer to the front nodal point than the "rear nodal plane." And it is u, not v, that measures that distance in the commonly-used lens formulas (such as formulas used by Ansel Adams, Leslie Stroebel, Sidney Ray, Leonard Evens, Jeff Conrad, and me). More fundamentally, in this thread I never said that any angle must be duplicated when switching to a larger format. Indeed, my point was that a certain distance to the subject must be duplicated to match the perspective between formats, and that requirement defines the focal length needed in the new format. I discussed determining focal length to satisfy a perspective requirement, not angle of view. Angle of view played no role in my argument, so how could I have confused angle of view with something else?

    The computations of angle of view in part 2 seem a red herring to me. In examples 1 and 2 of my paper, there is a demonstration that a 300mm lens on 4x5 captures the same 15-inch-tall subject as a 480mm lens on 8x10 captures---provided we match the distance u in both cases. That 300mm for 4x5 gives the same perspective as 480mm for 8x10 (this time for a 16-inch-tall head-and-shoulders-sized subject) also appears in question 2 of my original post. Doubling the focal length when going from 4x5 to 8x10 gives you the wrong answer (except when focusing at infinity). The numbers in your part 2 end up with different values for u, so they do not answer my original question. You are changing perspective when you change formats, and my wish was to hold perspective constant.

    The right answer if you want to match u as you change formats, as readers of my paper should be able to verify, was given in my original post: An 85mm lens in 35mm (assuming an 8x10 target print so the image size is 24mm by 30mm) corresponds to 300mm in 4x5 and 480mm in 8x10. If you like a significantly weaker perspective than this, then you have to go to significantly longer than these focal lengths.

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Feb 1998
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    90

    Re: Portrait Perspective: Response -- Part 1

    "Which parts did you find confusing? Sorry about that! I always want to learn how to write better. You (and anyone else) can send writing improvement ideas to me privately, if you prefer. It is very interesting for a writer to find where the reader got lost."


    Too verbose.
    :-)

    - Phong

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Fusselman
    Gregory,

    You wrote, "I don't mean to be disrespectful, but after reading your original post, some of which I found confusing, and all the responses to it, especially your attached paper, it's clear that you might already know the answers to your questions. So what is the real reason for your inquiry?"

    Which parts did you find confusing? Sorry about that! I always want to learn how to write better. You (and anyone else) can send writing improvement ideas to me privately, if you prefer. It is very interesting for a writer to find where the reader got lost.

    As for my real reason for my inquiry, since others seem confused by this too, I guess I better reveal it---though you will be disappointed.

    Where I went to school, the person who gives a quiz thinks he already knows the answers. For the quiz I gave, I knew, or thought I knew, the answers. At the time, I had thought that everyone agreed this is what quiz means. Many of you must have gone to schools where the teacher gave quizzes with no idea as to the answers.

    I originally thought that some better writer than me might grace the thread with the answers, but since that did not happen, I was required by custom to submit my answers.

    After the quiz in my original post came my questions. Those are the things I did not know the answers to. Clear? The quiz has parts A and B. The questions are numbered 1 and 2. The things I labelled questions were my questions---not the quiz. To me, it is really quite simple why I asked the questions. The real reason I asked the questions 1 and 2 was the reason I stated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Fusselman
    Gregory,

    You bring up several issues.

    You, and several others, wonder, Does any 35mm-portrait photographer really think that a 300mm focal length can be clearly superior to 85mm? I never said most 35mm portrait shooters think so. My task is only to show that some do.

    Please recall from my initial post that a 14-foot shooting distance corresponds to a 35mm photographer's 300mm lens, and a 4-foot shooting distance corresponds to an 85mm lens. (More accurately, the numbers are 14.32 and 4.06 feet.) For the upcoming quote, please remember 14 feet and 4 feet as distances that determine two quite different perspectives.

    For my demonstration about 300mm lenses for 35mm portrait photographers, I start with quotes from a photo.net article called "Portrait Photography":



    And here are two examples from the photo.net thread "300f4 as a portrait lens":



    Even if someone has signed affidavits of one thousand 35mm portrait pros who despise 300mm lenses, even if so, I have now established all that I want to about 300mm for the purpose of my questions.

    Actually, what other photographers do matters very little to me when their "common knowledge" leads to inferior practice. And I generally like my images more than other photographers', so why should I copy others? My attitude is not that unusual, is it? (Galen Rowell's wife, Barbara, generally liked her own images best at locations also photographed by her husband.)

    Then why am I personally interested in 300mm? Well, I noticed in my own 35mm portrait shots that my 300mm images seemed especially pleasing. I had used that huge, heavy lens almost by accident---only to keep my equipment safe and out of the water for a special location on a Lake Michigan beach. My sitter and I thought the resulting perspective strikingly good compared to the various shorter focal lengths I used for a couple thousand other shots. The 300mm images really seemed somehow more beautiful and glamourous. That is how I got the idea of trying for more resolution in a larger format---but with that same perspective!

    Some may say, well, 300mm shots (on 35mm) look better just because you had extra control over the background with the longer lens. But my answer is that that is a major benefit of the longer perspective, so if the better background is the 35mm pro's reason for the longer lens, then I probably want that with large format too.

    You admit, "The longer lens also makes it easier to throw the background out of focus, making the subject's face standout from any distracting elements. In this regard, the 300mm is often used on location, like the beach."

    The longer lens allows more control over what parts of the background show, but it does not materially affect depth of field if you hold image magnification and f/stop constant, as I explained earlier in this thread. I hope you agree with this. Many posters think focal length materially affects depth of field in this context, but it doesn't. Remember, we are talking about head-and-shoulders portraits in a given format, so we take magnification as given. It is easy to check the numbers if you doubt it: Focal length has no material affect on depth of field for this image.

    First you assert, "When a longer focal length lens is used, less of the scene is included, but perspective remains unchanged," and several posters in this thread agree with you, but later you quote Stroebel, who says the exact opposite: "It is not correct, however, to say that focal length has no effect on perspective." I cannot tell which position you agree with, but personally, I agree with Stroebel.

    Stroebel defines the terms weak perspective and strong perspective, but he does not mean any value judgement by the terms. The fact that a longer focal length gives you a weaker perspective does not mean longer focal lengths necessarily give inferior results.

    This leads to the question, Does it makes any sense to choose your perspective first if you want an excellent result? Many posters on this thread seem to say "no" when it comes to portraits. And your post contradicts itself on this issue. First you say, "a photographer can use ANY camera and ANY lens to make a portrait. I cannot emphasize this observation enough." This is the lens-first, framing-second, perspective-last school. You say one should choose the lens, "ANY lens", choose the desired image size, and then accept the resulting perspective.

    My preferred alternative to this thinking can be called the perspective-first school. Here, you choose the lens only after deciding on your desired perspective. These two schools are opposites from the standpoint of perspective, because one has your perspective chosen last, and the other has it chosen first. It is crucial to see the difference.

    You started by endorsing school #1, the perspective-last school, but your post later inexplicably shifts to endorse school #2 (the perspective-first school) by saying, "Stroebel goes on to say that it's best to select camera position first based on the perspective desired, and then choose the lens focal length that will produce the appropriate image size. (I agree with this assertion.)" You go back to school #1 in your closing paragraph of your part 2 (which ironically rejects using math immediately after listing more than 30 equations).

    This paragraph from Stroebel (p. 130), even though you cited part of it, clarifies what I just tried to say:

    "Inexperienced photographers usually select the camera position on the basis of factors other than perspective. The tendency is to adjust the distance between the camera and the subject to obtain the desired image size and angle of view or to select the most convenient location for the camera without giving consideration to the perspective. . . . Professional photographers learn to control perspective to obtain the desired effect. To do this, it is first necessary for the photographer to be aware of the subtle as well as obvious perspective effects. The camera position is then selected on the basis of the perspective desired, and finally, the focal length lens that will produce the appropirate image size is used."

    Do you see? Your endorsment of "ANY lens" (your caps) matches the way inexperienced photographers do it. The fully professional way is to think about perspective first, and only after satisfying your perspective goals do you choose your focal length. Someone asked, "Why all the math?"---the answer is simply that I want to see how to achieve a certain perspective.

    Why discuss angle of view? Actually, I think angle of view should be ignored, but you wrote this: "It's my impression that you may have confused angle of view – what the lens "sees" (or the angle of subject area projected on the film) – with perspective – the distance from subject to the lens rear nodal plane, or "v" in commonly used lens formulas."

    ...

    The right answer if you want to match u as you change formats, as readers of my paper should be able to verify, was given in my original post: An 85mm lens in 35mm (assuming an 8x10 target print so the image size is 24mm by 30mm) corresponds to 300mm in 4x5 and 480mm in 8x10. If you like a significantly weaker perspective than this, then you have to go to significantly longer than these focal lengths.
    Last edited by Phong; 4-Jun-2006 at 06:06.

  7. #87

    Re: Portrait perspective: Quiz and two questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
    I bet if you could calculate the focal length of many famous paintings, they'd be wide enough to surprize you. I tend to go wider for roundness and volume.
    Frank,

    In Applied Photographic Optics (third edition, 2002), Sidney Ray gives a way to compute the taking focal length of a photograph, if you know the following:
    • enlargement magnification;
    • location (distances) of left- and right-hand vanishing points of a two-point perspective;
    • there are orthogonal vertical surfaces.


    It is really pretty simple to compute; he explains how in the last paragraph of p. 243.

    However, this exercise applied to a painting with two-point perspective seems unlikely to prove your point, because, as he says on p. 238,

    A painting or drawing may appear to follow exact rules of perspective as obeyed by the technical draughtsman, but usually true perspective is only used for the broad masses of the subject, and detail is subtly altered to give a more pleasing perspective.
    Your mention of roundness is interesting too. You say the shorter focal length gives more of a feeling of roundness, but Ray briefly discusses very long focal lengths providing more roundness in this quote from p. 239:

    When portrait lenses for large formats were of very long focus, up to 1 m or more, a working aperture of f/16 gave an entrance pupil diameter comparable to the human interocular distance (IOD) of 63.5 mm. This pupil area provides a large number of different viewpoints which integrate in the film plane to give a diffused image. This effect of stereo parallax is therefore not a true plane perspective but gives a psychological effect of `roundness' or `plasticity' which many people consider to be more natural than an acurate central perspective of the sitter.
    (There is a typo on that page that confused me for a while---he wrote k + ku when he meant u + ku.)
    Last edited by Jerry Fusselman; 4-Jun-2006 at 10:35. Reason: state which book I am quoting

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Tracy, California
    Posts
    134

    Re: Portrait perspective: Quiz and two questions

    Jerry,

    My confusion over what you had originally posted could also be a result of my limited understanding of mathematics and optics engineering. With such subject matter, it’s very important for me that it be extremely well organized and very clear, with every step included. Your attached paper is a good example of a well-thought-out and well written piece. Your e-mail post was not quite up to the same standard. When I read your attached paper, however, I understood everything. Perhaps I should have read your attachment first before posting.

    I could send you an e-mail about technical writing, but it would be a tad long and tedious to read. It’s time consuming to give meaningful writing feedback; perhaps that’s why so few English teachers bother to do so. I have spent the last 30 years learning to write reasonably well, and thousands of hours writing and rewriting sentences and paragraphs so that my written work may have some degree of clarity and precision. I’m sorry to say that I’m still learning and that I still make mistakes.

    I have taken class work in which there were no right or wrong answers per se. We were graded upon the quality of our work and the thoroughness of our preparation, reasoning, and summation. It was extremely important to show how we derived our conclusions, provided, of course, that our conclusions were not completely absurd.

    Perhaps it was the way in which I read your original post that led me to believe that you were providing a quiz for the rest of us because you did not precisely know the answers to the questions you were asking and that you were uncertain as to which lens to use, or better yet, which aesthetic philosophy you should follow in regards to head-and-shoulder portraits. Once again, however, I feel that you know exactly what you want to do so why not just do it? Why bother with the quiz? This is not a forum on mathematics or optics engineering, although it’s my understanding that some of the members of this group are either engineers, or scientists, or hold college degrees in these disciplines.

    If you want to duplicate the angle of view (and the “weaker perspective,” as defined by Stroebel”) that is created by a 300mm lens on a 35mm camera using a 4x5, then you will need a 1200mm lens for the 4x5. (But you don’t seem to care about angle of view.) If you use a 300mm lens on the 4x5, then the angle of view and perspective (as defined by Stroebel) would be about equal to an 85mm on a 35mm camera. Nikon once made a lens of this focal length. You can probably buy one used if you are lucky. To duplicate the same conditions for an 8x10, you will need about a 2400mm lens. All I can say is, “Good Luck!” A 480mm lens on an 8x10 will match the same angle of view and “Stroebel’s perspective” as a 68mm lens on a 35mm. But, again, you don’t care about angle of view. I say that angle of view will have some influence upon the image captured by the lens, especially in how the near-to-far details of the subject are rendered, and that includes head-and-shoulders portraits.

    Your quote from Photo.net is interesting, and the suggestions given might be useful for subjects that want you, the photographer, to de-emphasize their nose. Would you use the same technique on someone whose nose is too small? Maybe not.

    Using a 300mm lens on a 35mm camera for portraits is a personal selection, and cannot be argued as being the lens of choice by using mathematics or citing articles in Photo.net. If you like the look of a "Poparazzi Grab-Shot," then do it. Why seek justification for your photographic style by engaging in endless polemics? If you really believe your approach to portraiture is superior, then there is no need to argue it, right? Or do you like to argue more than taking pictures?

    Stroebel’s comments about the perspective created by a given lens are by no means universally accepted. He is also suggesting that focal length has some affect upon perspective, but it does not determine perspective in its entirety or in the same way as camera position does in relationship to the subject. In other words, camera position will have a greater impact upon perspective than focal length. He stresses that differing focal lengths give different impressions of depth in a photograph. That’s an important distinction, for an impression is purely subjective.

    How does using any camera with any lens negate a perspective first ideology? That is, establish camera position first, and then choose the lens? It does not. When I made this statement, it was meant to be all inclusive; it was not meant to argue one camera, one lens, or even one photo technique over any other. One can literally use any camera he or she chooses, even a pinhole device, or any lens for that matter. In photography, like art, there are no absolutes, no immutable laws, no required ways of working. If I want to use a panoramic camera with a wide-angle lens to do head-and-shoulders portraits, that’s my business. Conversely, if I want to use an 8x10 camera with a 1200mm lens, that would be my business too. Not everyone will agree with me in either case. There may be as many approaches to portraiture as there are photographers interested in do such work. So my statement stands, and in my opinion, it posses no contradiction at all.

    Incidentally, you misread my post. I do not endorse any photographic school of thought. You and Stroebel do, and that’s your right. Does it bother you that I can see both sides of an argument and argue both positions without choosing one side over another?

    Here’s a question for you to solve since you brought up Galen Rowell, one of the finest mountaineering photographers of the 20th Century. Let’s assume you and your climbing partner are doing an ascent of El Capitan. What lens would you use on a Nikon FM-3A and why would you use it to photograph you and your buddy? Would it be your beloved 300mm lens or a 24mm wide angle?

    And lastly, if you wish to ignore angel of view, again, that’s your business. You can do anything you like, really. You don’t need anyone’s endorsement here, mine least of all.
    Last edited by Gregory Gomez; 4-Jun-2006 at 15:21.

  9. #89

    Re: Portrait perspective: Quiz and two questions

    I will try to be brief.

    No, I do not know exactly what I am going to do about LF portraits.

    Ansel Adams's book is not a book on mathematics, yet he has lots equations. Some of the responders in this thread would no doubt want to kindly ask him if he ever takes pictures. You see, math is a tool that can help photographers sometimes. Math is not the subject. Math is a language; it may help, just like an English or French article on photography may help.

    I am only interested in matching u across formats, so your numbers 1200 mm and 2400 mm are way too high. You might try rereading example #2 in my paper and ask yourself why the answer I gave was 480 mm even though 300 x 2 = 600. Or look at today's post by Leonard Evens in Center of Perspective and Nodal Point that also comes up with 480 mm. I have also discussed these exact numbers twice earlier in this thread.

    There is more to perspective than the size of a nose.

    I guess I can never tell what you mean to endorse. Personally, when I say "X", I mean that "I believe that X is true." I thought you were endorsing your own sentences, but OK, sometimes not.

    Galen Rowel isn't likely to want a head-and-shoulders portrait in that situation, but I seem to remember he published an image in Mountain Light of Ron Kalk (or similar name) free soloing at or near Half Dome taken with a working distance of at least 50 feet, which is plenty sufficient for good perspective. I have seen other shots of his friends climbing, and his working distance is generally more than 20 feet. The point is not to demand a certain focal length for all images. The point is to have correct working distance for the perspective you want.
    Last edited by Jerry Fusselman; 5-Jun-2006 at 18:02.

Similar Threads

  1. Perspective Correction in Photoshop CS
    By Jonathan Lee in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14-Jul-2004, 10:10
  2. Correction of perspective
    By pancho pistolas in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 9-Nov-2001, 12:58
  3. Portrait lenses rec. Perspective in 4x5
    By Wayne Crider in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 6-Nov-2001, 14:22
  4. Perspective Manipulations with View Cameras
    By Patrick Chase in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-Jan-2000, 13:56
  5. A simple perspective question
    By Simon_443 in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 26-May-1999, 08:30

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •