Originally Posted by canoli
Yep, 70mm on FF = short telephoto = mild perspective compression, versus the perspective distortion of a wide angle focal length. It's apparent how much closer the boat appears to the buildings. You can imagine (or try) cropping the original 26mm shot to give the same framing, and you'll really see the effect of perspective distortion/compression. It's a good lesson in how to decide what focal length to use for a shot, depending on the effect you want to convey.
When using wide angles for landscapes and you want to get the "in the picture" feel, get close and go low with an interesting foreground.
Great suggestion! I'll sometimes shoot landscapes with my 7D +EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 right on the ground. Live View helps, but that's one type of shot where my Angle Finder C comes in handy.
Yes, the hyper-focal distance can help you decide, but I usually just use a small enough aperture to achieve the desired DOF.
As you could see in your f/22 shot the buildings are now sharp. If you have plenty of light thats not a problem, but at twilight you will probably have to go with a little larger aperture like f/11 give or take a stop and focus about half way into the shot. If there is a strong foreground object (like the boat) anchoring your shot, pun intended, then you want to make sure that that is in focus, because that will obviously be more of a problem then an OOF distant background, since we are used to seeing closer objects in focus, unless of course you do the opposite for artistic reasons.
You will probably rarely require f/22, as it's often not necessary and the sweet spot of most lenses usually lies in the middle of the aperture range.
But it's still good to try all of the different setttings and then go home and look at the computer to see what works best for that particular situation.
Rich
Thanks Everyone - I'm getting some great stuff from this thread...
This is 17mm and the buildings and the Brooklyn Bridge appear realistic (aside from the muddy coloring - hasty ACR conversion). This is true mostly because I held the camera perpendicular to them? If I'd angled it downward to capture a boat going by (underneath the bridge I was standing on) then the distant buildings and the bridge would've definitely come out distorted...true?
What I'm getting at is - someone mentioned getting down low and shoot your foreground object from that vantage point to "tie in" the foreground and background. (the Angle Finder C is my next purchase, been coveting that thing for too long! w/out Live View it's almost essential for flat-on-your-stomach shots it seems to me). Anyway, now I'm wondering - when there isn't a foreground object, the angle you hold the camera is the most important thing right? Assuming you're going for an accurate representation of the scene of course...
5D 17-40mm @17mm, f/8 @ 1/200 ISO 800
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/_5F00_MG_5F00_0198_5F00_17mm.jpg[/img]
Sort of. The thing about perspective distortion is that you need both foreground and background elements to see the effect. In this shot of theBrooklyn Bridge, there's really no foreground. If you'd angled down to include a boat in the frame, you'd perceive the distortion of the bridge and buildings - not because of the angle, but because of the foreground element.
If you look at the car in the extreme lower right (and ignore the barrel distortion which 'twists' it, since that's a different kind of distortion), you'll notice that objectively, it's the almost as big as some of the buildings. Here's a cut and paste to illustrate -thatis perspective distortion.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/Car_2B00_Bridge.jpg[/img]
Since the car is barely visible in the frame, and a reasonable distance from the camera already (i.e. it's not really a foreground element), the perspective distortion is minimized.
Exactly! The UWA lens will distort the objects. When the lens is perpendicular to the bridge it will distort its width, making it appear wider and further away, since the lens is parallel to the road on the right it will distort its length making the road appear longer (just like that maroon minivan on the right) and wider.
Now, if the camera is neither parallel or perpendicular to the object, in other words on an angle like you suggest, then you will distort the width and length simultaneously at different ratios, thus accentuating either width and/or length separately to varying degrees depending on the angle of capture, and thus, that will certainly leave a lot of room open for creativity.
By the way, I think you're doing a great job with your composition! I love this photo too! If I were you, I would try to crop out a small amount of sky about 1 inch and then crop a small amount of water and road in the foreground, just above that maroon minivan on the right.
Just like yesterdays photo, this will have the affect of raising the focal point of the bridge up towards the center of the frame, as well as pulling the viewer into the photo more. It doesn't have to be completely centered.
If you don't mind, kindly give it a try using the non constrained crop (just crop top and bottom only) and post it and let me know what you think about it.
As you've stated above, I think you're starting to see a pattern developing here.
Rich
PS. You may also have dirt on your Sensor in the upper right hand corner of the above photo, its that small darker circle.
Neuro - Rich - Thanks very much for your help - I think maybe I'm almost starting toget it (nothing like certainty!).
Seeing the minivan's apparent size nearly identical to a 20-story building was an eye-opener. I assumed I'd captured "reality."
I followed Rich's suggestion and cropped away the minivan and some sky. I think the composition is much better, definitely. I feel like I'm looking from nearly the same horizontal plane as the bridge, as opposed to viewing the scene from above. Am I crazy or do I see the bridge bulging out a little now though - bulging out toward the viewer? something I hadn't noticed before cropping...
ps - that is ("was" I'm happy to report!) indeed sensor dust. A pack of Visible Dust sensor swabs and a bottle of Eclipse were the first "accessories" I bought - a day after buying the body. One swab and a few drops took care of the dust invasion.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/_5F00_MG_5F00_0198_5F00_17mmCrop.jpg[/img]
Here's a cut and paste to illustrate -thatis perspective distortion.
I don't think I entirely agree with you on this one. Yes I believe the 17mm gives you a little bit of distortion, but not in the way you make it seem like. I do agree that for instance 50mm would give you a more natural look. Hmm a little test would come in handy here [A] Same framing and composition, different focal lengths(and therefor some foot-zooming).
<div>
I believe you did pretty well. Just think of it this way, when you stood over there, the cars looked pretty much like they do in your shot.
Back to John[:P]I think the best example of perspective distortion is the sun or the moon. Effectively they are always just as far from the earth. But how does it happen that somethimes the moon or sun looks enormously big?.. Perspective distortion [:P] In your mind you have the idea of a moon being an enormous planet you can see at night which looks like a small ball, however, the closer the moon gets to the horizon, the bigger it seems. In fact it's just as far away, relatively and so it should be just as big. The fact that you see the moon in context close to objects that you know the size of, the moon seems a lot bigger, because unintentionally you compare the item you know the size of with the moon. Same counts for the sun. I believe that's called perspective distortion, but if I'm wrong, please correct me []
Jan
</div>
There's something to that Jan - thanks for your comment. I remember hearing about the "moon paradox" years ago, and the way to understand the illusion was to look at the moon through a tube when it's on the horizon. Once you get rid of the visual cues telling your brain the moon is bigger it shrinks back down to the same size it appears at the zenith.
I suppose there's more than one effect going on in any shot but the main one (after exposure and focus) seems to be camera position - how close you are and the relative angle of the camera to the subject.
Now about that "foot-zooming" expression... ah well n'mind, I know what you meant. []
Thanks again for your comments!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote