Site Sponsors
Page 165 of 386 FirstFirst ... 65 115 155 163 164 165 166 167 175 215 265 ... LastLast
Results 8,201 to 8,250 of 19293

Thread: Fun with MF images

  1. #8201
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    4,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    132

    Re: Fun with MF images

    The Blad image has more perspective and is closer to normal perspective than the Canon. The Canon image has a really weak perspective which is becoming very unnatural by compressing the depth of the face. Nothing anyone has said contradicts that and the theories support it as well.

  2. #8202
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images


    Dancer in the Dark #1 by mikedotephoto, on Flickr



    Dancer in the Dark#2 by mikedotephoto, on Flickr

    Images from a recent shoot with a friend of mine.

  3. #8203
    Senior Member Chris Giles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    Given the framing Chris's original assumption about the perspective is correct. For a given framing the Hasselblad would have to be significantly closer to the subject than the canon was and that should give more perspective distortion rather than significantly less as is apparently shown in the images. Unless we are given an indication that the Hasselblad is a very significant crop of the original file I can't see that Chris is wrong in his question.
    I think the easiest thing to do would be to put the 50mm on the 1Ds3 instead of the 85L and attempt this test again. Both the shots shown had the same lighting and were set using a light meter.
    Last edited by Chris Giles; 1st February 2012 at 00:27.

  4. #8204
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Giles View Post
    I think the easiest thing to do would be to put the 50mm on the 1Ds3 instead of the 85L and attempt this test again. Both the shots shown had the same lighting and were set using a light meter.
    One other aspect is the model's hair. Pulled back somewhat in the Canon shot, which combined with the lens effect makes the forehead more prominent.

    PS. I much prefer the film shot as well, more flattering and much more detail in the skin.

    Tom

  5. #8205
    Senior Member mediumcool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    The Blad image has more perspective and is closer to normal perspective than the Canon. The Canon image has a really weak perspective which is becoming very unnatural by compressing the depth of the face. Nothing anyone has said contradicts that and the theories support it as well.
    more perspective … ?

    weak perspective … ?

  6. #8206
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by mediumcool View Post
    more perspective … ?

    weak perspective … ?
    ... was thinking the same...

  7. #8207
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Warks, UK
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by tsjanik View Post
    One other aspect is the model's hair. Pulled back somewhat in the Canon shot, which combined with the lens effect makes the forehead more prominent.

    PS. I much prefer the film shot as well, more flattering and much more detail in the skin.

    Tom
    I thought that the Canon picture must have been shot with soft lighting ...perhaps it is just a soft camera? Could you have sharpened it or used clarify in post to give it more impact, and make it look more like the 'blad shot?

    Do you not have a portrait length lens for the Hasselblad? e.g. 120mm?

  8. #8208
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    4,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    132

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by mediumcool View Post
    more perspective … ?

    weak perspective … ?
    How about "stronger" or "weaker"? Does that help?

  9. #8209
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Last December, I gave myself the assignment of taking one photo/day to be used in a printed collection. My intention is to keep this going for a year. As a non-professional and someone who often suffers from a lack of imagination, this has turned out to be more difficult than I thought. Most of the shots so far have been with a K-5, simply because of ease of use and high ISO performance. Only a few are with the 645D. Here's one I never would have taken without the self-imposed assignment forcing me out the door. The jpeg version loses some of the features I like in this image: the frozen water along the shore glows in a Gold Silk print and is somewhat subdued on the screen. 645D, 35 mm A.

    Tom

    JPEG by tsjanik47, on Flickr
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #8210
    Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Napa
    Posts
    362
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    173

    Re: Fun with MF images

    I like the color, the golds are wonderful.

  11. #8211
    Senior Member mediumcool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    How about "stronger" or "weaker"? Does that help?
    Better!

    The best modifiers for perspective I have heard of (read) was from a ’60s Amateur Photographer magazine where their technical editor referred to the visual effects of having the subject very close to the camera as “steep” and those much further away “shallow”.

    I searched for steep perspective on Google, and found this article which is pretty good, apart from a stray it’s. The author in this book makes the very important point that the distance from the image to the viewer’s eye influences the perspective also.

    There are plenty of other pages to look at if interested.

    My first comment on the two pictures which created this brouhaha:

    the drawing of the first (film) portrait suits the sitter better; what I find unattractive is the contrast, rather soot and whitewash (nothing to do with perspective, I know).

    the second makes the subject look more round-faced, but that is also an artifact of the much softer lighting. Technically, though, I much prefer this rendering.

    Geeky explanation of perspective (PDF).

  12. #8212
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: Fun with MF images



    Cancun, Mexico
    P1 DF with Mamiya 35mm AF
    P1 IQ180

    Thanks friends for viewing!
    Pramote

  13. #8213
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by tsjanik View Post
    Last December, I gave myself the assignment of taking one photo/day to be used in a printed collection. My intention is to keep this going for a year. As a non-professional and someone who often suffers from a lack of imagination, this has turned out to be more difficult than I thought. Most of the shots so far have been with a K-5, simply because of ease of use and high ISO performance. Only a few are with the 645D. Here's one I never would have taken without the self-imposed assignment forcing me out the door. The jpeg version loses some of the features I like in this image: the frozen water along the shore glows in a Gold Silk print and is somewhat subdued on the screen. 645D, 35 mm A.

    Tom

    JPEG by tsjanik47, on Flickr
    Truly amazing!!!
    Pramote
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #8214
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby Lewis View Post
    Couldn't resist early this morning... camera was still on the tripod from yesterday. My youngest... trying his hardest not to get up for school. Light from a ikea lamp camera right (one of these: http://www.homeaccentstoday.com/arti...NaNaN/Ikea.JPG )

    RZ IID, 110/2.8 wide open, Aptus II 6 ... I think 1 second exposure. Some graininess from LR4 grain tool.

    Very beautifully captured Shelby!
    Thanks for sharing.

    Pramote
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #8215
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Warks, UK
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by mediumcool View Post
    It seems that "the Geek" has no better understanding of perspective than the people criticised, and does not seem to understand long words like "telephoto":

    It is, of course, the angle of view of the lens that is significant, as demonstrated in this case where images from different formats are being compared.

    For images taken on the same format (without cropping) the focal length determines the perspective effect...

    Edit: It is so obvious it should not need to be sated, but the focal length affects the perspective by allowing us to fill the viewfinder with the subject at different distances.

    but a "telephoto" lens is a lens shorter than it's focal length, and the construction or physical dimensions of the lens are irrelevant to perspective. The word "telephoto" is mis-used to describe lenses of relatively long focal length (longer than the diagonal of the format) but lenses of long focal length do not need to be telephoto, and I have several such lenses.
    Last edited by dick; 3rd February 2012 at 07:00.

  16. #8216
    Senior Member Thierry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Dear Dick,

    The perspective is solely determined by the view point of the camera to the subject or of the observer to an image. The view point is given by the distance AND the angle to the subject.

    As a consequence, the perspective depends ONLY from the distance and the angle to the subject, nothing else.

    It can be demonstrated very easily, that the FL has absolutely NO influence on the perspective of an image.

    Best regards
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by dick View Post
    It seems that "the Geek" has no better understanding of perspective than the people criticised, and does not seem to understand long words like "telephoto":

    It is, of course, the angle of view of the lens that is significant, as demonstrated in this case where images from different formats are being compared.

    For images taken on the same format (without cropping) the focal length determines the perspective effect... but a "telephoto" lens is a lens shorter than it's focal length, and the construction or physical dimensions of the lens are irrelevant to perspective. The word "telephoto" is mis-used to describe lenses of relatively long focal length (longer than the diagonal of the format) but lenses of long focal length do not need to be telephoto, and I have several such lenses.

  17. #8217
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Fun with MF images

    "...AND the angle to the subject

    please explain

    jm

  18. #8218
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    What Thierry tried to say was probably that this "subject deformation" as I would call it has nothing to do with the lens' FL but with it's angle of view in relation to subject distance.

  19. #8219
    Senior Member Thierry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    by angle to the subject I mean the angle of the camera (or from the eye) to the subject (or to the observed image), which is related somehow to the distance to the subject.

    Best regards
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    "...AND the angle to the subject

    please explain

    jm

  20. #8220
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Warks, UK
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    "...AND the angle to the subject

    please explain

    jm
    He means the subtended angle... if the lens axis is perpendicular to the middle of a 20m subject 10m away the subtended angle is 2(arctan (10/10) or 90 degrees.

    The angle of view would be the same if the subject filled the format (viewfinder).

    Quote Originally Posted by TH_Alpa View Post
    Dear Dick,

    The perspective is solely determined by the view point of the camera to the subject or of the observer to an image.

    As I told you last time you tried to contradict me, perspective can be modified with camera movements.


    The view point is given by the distance AND the angle to the subject.

    The view point is where the camera or observer is...

    Perspective only occurs when different parts of the subject, or different subjects are at different distances from the view point... there is not a single distance.


    As a consequence, the perspective depends ONLY from the distance and the angle to the subject, nothing else.

    It can be demonstrated very easily, that the FL has absolutely NO influence on the perspective of an image.

    Best regards
    Thierry
    It is obvious, but, in this context, I think it needs pointing out: We use lenses of different focal lengths to allow us to get the reproduction ratios we want from different subject distances.... the view point (or subject distance) required to fill the format to the required degree, at the required scale, is dictated by the focal length and format (angle of view).

    Focal length affects perspective by allowing us to vary the subject distance.

    If you use a standard focal length lens (focal length equal to the diagonal of the format) or a wide-angle, and fill the format with a face, perspective makes the nose disproportionately large... if you use double the focal length at double the distance with the same format you do not get this effect.

    If there are no obstructions in the way, if you want a tall tower in the middle distance to produce an image similar in size to that of a much smaller (part of a) building in the foreground you can achieve this by an appropriate combination of angle of view and viewpoint.... this can be used to good effect on buildings like churches, with a tower at the far end.

    On a Calendar picture there was a tractor in the foreground, framed by a tree, and a small hill in the distance - by using a longer lens (from a greater distance) I made the hill look considerably higher, giving a better composition.

  21. #8221
    Senior Member Thierry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Dick,

    with all due respect, it is wrong to say that the FL is in any way responsible or a factor having an influence on the perspective.

    When one takes 2 images from the VERY SAME (to be able to compare) view point with 2 different FL, the 2 resulting images are exactly identical concerning the perspective (the horizontal and vertical converging or diverging lines in the image). The reproduction scale is not the same, obviously, but the perspective yes. Just enlarge the 2 images to exactly the same scale and you will see that the lines do overlap exactly, thus the perspective is the same.

    Best regards
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by dick View Post
    He means the subtended angle... if the lens axis is perpendicular to the middle of a 20m subject 10m away the subtended angle is 2(arctan (10/10) or 90 degrees.

    The angle of view would be the same if the subject filled the format (viewfinder).



    It is obvious, but, in this context, I think it needs pointing out: We use lenses of different focal lengths to allow us to get the reproduction ratios we want from different subject distances.... the view point (or subject distance) required to fill the format to the required degree, at the required scale, is dictated by the focal length and format (angle of view).

    Focal length affects perspective by allowing us to vary the subject distance.

    If you use a standard focal length lens (focal length equal to the diagonal of the format) or a wide-angle, and fill the format with a face, perspective makes the nose disproportionately large... if you use double the focal length at double the distance with the same format you do not get this effect.

    If there are no obstructions in the way, if you want a tall tower in the middle distance to produce an image similar in size to that of a much smaller (part of a) building in the foreground you can achieve this by an appropriate combination of angle of view and viewpoint.... this can be used to good effect on buildings like churches, with a tower at the far end.

    On a Calendar picture there was a tractor in the foreground, framed by a tree, and a small hill in the distance - by using a longer lens (from a greater distance) I made the hill look considerably higher, giving a better composition.

  22. #8222
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    4,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    132

    Re: Fun with MF images

    The two primary factors that impact (linear) perspective are object distance (true perspective) and viewing distance (apparent perspective). It is the viewing distance that shows differences in focal length and angle of view (if perspective, which is defined as the depth in a 2-D image, did not change, how could we notice what images were taken with wide angles and telephotos--they would look the same). So just as where you stand is important for creating the perspective, where you stand when viewing the perspective is important as well--perspective is a type of projection system.

    Apparent perspective will be the same if the image is viewed in relation to the focal length and magnification of the image--you view wide-angle image closer and telephoto image further away (the would be defined as the "Correct" viewing distance). However, we usually view images at a fixed distance. If that distance is further away then the Correct viewing distance, then the apparent perspective is stronger. If it is closer, then it is weaker. "Standard" viewing distance is proportional to the diagonal of the image and so the standard and correct viewing distance are the same in that case, that is why we call a lens with a focal length equal to the format diagonal "Normal"--it has nothing to do with angle of view being the same as the eye, but rather giving the natural perspective when viewed at the standard distance.

    When the actual viewing distance is very different from the Correct viewing distance, the image will appear distorted. The Wide-Angle Effect is well known where heads are stretched away from the optical axis, but if you place your eye close to the image at the correct viewing distance, the head will appear round--same thing with writing on roads. When you have very long focal lengths, you get very unnatural compression of features.

    So to see changes in perspective related to focal length is real, but it is not the focal length per se that is causing it.

    There are tons of books on perspective--I have read a whole bunch of them. There is also a link to one in an earlier post I made. Common references include The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, Third Edition, Materials and Processes of Photography, and View Camera Techniques.

  23. #8223
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    4,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    132

    Re: Fun with MF images

    But back to why we are here. Tom, sublime. Don't give up on this assignment yet...

    Quote Originally Posted by tsjanik View Post
    Last December, I gave myself the assignment of taking one photo/day to be used in a printed collection. My intention is to keep this going for a year. As a non-professional and someone who often suffers from a lack of imagination, this has turned out to be more difficult than I thought. Most of the shots so far have been with a K-5, simply because of ease of use and high ISO performance. Only a few are with the 645D. Here's one I never would have taken without the self-imposed assignment forcing me out the door. The jpeg version loses some of the features I like in this image: the frozen water along the shore glows in a Gold Silk print and is somewhat subdued on the screen. 645D, 35 mm A.

    Tom

  24. #8224
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Some Portraits from the last Days with the H4D and 120mm Macro II. Any Critique? Thanks, rem

  25. #8225
    Senior Member Thierry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Absolutely correct and a very good extensive explanation: I didn't dare to "plunge" in it.

    We can define perspective with other words: it is the reduction in 2 dimensions on a plane (sensor, film or paper plane of the printed image) from the original 3-D dimensions of the subjects. The perspective is given by the horizontal and vertical (converging or diverging) lines in this 2-D projection.

    Thanks and best regards
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    The two primary factors that impact (linear) perspective are object distance (true perspective) and viewing distance (apparent perspective). It is the viewing distance that shows differences in focal length and angle of view (if perspective, which is defined as the depth in a 2-D image, did not change, how could we notice what images were taken with wide angles and telephotos--they would look the same). So just as where you stand is important for creating the perspective, where you stand when viewing the perspective is important as well--perspective is a type of projection system.

    Apparent perspective will be the same if the image is viewed in relation to the focal length and magnification of the image--you view wide-angle image closer and telephoto image further away (the would be defined as the "Correct" viewing distance). However, we usually view images at a fixed distance. If that distance is further away then the Correct viewing distance, then the apparent perspective is stronger. If it is closer, then it is weaker. "Standard" viewing distance is proportional to the diagonal of the image and so the standard and correct viewing distance are the same in that case, that is why we call a lens with a focal length equal to the format diagonal "Normal"--it has nothing to do with angle of view being the same as the eye, but rather giving the natural perspective when viewed at the standard distance.

    When the actual viewing distance is very different from the Correct viewing distance, the image will appear distorted. The Wide-Angle Effect is well known where heads are stretched away from the optical axis, but if you place your eye close to the image at the correct viewing distance, the head will appear round--same thing with writing on roads. When you have very long focal lengths, you get very unnatural compression of features.

    So to see changes in perspective related to focal length is real, but it is not the focal length per se that is causing it.

    There are tons of books on perspective--I have read a whole bunch of them. There is also a link to one in an earlier post I made. Common references include The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, Third Edition, Materials and Processes of Photography, and View Camera Techniques.

  26. #8226
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    But back to why we are here. Tom, sublime. Don't give up on this assignment yet...
    Thanks Vincent Pramote and Shashin, I appreciate the comments. Not giving up yet.

    Pramote: your beach looks more inviting

  27. #8227
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Thanks Tom for your kind words.
    Again, your photo is stunning! Please don't give up.
    Pramote

  28. #8228
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Warks, UK
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by TH_Alpa View Post
    Dick,

    with all due respect, it is wrong to say that the FL is in any way responsible or a factor having an influence on the perspective.

    When one takes 2 images from the VERY SAME view point with 2 different FL, the 2 resulting images are exactly identical concerning the perspective.

    Best regards
    Thierry
    Thierry...

    What you say above is true, but...

    If you had shown me due respect you would have read and tried to understand my post before trying to refute it.

    I am not talking about taking two picture from the same view point with different focal lengths, I am talking about taking two pictures of the same subject, at the same subject-to-image scale with different lenses. This means different view points and different subject distances. I even put the relevant sentence in a bigger font to try to ensure that you got the point.

    You should try to understand the rules and not just learn them parrot-fashion and quote them out of context.

    Quote Originally Posted by dick View Post
    He means the subtended angle... if the lens axis is perpendicular to the middle of a 20m subject 10m away the subtended angle is 2(arctan (10/10) or 90 degrees.

    The angle of view would be the same if the subject filled the format (viewfinder).



    It is obvious, but, in this context, I think it needs pointing out: We use lenses of different focal lengths to allow us to get the reproduction ratios we want from different subject distances.... the view point (or subject distance) required to fill the format to the required degree, at the required scale, is dictated by the focal length and format (angle of view).

    Focal length affects perspective by allowing us to vary the subject distance.

    If you use a standard focal length lens (focal length equal to the diagonal of the format) or a wide-angle, and fill the format with a face, perspective makes the nose disproportionately large... if you use double the focal length at double the distance with the same format you do not get this effect.

    If there are no obstructions in the way, if you want a tall tower in the middle distance to produce an image similar in size to that of a much smaller (part of a) building in the foreground you can achieve this by an appropriate combination of angle of view and viewpoint.... this can be used to good effect on buildings like churches, with a tower at the far end.

    On a Calendar picture there was a tractor in the foreground, framed by a tree, and a small hill in the distance - by using a longer lens (from a greater distance) I made the hill look considerably higher, giving a better composition.

  29. #8229
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Warks, UK
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    The two primary factors that impact (linear) perspective are object distance (true perspective) and viewing distance (apparent perspective).
    ¿The correct viewing distance is the viewing distance for which the observer-to-print angle of view is the same as the camera-to-subject angle of view?

    It is possible to make a mural look like an extension of a room, with correct perspective, but only for one viewpoint.

    A picture in a french window frame at the end of a passage could look as if you were looking through a window at Mont Blanc, but the viewing distance/angle-of-view would have to be correct... if the camera was looking up at the mountain... the picture viewer's eye should be at the same level as the eye level in the picture.

  30. #8230
    Senior Member Thierry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Excuse me Dick, there was no disrespect meant in my post, and my apologies to you if you took is as such. I am not trying to put my knowledge here under any circumstance and out of context.

    This being said, I read of course your post entirely and did well understand what you meant to say.

    What I am saying is that perspective has to be compared from the SAME view point (shooting/viewing distance), if you don't then you don't compare the same things and cannot speak about comparing perspective objectively.

    That is at least how perspective is defined.

    Again, am sorry if I did hurt your feelings, this was just meant as a discussion.

    Best regards
    Thierry

    Quote Originally Posted by dick View Post
    Thierry...

    What you say above is true, but...

    If you had shown me due respect you would have read and tried to understand my post before trying to refute it.

    I am not talking about taking two picture from the same view point with different focal lengths, I am talking about taking two pictures of the same subject, at the same subject-to-image scale with different lenses. This means different view points and different subject distances. I even put the relevant sentence in a bigger font to try to ensure that you got the point.

    You should try to understand the rules and not just learn them parrot-fashion and quote them out of context.

  31. #8231
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Warks, UK
    Posts
    550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by TH_Alpa View Post
    Excuse me Dick, there was no disrespect meant in my post, and my apologies to you if you took is as such. I am not trying to put my knowledge here under any circumstance and out of context.

    This being said, I read of course your post entirely and did well understand what you meant to say.

    What I am saying is that perspective has to be compared from the SAME view point (shooting/viewing distance), if you don't then you don't compare the same things and cannot speak about comparing perspective objectively.

    That is at least how perspective is defined.

    Again, am sorry if I did hurt your feelings, this was just meant as a discussion.

    Best regards
    Thierry
    Thierry

    We do appreciate contributions made by professionals like you to this forum, and I appreciate your apology, and I did not want to start a flame war.

    You appreciate that you get different perspective from a different view point, and a different focal length would enable us to "fill the frame" from the different view point? ...Like if you take two portraits, one with a 60mm lens from 1m and one with a 120mm lens from 2m?

    Subject distance is a simple concept on a simple camera, but with a technical camera the subject distance, for calculation of reproduction ratios, should be measured perpendicular to the image plane... the perpendicular distance can be changed using rear movements, giving an effectively different subject distance from the same view point?

    This is all explained in Merklinger's "Focusing the view camera"... which I should re-read sometime.

  32. #8232
    Paul66
    Guest

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Isn't this thread titled FUN with medium format images? I feel that you are using it to argue and need to do that somewhere else just my opinion but...........

  33. #8233
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: Fun with MF images

    I absolutely agree with Paul!
    I visit here to have "FUN" and view breathtaking images from friends here.
    Almost quitted this forum once when I was a new member! Disagreement is okay but I'd expect friendly and respectful atmosphere here.
    Take it easy guys!
    Thanks,
    Pramote
    Last edited by Landscapelover; 4th February 2012 at 06:37.

  34. #8234
    Senior Member Quentin_Bargate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Saffron Walden, UK
    Posts
    1,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    58

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Tulips, Hasselblad H4D-50, 120mm macro, first shot in a new project.



    This shot works well printed on Epson Water Resistant Mate Canvas

    And Rem, those portraits look great to me, particularly the middlw one, with the nicely used hair light and a cute expression on the model. I see you have the mark II macro. I still have the Mark 1 which I used for the tulips.
    Last edited by Quentin_Bargate; 4th February 2012 at 13:21.
    Quentin Bargate
    Co-Founder of Ajuve, Director of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2012 - 2016, Photographer
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  35. #8235
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Nice still life image Quentin!

    It looks like a strobe/softbox reflection in the glass vase but the light it so soft its similar to diffused window lighting and wondered if you could share your technique?

  36. #8236
    Senior Member Quentin_Bargate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Saffron Walden, UK
    Posts
    1,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    58

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Hi Gareth,

    Thanks - and yes it is a strobe refelcted in the vase base. Quite a bit of post processing, obviously

    Quentin
    Quentin Bargate
    Co-Founder of Ajuve, Director of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2012 - 2016, Photographer

  37. #8237
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Thanks Quentin, and I find your picture from the Tulips wonderful. I think its great printet! Yes I have the II, but I think there will not be a big difference if any. rem

  38. #8238
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lyon, France
    Posts
    224
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    51

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by Quentin_Bargate View Post
    Tulips, Hasselblad H4D-50, 120mm macro, first shot in a new project.



    This shot works well printed on Epson Water Resistant Mate Canvas

    And Rem, those portraits look great to me, particularly the middlw one, with the nicely used hair light and a cute expression on the model. I see you have the mark II macro. I still have the Mark 1 which I used for the tulips.
    I love this Quentin !

  39. #8239
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    4,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    132

    Re: Fun with MF images

    I shot this tonight for fun and the Pentax Day event on Feb. 4th. These are 3 minute exposures at ISO 400 at f/10 with the Pentax 645D and A 35mm lens. Kinda hard focusing without light.

  40. #8240
    Senior Member Swissblad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,113
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    [QUOTE=Quentin_Bargate;386530]Tulips, Hasselblad H4D-50, 120mm macro, first shot in a new project.



    Quentin

    Really lovely tulips - and I can imagine it looks terrific printed as indicated.

    Any hints on the post-processing...?

    Thanks for sharing,

    Sinuhe
    Last edited by Swissblad; 5th February 2012 at 07:40.

  41. #8241
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    I shot this tonight for fun and the Pentax Day event on Feb. 4th. These are 3 minute exposures at ISO 400 at f/10 with the Pentax 645D and A 35mm lens. Kinda hard focusing without light.


    LOL. Seems you and I were taking the same shots yesterday. Here's an image I took last night. A plane traveling diagonally through the frame, perpendicular to star trails. Trees illuminated by a nearly full moon and some window light. 645D, 67 55mm lens.

    _IGP6973 by tsjanik47, on Flickr
    Last edited by tsjanik; 5th February 2012 at 11:06.

  42. #8242
    Senior Member Quentin_Bargate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Saffron Walden, UK
    Posts
    1,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    58

    Re: Fun with MF images


    Quentin

    Really lovely tulips - and I can imagine it looks terrific printed as indicated.

    Any hints on the post-processing...?

    Thanks for sharing,

    Sinuhe
    Hi Sinuhe

    Thanks I am glad you like the shot.

    Well to go back to the beginning, my wife asked me whether I could take a picture of some Tulips she had purchased as table decoration so the picture could be hung on the kitchen wall. I took a few shots in my small studio but while they were OK as flower shots go, they looked a bit ordinary and too high key. This got me thinking about using these shots as a first step in a new project I wanted to start. I do a lot of fairly high-key shots and white background shots, which can be good but I wanted to try a different approach with these tulips, something moodier and more subtle.

    So I took a slightly underexposed shot of the Tulips and ran Silver Effex Pro II on a top layer in Photoshop, adjusting the image until I had achieved the effect I wanted - failry high structure and contrast. I added a slight warm tint and a border and then in Photoshop I set the opacity of the monochrome layer to about 80% so a hint of colour shows through. I have also darkened the boders slightly and messed around with some other secret sauce

    I was very pleased with the final effect, and so (I am happy to report) is my wife.

    Phase two will be to take more shots that will form part of this series, which I am looking forward to doing.

    Quentin
    Quentin Bargate
    Co-Founder of Ajuve, Director of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2012 - 2016, Photographer
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #8243
    Senior Member Swissblad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,113
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Thanks for the detailed reply Quentin -
    have to try it as well - I really like the end result.
    Best,
    Sinuhe

  44. #8244
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    South Germany
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by Quentin_Bargate View Post
    Tulips, Hasselblad H4D-50, 120mm macro, first shot in a new project.
    ...
    wow, great shot

  45. #8245
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    4,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    132

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by tsjanik View Post
    LOL. Seems you and I were taking the same shots yesterday.
    Tom, you know how it is when you live so far north in winter. You need to take advantage of any sunlight you can, whether direct or indirect.

    But it looks like you got the Pleiades at the top of your frame.

  46. #8246
    Workshop Member Wayne Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Draper, Utah
    Posts
    785
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    122

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by Quentin_Bargate View Post

    really nice ... I love the composition and the treatment is perfect.

  47. #8247
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Spent the morning at an abandoned radar station where you get a nice view on the city. Too bad it's freezing cold here especially the wind up there is killing you...

    Mamiya 50mm shift / Fuji Velvia 50 / several painful seconds




  48. #8248
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    another one from the same Girl. H4D-40, 80mm

  49. #8249
    Senior Member mediumcool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Quote Originally Posted by dick View Post
    It seems that "the Geek" has no better understanding of perspective than the people criticised, and does not seem to understand long words like "telephoto":

    It is, of course, the angle of view of the lens that is significant, as demonstrated in this case where images from different formats are being compared.

    For images taken on the same format (without cropping) the focal length determines the perspective effect...

    Edit: It is so obvious it should not need to be sated, but the focal length affects the perspective by allowing us to fill the viewfinder with the subject at different distances.

    but a "telephoto" lens is a lens shorter than it's focal length, and the construction or physical dimensions of the lens are irrelevant to perspective. The word "telephoto" is mis-used to describe lenses of relatively long focal length (longer than the diagonal of the format) but lenses of long focal length do not need to be telephoto, and I have several such lenses.
    You are way out of line on this one.

  50. #8250
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Fun with MF images

    Perhaps this thread should now read... "Taking the fun out of MF images."
    Likes 9 Member(s) liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •