50mm pictures with D300

External Since: Jan 22, 2008 Posts: 103

In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical
one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got
confused from there.

I'd say it's a case of purists versus pragmatists.

But, I'd like to know when the term zoom (which probably referred simply to
the moving of one lens element away from another when applied to the first
zoom lens) suddenly aquired such a rigidly legalistic and inflexible
meaning.

Is it against the law to think of getting closer to the subject as "zooming
in on it"?

Sometimes the mould of academia does more to kill creativity than it does to
foster it.

So Long Folks,
Dudley

Beauty isn't always found in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it can be
found in the mind as well.

External Since: Mar 08, 2008 Posts: 75

On Jan 23, 8:36 am, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's interesting that, if you talk to 98% of the photographers and camera
> > sales persons, they will think about "zooming" in terms of image
> > magnification and not perspective.
>
> That's because zooming has nothing to do with perspective.
> (personally I think of it in terms of FOV)
>
> > Why else does it say "4x" or "6x" or
> > "10x" on the front of most point and shoot cameras? Is the manufacturer
> > referring to a six times flattening effect of perspective as you zoom in?
> > I
> > think not.
>
> There is no flattening effect, perspective does not change (see
> above).
> See Below.
>
> Take a photo with a 28mm.... from the same camera position
> now take a section of that original photo using a 300mm. Print the
> 300mm..... now print the 28mm at a size that will overlay the 300mm.
> What happens? They match perfectly!
>
> I think your eyes are worse than mind, and Ive only got 2% vision. See
> Below.
>
>
>
> > The remaining 2% of academic photographic purists seem to be confusing the
> > telephoto effect of compressing perspective as the most identifiable
> > characteristic of a "zoom" lens. True, its one characteristic, but it's
> > neither the only characteristic, nor the most significant.
>
> No the "academic purists" don't think that at all.... see above.
>
> You're wrong, and so am I. The academics I've talked to do, I've just
> mistaken you folks for academics. See Below.
>
> Here's a section from an article you might want to check out, and I can
> point you to about another 60, if you want.
>
> FOCAL-LENGTH AND PERSPECTIVE
> There's a bit more about the focal length than just the coverage of a
> certain angle
> of view - there's always distinct effect on the relationship between the
> objects
> within a scene.
> All picture by Michael Wagner.
> Let's have a look at a relatively wide focal lenght first: 28mm. The
> following image
> samples show 4 trees with an equal distance between neighbour trees. At the
> wide
> setting it seems that this distance actually increases dramatically towards
> the foreground
> (exponential behaviour of the distance). It other words: the tree to the
> left seems
> to be totally seperated from the rest of the gang. The background seems to
> be far
> in the distance.
> The next picture has a more natural view at about 50mm. The perspective is
> obviously
> much less extreme. Due to our real life experience we can guess that the
> distance
> between the trees is roughly the same though the seperation is still visible
> (d^2
> behaviour).
> Now we have a 100mm lens. The trees seem to group here with a seemingly
> small distance
> between the trees. Compared to the previous sample the now enlarged
> background suddenly
> moved towards the main object. The scene is compressed now.
> At 200mm the effect increases even more. The group of trees seems to be
> virtually
> on the same distance plane. The background may be blurry (due to the small
> depth-of-field)
> but it seems to be just a few meters away. We speak of a "flat" perspective
> in this
> case.
> OBJECT ISOLATION
> An object can be seperated from its environment by various methods. E.g. you
> can
> use a very wide lens to sort the scene into distinctive layers. However,
> while you
> seperate the object the environment is still visible which may be disturbing
> because
> -say- the background is very ugly. Sometimes there's a workaround for this
> problem:
> we choose a very small depth-of-field so only the main subject is in focus
> while
> everything in front or behind the focus plane gets blurry and therefore
> virtually
> unimportant. Have a look at the 1st sample below. The blue marble to right
> right
> sucks the view from the first look. This is a natural reaction because the
> brain
> scans for the most contrasty subject first. The isolation of the object due
> to its
> "outstanding" sharpness is very significant here.
> by Michael Wagner
> Wanna see a perverse example ... Imagine to be in the Himalayas at a nice
> sunset
> and all you shoot is a beautiful rose ... The result is not all too bad I
> think!
> A small DOF is also a common technique for portrait photography. Usually it
> is quite
> difficult to find the right balance between people, that are chosen to be
> the main
> subject, and their environment. A sharp background is often distracting here
> so a
> large aperture should be used to focus the attention on the point of
> interest.
> by Randhir Amoganathan
>
> See Link:http://photoinf.com/General/Klaus_Schroiff/Perspective.htm
>
> Those of you who have been perpetuating the myth that focal length does not
> effect depth of field, or that the perspective is not flattened by a
> telephoto lens really must read from more sources.
>
> Hysterically Amused,
> Dudley

If you look at the samples you will notice that the CAMERA POSITION
HAS CHANGED..... eg the distance to the objects within the image has
been altered and IT IS THIS that has changed the perspective and the
relationship between the objects and NOT the focal length.