Having used this technique myself to show how crowded central London is (or, rather, was) at times, it occurs to me that people who don't live in cities or large towns might not be as conscious of this flattening effect with long telephoto lenses as, say the country landscape photographer. I remember how looking through a 300mm lens down Oxford Street had such an effect on me that I spent a fair bit of time looking for other ways to use the technique. And I found them, with lamp posts, house fronts, traffic, and other urban features. It's striking in a way that you don't get with landscapes.
It occurred to me at first that the use of this technique by a newspaper to 'prove' that people are defying the lockdown rules might be the fault of the editing staff rather than the photographer, but on reflection it seems obvious that the latter must share some of the blame.
I can see how the technique is likely to prove useful to TV, video, and film production companies wanting to shoot the likes of Eastenders. Move the camera back, shoot long, and two characters are having a cosy chat while the actors remain ten feet apart. At first, some viewers will write in complaining that the actors are at risk, but soon the majority will know how the trick works. Even if they don't know the science.
However in this case surely the person telling me that the canard was not a canard was uttering the canard?
as I understood it, he did get the higher number of 'electoral' votes but I think I read that he was behind in the, I think it was called, popular vote i.e. the total citizen votes per candidate.
