Perspective

[cliveh]

I believe Andrei Tarkovsky also used this technique in one of his films and was probably first who pioneered it.

 

[Harry Callahan]

As far as i know this effect is referred to as "Vertigo-effect" because Hitchcock used this effect in his film. Whether he was the first to use it i don`t know... but he probably made it public to a big audience.

 

[nikos79]

Someone said that a change of perspective is a change of form (was it Winogrand? Cartier-Bresson? I cannot recall) stating how important is the choice of perspective (focal length). I am not so sure about it but is it because perspective also affects depth of field? (it is a question for the most technically knowledgeable guys in the forum)
P.S. When I first read perspective I understood something else e.g. the viewpoint but I think you are referring to choice of focal length e.g. 28mm vs 35mm vs 50mm

 

[Sirius Glass]

Examine the 3 initial photos in Post 11 very carefully, and it proves that altering FL does nothing to 'perspective'...it alters 'framing' and it alters 'DOF'.

If move closer to subject (than when using 'normal' lens) in order to keep the primary subject the same size (e.g. 50% of the frame height) that change of position alters the relationship of the main subject to things in the background...the subject gets relatively large while the objects in the background stay relatively small....compared to using a longer FL and backing away, makes the rear hand not so small compared to the front hand.

In this series, I use 3 different FL (shortest FL at left, longest FL at right shot) short

...my left hand gets progressively 'larger' as the shooting distance is increased to keep my right hand the 'same size' in all 3 shots. Note the lamp visible in shots 2 & 3...its size gets notably 'bigger' as the FL and shooting distance increase, too, because its relative distance (lens-to-lamp vs. lens-to-right hand) is 'closer' to the lens in a relative sense.

You can see this change of apparent relative size even with the naked eye, with no specific lens FL being used to create this effect. And the format size has no influence on the relative size change either...110 format vs. 8x10 format would image the same effect at identical distances.

That is what I am referring to. The appearance of moving closer.

 

[wiltw]

That is what I am referring to. The appearance of moving closer. The America's Cup sailboat in the background

But moving closer results in shots like this series...three lens FL at different camera-to-subject distances
The America's Cup sailboat in the background looms largest at the longest camera-to-subject distance. So-called 'telephoto compression' is actually due to the relative distance changing, not due to FL (as proven in Post 11 by first 3 photos)

Farthest from subject (box)

Closer to the box

Closest to the box

[/URL]

...closest to the box the background items are tiniest.

[This shot series originally shot by me and posted decades ago on POTN.]

 

[albireo]

Yeah, so your qualm is with a technically incorrect use of the term 'perspective'. I think this has been discussed online since the birth of the internet.
When people colloquially mention 'perspective' as a reason to opt for a wide-angle or a long focal length lens, I know what they mean even though the terminology is not technically correct. So we can still communicate effectively, and these people can usually still make the choices that gets them the image they want. So there's not really a problem. It makes me doubtful of the added value of yet again discussing the misuse of a technical term. It seems to be an instance of "ackchyually" more so than a relevant discussion.

Once again you beat me to it. This game of "spot the pedant" is yours.

Can you take a brief break from the keyboard and leave some fun for the rest of us?

 

[koraks]

Can you take a brief break from the keyboard and leave some fun for the rest of us?

I'm way too pedantic to do that!

 

[gary mulder]

For me as photographer perspective means the ability to create a three dimensional illusion with a two dimensional photograph. That’s not restricted to only the distance to your subject.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I also often use a 50mm lens, because i dislike wide-angle lenses. These do distort proportions. Objects being straight, like a lamp post for example will appear bent - more or less.
In fact, even a 50mm lens on 35mm film still will distort proportions a little, therefore the longer the focal length the less bending of the subject will occur.
There was an interesting chapter in a book from Feininger, where he does show this effect of focal length. The interesting point is that some subjects are too large for the human eye to be seen undistorted. He took a picture of a bridge, having pillars about as high as the golden gate bridge, with a long focal lens - and the camera therefore being far away from the bridge. On this picture the entire pillar was reproduced undistorted and because of that you could see how high the pillar actually is - which you cannot see with your own eye standing rather next to the bridge.

Perspective, as i learned in school, should be a different thing. Perspective is where the camera is placed, like "worm`s eye view" or "bird`s eye view". Focal length does have an influence of distortion of proportions.

Both effects often are combined. They use a wide-angle lens and do a low-angle shot, to make the person photographed appear even bigger etc. .

I agree. You can change the perspective using the same lens just moving to the left or right a little. The whole perspective and composition could change a lot.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Someone said that a change of perspective is a change of form (was it Winogrand? Cartier-Bresson? I cannot recall) stating how important is the choice of perspective (focal length). I am not so sure about it but is it because perspective also affects depth of field? (it is a question for the most technically knowledgeable guys in the forum)
P.S. When I first read perspective I understood something else e.g. the viewpoint but I think you are referring to choice of focal length e.g. 28mm vs 35mm vs 50mm

That's how I was describing perspective. It is also a legitimate description of the word in photography. Angle of view by moving or aiming the camera differently can change perspective as well as changing focal lengths of lenses or your camera's position front to rear.

 

[wiltw]

We should all agree that 'perspective' can have more than one meaning in practical use. In different contexts, each definition is correct. Sometimes we use differing terminology extensions to facilitate more precision in the context, eg. 'linear perspective'. The use of 'perspective' to connote 'worms-eye view' vs. 'birds eye view' is legitimate usage of the term (but which is all too often ignored/forgotten by the '6-foot-tall-photographer' always seeking to use a tall enough tripod to avoid bending over). In any event, even this usage still is 'view seen at the (front of) camera lens' and the relationship of the primary subject vs. its surrounding objects is not changed by the unmoving lens position. Lens-induced distortion (like barrel or pincushion -- or even spherical distortion) can alter the capture of that view, but it does not alter the undistorted view presented at the entrance to the lens.
A fisheye lens presents a different reality to the film/sensor than a rectilinear-corrected lens. Even a shift lens presents a different reality (correcting converging verticals) vs. the optical reality of the converging verticals of a perfectly rectangular skyscraper. But the view at the front of the lens is a single reality.

 

[MattKing]

Generally speaking though, changes of perspective that result from moving side to side are truly independent of focal length - and therefore seem to be entirely unrelated to the original question posted!

 

[Petrochemist]

Moving the lens closer or farther from the subject is the only way to control perspective.

Actually this is not the only way, camera movements can also effect perspective. It's true that focal length just encourages a change in vantage point & doesn't change perspective, but shifting the lens vertically to prevent tilting the camera back is a trick commonly done in the past to prevent converging verticals (a perspective effect)

Whether playing with keystoneing in post alters perspective is a debate I won't get into

FWIW the ability to change the apparent perspective without excessive cropping is one of the reasons I use a wide variety of lenses.

 

[cliveh]

Actually this is not the only way, camera movements can also effect perspective. It's true that focal length just encourages a change in vantage point & doesn't change perspective, but shifting the lens vertically to prevent tilting the camera back is a trick commonly done in the past to prevent converging verticals (a perspective effect)

Whether playing with keystoneing in post alters perspective is a debate I won't get into

FWIW the ability to change the apparent perspective without excessive cropping is one of the reasons I use a wide variety of lenses.

Camera movements on large format cameras are not really changing perspective, as they control focus and field of view.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Generally speaking though, changes of perspective that result from moving side to side are truly independent of focal length - and therefore seem to be entirely unrelated to the original question posted!

If changing focal lengths does not change perspective, then the way to change perspective is to move left or right or up or down.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Camera movements on large format cameras are not really changing perspective, as they control focus and field of view.

Changing field of view is changing the perspective.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Changing field of view is changing the perspective.

No, that's called zooming.

 

[Chan Tran]

No, that's called zooming.

Yes but that often goes with changing camera position thus it changes the perspective. That's why many would think zooming changes perspective.

 

[Petrochemist]

Camera movements on large format cameras are not really changing perspective, as they control focus and field of view.

Tilting a normal camera to get the top of a building in causes a perspective effect as the top of the building looks narrower than the base. Shifting the lens to keep the film parallel with the building prevents this changing the perspective of the image.
It is possible (though probably not desirable) to tilt the camera further than normal & shift in the wrong direction to increase the normal effect.

Some manufacturers of tilt shift lenses call the perspective control lenses...

 

[Don_ih]

Perspective is essentially how one is looking at something. That can vary with angle of view, width (or narrowness) of view, or distortion of view.

Lens choice (without changing your location or how the camera is pointing, can broaden or narrow the view and so changes the perspective in terms of width. Moving closer or further away, without changing the lens, does the same.

Moving side to side and/or up/down changes the angle of view.

Adjusting camera movements or using some kind of filter than makes things look "odd" changes the perspective in terms of distortion. When you raise the front standard to correct verticals, you create the illusion of giving the camera a higher viewpoint - but that is a distortion.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No, that's called zooming.

Doing a rise on your front standard on large format camera raises the perspective. No zooming happens.

 

[koraks]

I think the discussion on how view camera movements relate to perspective in a strict sense of the word demonstrates how silly such a discussion will get once it's taken to this level of pedantry. You reach fairly ridiculous conclusions like "front rise creates a different perspective while dropping the back only changes the part of the image circle that's being used" - which would be technically correct, but in practice quite meaningless.

 

[MattKing]

If you are using "perspective" to refer to "point of view", any side to side movement of the camera as a whole or movements of lens or film plane can arguably create a change of perspective.
If, however, you are using "perspective" more narrowly, to refer to how closer and farther objects in the scene relate to each other in the result, then things like side to side movements or movements of the lens or film plane usually don't create a change of perspective.
So as is often the case when considering these sorts of things, it is necessary and helpful to first define one's terms.
FWIW, I took the reference in the initial question posed to lens focal lengths to imply a question about the more narrow definition of "perspective".

 

[cliveh]

FWIW, I took the reference in the initial question posed to lens focal lengths to imply a question about the more narrow definition of "perspective".

That was my intention.

 

[wiltw]

Actually this is not the only way, camera movements can also effect perspective. It's true that focal length just encourages a change in vantage point & doesn't change perspective, but shifting the lens vertically to prevent tilting the camera back is a trick commonly done in the past to prevent converging verticals (a perspective effect)

Whether playing with keystoneing in post alters perspective is a debate I won't get into

FWIW the ability to change the apparent perspective without excessive cropping is one of the reasons I use a wide variety of lenses.

but i you really think about it...a shift of large format standard moves the lens, so 'perspective' truly is altered by lens movement, fore/aft, left/right, up/down, even tilt ALL 'move the lens'.