|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,177
|
![]()
I think this series is more what this challenge is supposed to be about, rather than the perspective changes caused by different types of lenses. I again used two different lenses because I don't really have much for zoom lenses. This time I used the same 31 lens (and forgot to change the aperture settings, I had been shooting macros the day before). The aperture was way too small for this lens and I did minimal adjustments.
The scene is a hole in a wall and the scene beyond. This is a better portal than my previous posting. First, the wide angle shot: ![]() Just people sitting on a wall just eating lunch and talking. A convenient place to sit outside, though it doesn't seem to offer much as far as an interesting place (well, there's some bushes etc. planted on the left side). Here's the telephoto version (77 mm, again a bad aperture for this non-macro lens). ![]() Finally, the wide angle shot where I walked closer to the hole in the wall. What a different scene, and not because of perspective differences (which aren't huge between 30 and 70). ![]() A big difference. Too bad the fountain wasn't working, though the pool makes for good reflections of the building beyond. In this case, it made a big difference to walk with my feet - it opened up new horizons. I have another location in mind, if I take the time to go up there. I'm now curious what it will show. |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 8,466
|
![]()
Now, that's what this challenge is about. You have done an excellent job of illustrating the principal difference between zooming and walking closer to the subject. Good job!
Cal |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,196
|
![]()
Very good example. I have heard so many "pro" photographers swear up and down that long lenses don't compress the subject. I've always known them to be incorrect and this shot proves it in spades!!! The couple sitting on the right side really demonstrate this.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,177
|
![]()
Actually, I don't think this series shows that the focal length makes much difference, it's the relative distances that are important. If you look at the first, wider angle shot and the second one taken from the same place, you'll see virtually no difference in the couple, other than they are smaller. In fact, if you were to crop the wide one, it would look very similar to the one taken by the telephoto. On the other hand, walking forward, which changes the relative distances by moving the camera much closer to the couple, makes a huge difference, and that's what I think this challenge is all about.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 3,645
|
![]()
G'day Cal & MtnGal
Sure proves the old saying "Vote with your feet" Regards, Phil
__________________
Has Lumix mirrorless & superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
Posts: 660
|
![]()
You know, when this challenge came up I thought to myself that it sounded like a "line of sight" issue — and that's just what I think mtngal's photos show. Move forward and you can see what is blocked from view when taking the first two from a distance and uncover a different/more interesting aspect of the subject.
Bernice
__________________
Bernice Olympus SP590 UZ, TCON-17, MCON-40 Mark Nikon D 5100 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beaverton, OR
Posts: 8,466
|
![]() Quote:
Cal |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,204
|
![]()
Lovely interpretation
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East of Toronto
Posts: 8,800
|
![]()
There is no difference between a wide angle shot and a telephoto of that shot taken from the same spot. Its exactly the same image only larger. Exactly the same if you took the wide angle shot and blew up a section in Photoshop. Now when you walk up to the same point that is covered by the telephoto the depth of object has increased giving a more real look to the image instead of the flat compressed look in the telephoto. In the second shot the two people look like they are sitting beside each other. In the walk up shot (3) you can see they are some distance apart. I dont think onlooker has it quite right in his definition of this challenge. Its not so much what is hidden when you walk up. Its about the depth of image that is increased as you approach it.
Last edited by Bynx; Sep 4, 2011 at 3:05 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|