Telephoto vs wide angle never believe the media....

Bobsyeruncle said:
Ok,
So looking at the above examples, how would you create the 600mm effect with the 24mm lens?
Click to expand...
By moving away from the subject until the model is very tiny in the viewfinder and then cropping to fill the picture with her. In fact, move away to the same position the the photographer was in for the 600mm shot.
 
Garry Edwards said:
No. It's clear that those "tests" were carried out with the lens at different distances, in each case the photographer changed position to fill the frame with the model.

It is, and only can be, the distance from lens to subject that changes apparent perspective. Physics is a strange branch of science, but its great quality is that its rules are immutable.
Click to expand...

Not disputing that the position of the camera moves, but you cannot get the background to appear larger unless you move closer to it or bring it to you optically.
 
Studio488commercial said:
Not disputing that the position of the camera moves, but you cannot get the background to appear larger unless you move closer to it or bring it to you optically.
Click to expand...
It is the moving of the camera that changes the perspective, not the change in lens. Knowing the theory helps.
 
I get all that regarding if model and photographer do not alter position, shoot the 24mm from same location as 600mm and crop 24mm image to fill frame with model, and the perspective will be the same, but quality will be crap.
So why would you do that, when you can use a longer lens to give an impression of 2 objects being closer?
I'm not doubting the physics, just trying to understand what the issue was with the article in the first post?
Other than the same effect could have been achieved with both lenses, but wasn't?
 
Last edited:
john.margetts said:
Knowing the theory helps.
Click to expand...
Is it necessary though? If you know how to get an effect based on the lens you choose, why does the science/theory/logic matter?
TBH, I've known what to do to achieve the desired effect, but never really thought about the science behind it.
As a result of this thread, I now have a better understanding of the science behind why I get the effect I get, but it makes absolutely no difference to me as a photographer.
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
I get all that regarding if model and photographer do not alter position, shoot the 24mm from same location as 600mm and crop 24mm image to fill frame with model, and the perspective will be the same, but quality will be crap.
So why would you do that, when you can use a longer lens to give an impression of 2 objects being closer?
I'm not doubting the physics, just trying to understand what the issue was with the article in the first post?
Other than the same effect could have been achieved with both lenses, but wasn't?
Click to expand...
Because using a longer lens produces a very different picture compared to moving closer. If the background is completely unimportant, then use the longer lens. If the background does matter (and it usually does) then move the camera to produce the combination of subject and background you want and use a focal length that suits the position. In the example given, the background is very important and its apparent closeness to the subject is important, so the camera needs to be a long way from the subject and a long lens used. you need theory to understand that and get it right.
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Is it necessary though? If you know how to get an effect based on the lens you choose, why does the science/theory/logic matter?
TBH, I've known what to do to achieve the desired effect, but never really thought about the science behind it.
As a result of this thread, I now understand the science behind why I get the effect i get, but it makes absolutely no difference to me as a photographer.
Click to expand...

This.
If you want the foreshortening effect you slap a long lens on, not a fisheye and crop it to death.
 
Cockney said:
This.
If you want the foreshortening effect you slap a long lens on, not a fisheye and crop it to death.
Click to expand...
Not if you are constrained to be fairly close to the subject - then you cannot get the foreshortening effect regardless of lens.
 
DemiLion said:
I did try pointing that out a while ago but apparently it's not necessary in the modern world.
Click to expand...

Ignore this thread, I am sure we are all off at slightly different angles, I still fail to see why the lack of theory stops you being a successful photographer.
 
I'm confused and disappointed.
60 answers above, where just one was needed.

This isn't HND level, or degree level, not even leisure course to improve your holiday snaps level, it's even more basic than that. It's the sort of thing that I used to say to my kids when they were very young, "if you stand closer you make the thing closest to you look bigger and more important than the things behind it, and if you move far enough away then they all look the same size and closer together."

And of course that also applies to the other type of lens that we have, and should be vastly experienced with, the human eye.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I'm confused and disappointed.
60 answers above, where just one was needed.

This isn't HND level, or degree level, not even leisure course to improve your holiday snaps level, it's even more basic than that. It's the sort of thing that I used to say to my kids when they were very young, "if you stand closer you make the thing closest to you look bigger and more important than the things behind it, and if you move far enough away then they all look the same size and closer together."

And of course that also applies to the other type of lens that we have, and should be vastly experienced with, the human eye.
Click to expand...


I think that Father Ted gave a similar lesson.
 
I'm new here and don't mean to be pedantic or add legs to a thread that's got a bit lost, but the theory of light and lenses is optics, not physics.
 
Plankton said:
I'm new here and don't mean to be pedantic or add legs to a thread that's got a bit lost, but the theory of light and lenses is optics, not physics.
Click to expand...
Still not being pedantic, optics is a subset of physics.
 
Plankton said:
I'm new here and don't mean to be pedantic or add legs to a thread that's got a bit lost, but the theory of light and lenses is optics, not physics.
Click to expand...
Welcome to TP, most threads on here are far more friendly than this. The owners say that this is the friendliest forum on the net and, generally, they're right about that.
You're right, sort of, but so is John.
john.margetts said:
Still not being pedantic, optics is a subset of physics.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't really matter anyway because the discussion is about perspective, which as (almost) everyone knows, is dependent on distance. It isn't about lenses because lenses don't change perspective:)
 
DemiLion said:
What Gary said.

Stand in the same place and crop in.

The image will be gash, but will have the same 'look'.
Click to expand...


If it is 'gash', it won't have the same look then, will it? If it is gash it is unusable, and technically isn't a photograph that can be used for any purpose than to prove a useless point.

Long lenses are used to compress the perspective and to enable a photographer to take pictures of distant things. That is why we have different lenses for different situations. You don't need a degree in physics to know that.
 
Coffee time.:D
 
Many of the 2nd pics haven't been shot in the same place/direction either.

If you are going to write an article like this, get some REAL context to it, and shoot from the same point with both lenses.
 
Jelster said:
Many of the 2nd pics haven't been shot in the same place/direction either.

If you are going to write an article like this, get some REAL context to it, and shoot from the same point with both lenses.
Click to expand...
Why?
The article was showing how the zoom lenses could be used to make things appear closer together. The wide lens was only used to show that they weren't as close as they appeared with the zoom.
However, If @DemiLion was proving his point, then they should be taken from same point, and if wider shot was zoomed in the perspective would be the same.
As the point of the article wasn't to prove what @DemiLion was explaining, then no, they don't need to shoot from the same spot....:)
 
Last edited:
To me, not shooting at the same point looks like they have done their best to prove their point (i.e. more spin, not fact). Taking them from the same point with different lenses would underline how correct they are.

As in the "tog" has changed their position to get maximum advantage, so it's less about focal length, and more about PoV. (IMHO).
 
You don't "need" a theoretical understanding of things photographic to be a "good" photographer, but it can make you a "better" photographer because it helps you solve problems that otherwise might stop you getting the photograph you or your client wants.

Using the example discussed here, and imagining two photographers sent out with the same task of making the beaches look overcrowded, but neither have a telephoto (for whatever reason, forgot it, dropped it, mechanical failure, it doesn't really matter because its just an example).

Both now only have a 24-70 on full frame.

Photographer A thinks that the compressed perspective is caused by using a telephoto lens, which he doesn't have, and resigns himself to just doing the best he can with what he has.

Photographer B, knows that compressed perspective effects have nothing to do with the focal length, and everything to do with relative distances between the camera, the main subject and the other subjects in the frame. With. this understanding, she chooses to work at twice the distance from the subject as Photographer B, and composes with an M43 crop from the centre of the sensor in mind.

Maybe only resulting in a small difference in perspective, but still enough to make her pictures more likely to meet the brief than her colleagues.
 
The perspective is obviously different because the viewpoint has changed,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top