If you asked the same question a painter, would it make sense? Why should that be different in photography? :confused:
Printable View
If you asked the same question a painter, would it make sense? Why should that be different in photography? :confused:
Lovely images, Ken L.
I don't know, but for cash-strapped me, 'normal perspective' lenses sure are cheaper than most everything else. :)
Interesting thread.
It occurs to me though that the underlying assumption is that we're thinking about subjects where there IS a sense of perspective. But I think sometimes the photographic intent is to eliminate or alter the so called "normal" sense of perspective. Many years ago I photographed a lot of wall graffiti, weathered signage, etc - the subject was flat and it wouldn't have made much difference what lens was used aside from more or less technical considerations of practical camera placement (ie don't back up into the street to get more of the wall into the photo!), sharpness, etc. (I mainly used a 305mm Repro Claron on a 5 X 7 Linhof). For what I wanted to do I sort of thought of this as my "normal" lens.
Interesting idea. If a negative is to be printed very large and viewed from less than normal viewing distance, such as a big Gusrky, one would use a different lens to what would be used if one was contact printing a 5x7 which will be viewed from further than its normal viewing distance. Or rendered at 800px wide on a monitor.
Still though, it depends on the use of the image. In magazines for example food photography v sports photography where players are depicted as a heros or gladiators and lenses are often long out of necessity. Or in architechture where the photographer is trying to make a building look habitable and attainable to a buyer.
"... Are apples the most pleasing fruit?," (GPS)
Yes, yes they are. Especially apples of the honey crisp variety.
....on the other hand...pears are quite pleasing too, but I would argue that a pear is nothing more than an apple shot up close with a wide angle lens......