Seven pages and no one can define "Normal" perspective. I have no idea what that is. I suspect it is non-fisheye but I'm not sure. What would "Abnormal perspective" be? A composite view from many angles? Picasso's Cubist view? Visual field view in a parallel universe?
Perhaps you missed this section in the Wikipedia article cited several times in this thread (emphasis mine):Originally Posted by ic-racer
"Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and long-lens or telephoto distortion,[1] when talking about images with the same field size. Extension or wide-angle distortion can be seen in images shot from close using a wide-angle lens (with an angle of view wider than a normal lens). Object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, and distant objects appear abnormally small and hence more distant – distances are extended. Compression, long-lens, or telephoto distortion can be seen in images shot from a distant using a long focus lens or the more common telephoto sub-type (with an angle of view narrower than a normal lens). Distant objects look approximately the same size – closer objects are abnormally small, and more distant objects are abnormally large, and hence the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects – distances are compressed."
The illustrations in the article are also straightforward. It's a topic that has been well understood and profusely documented for decades.
Actually, it was taken on 6x6 format with a 30mm full-frame fisheye. So, it's extremely wide. The horizon is straight only because it went through the optical center of the frame, and I moved it off-center by cropping unneeded sky. The shape of the curvy tidal drainage was the key for me--I wanted it to have a certain relationship with the mountains and grasses. The edge of that drainage was nearly at my feet.
The point is that the addition or exclusion of those clues is part of the process, at least for me, and an aspect of framing distinct from determining the desired perspective relationships. I have made many photos with that fisheye where I consciously hid the fact that it was a fisheye, but still took advantage of the fisheye's enlargement of central subjects and appropriately round rendering of round subjects. It was not obvious to you because I was intentionally not making it obvious. (I don't always succeed.)
Rick "who'd love to have a 50mm full-frame fisheye for 4x5" Denney
Why do people get so hung up by the use of the terminology "normal lens". I believe it refers to a lens that is close in focal length to the diagonal measurement of the film. It does not mean what lens one uses on a regular basis, nor what one is use to seeing.
My my...
Thanks, Ken!Read Oren's post
"My own "normal" is 7/8 of the format diagonal."
Re: Is "normal" perspective the most pleasing?
You hit the nail on the head here from what I have been trying to say I don't like about wide angles, when someone does make it obvious that relationships between objects are skewed in a cartoon-like way that screams wide angle. That ruins a picture for me personally. It doesn't look pleasing to me, to refer back to the title of this thread. It looks purposefully unnatural and in a jarring way.
Mike Stacey often uses a 165mm on 8x10 and it doesn't bother me one single bit.
In the cases where the exaggerated perspective of relative objects is minimized/hidden, I would say that is an attempt to make it look more like a normal perspective, which must mean something eh? ;-)
Yes. It is unfortunate that whoever came up with the term chose that particular word, as it is overloaded with other baggage as well in our society.Why do people get so hung up by the use of the terminology "normal lens". I believe it refers to a lens that is close in focal length to the diagonal measurement of the film. It does not mean what lens one uses on a regular basis, nor what one is use to seeing.
My my...
Thanks, Ken!
“Normal” perspective is, indeed, Picasso’s Cubist view:
“Normal” perspective is the last thing a normal lens can capture. Or any lens.
Actually, I picked up immediately that Rick used a wide lens. But then again, I like wide lenses, when I think it's appropriate. I usually use a wide lens to separate an object from the background, and I want the background in focus. But sometimes I like to play around, and let everything go curvy.
I photographed a tree, and I found that with my 6x7's 90mm, a house in the background intruded on the tree. The next year when I came back, I had acquired a 45mm. Now the house is shown far back from the tree, which is defined by itself. When I bought a 35mm lens from a forum member, I had a ball bending things around. Would I use the 35mm with the tree? No. The 45mm keeps the perspective I want for the tree, but the 35mm would be too much for it.
I know what perspective is. How can it be abnormal? The term "Normal Perspective" is like "Normal Gravity," "Normal Light," "Normal Rotation," "Normal Electrical Charge" etc.
Could this thread, by chance, be about angle of view?
Ken put normal in quotes in the title of the thread showing that he understands this is an often debated term, I am sure. But it is a generally accepted term used throughout photography technical literature for decades to mean the perspective of a lens whose focal length is roughly the diagonal of the film image area. Rightly or wrongly, some people believe that the perspective of such a lens yields relationships between near and distant objects in a picture in a way that is similar to the way our eye sees. Similar, but not the same is key.
That said, I don't think that anyone can make a reasonable argument that their eye sees more like a 47mm on 4x5 when it comes to how near, middle and distant objects appear within a scene.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks