The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with MF images - ARCHIVED - FOR VIEWING ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shashin

Well-known member
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.
 

Chris Giles

New member
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:

tsjanik

Well-known member
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
 

mediumcool

Active member
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 … ?
 

dick

New member
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?
 

tsjanik

Well-known member
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
 

mediumcool

Active member
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).
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
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
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member

dick

New member
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:

Thierry

New member
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

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.
 

MaxKißler

New member
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.
 

Thierry

New member
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

"...AND the angle to the subject

please explain

jm
 

dick

New member
"...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).

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top