Anyone have any idea how this works?

[squirl033]

mrklaw wrote:

As for that concrete, that actually pavement under her feet. It only looks high up because its at wide angle. At zoom that'd easily disappear (you can only see the road there in the second picture)

the concrete sections she's standing on in the first photo are not there in the second. if you just back up and zoom in more, you might or might not lose that in the bottom of the frame - probably not.also, as i mentioned earlier, the monument behind her is above her head in the second shot, and wellbelow it in the first. again, simply zooming doesn't change that perspective; it would mereley magnify the whole image, with the same relative position of objects in the background. same with the objects that are hidden behind her in one shot, but visible in another. nope, the girl moved. another clue? the sunlight on her face in one shot, but not the other.

i still maintain the whole thing is just a series of suggestions for how to use composition and DOF to achieve various effects. lenses cannot "pull in" only part of a photo (e.g. the background) and leave the rest alone. just doesn't happen. controlling the distance of the background is done by moving the subject relative to the backdrop, or by using a REALLY long telephoto - like 1000mm - to create the effect called "foreshortening". the FZ30 lens is very good, but it's just not that powerful...

[Ivan Karamasov]

Hi,

yes squirrel, a lens cannot just zoom in the background without affecting the motive. But if the photographer changes the distance between him and the motive while zooming, he can achieve a change of perspective without altering the relation between the size of the motive and the size of the frame. Of course I do not know, if this technique really was the only thing they did in the example. However, I do know that a lot is possible that way.
I remember a stupid movie for example (don't remember the name though) where they filmed two guys riding on camel backs with the full moon behind them. By using a lot of tele, they made the moon look extremely large while the two riders appeared completely normal. Not a trick, just a technique.
So in the end I do believe that you could do a shot like the one in the example without moving the model, as long as you are willing to move your feet a little that is...
greetings
Ivan

[KENNETHD]

I have mastered this technique long ago! No head scratcher at all. You simply look around, choose the objects in the background you desire to appear closer, then have your subject walk bacward 'til it "looks about right". Zoom as much or as little as you desire, and...presto! :lol:You guys got it right the first time! But seriously, there's only so much you can do with this type of shot. I believe the effect seen in the first shots is achieved as muchby moving the subject as anything else. Best regards,

KennethD

[José A.]

squirl033 wrote:

these are definitely shotstaken fromdifferent distances. the girl is closer to the monument by far in the second one, the lighting on her is different, and there are differences in things in the background. for one, the lamp post visible over her shoulder on the right is behind her head in the second shot. merely changing the zoom setting or trying to use the optical effect of foreshortening wouldn't do that. the second shot wasn't taken merely by backing up and using the zoom, either... notice the different height of the orange gate above her head in the second shot... that says if anything, the photographer was probably closer in that shot than in the first one! just backing up and using the zoom would bring both the girl and the gate closer, and foreshorten the distance between them a bit, but it wouldn't change the perspective like that.

i think this is just a suggestion for composition, rather than anythingto do with any trick new feature of the camera.... to my knowledge no one yet has a lens that will "pull in" the background without affecting the subject!

...ok, first of all I'm not trying to say I have the last word on this, it's more that I think that most of the "effects" mentioned here can be achieved with that technique. Now, I do disagree with "the girl is closer to the monument by far in the second one".

The light directly on her face: Yes, it is almost sure she moved a little (unless the object creating the shadow was the one who moved). Or perhaps she turned. But the rest:

The lamp post is not, I think, the same in both pics. For one reason, the one in the second pic is much closer to the orange gate. So, there must be another lamp post in the first pic, behind her head, which we don't see until we get away from the model and zoom in.

About different heights, I think the photographer may or may not have kept the camera at slightly different heights; but keep in mind that zooming in brings the center closer. That explains why the concrete dissappears also.

And, as is mentioned in another post "simply zooming doesn't change that perspective; it would mereley magnify the whole image, with the same relative position of objects in the background". Yes, but... she is in the foreground, and the relative position of objects between background and foreground changes; that's what this technique is all about. If the orange gate is above her head in the second shot it's because it looks bigger there.

That's about it.

[mtngal]

I did an experiment at lunch time to see how this works. It is all about how far things are away from each other in relationship to the camera. Here's an example, and yes, the marine layer was in so it wasa very grey day, and I used the front of my office building as the place to experiment with, so we are not talking about great photography. But it really shows the technique. The trash cans and the benches are fixed to the sidewalk, so the only thing that moved was the camera.

In this first one, I was only a few feet away from the trash cans (which are located in the center of the building), and the girl sitting on the bench is on the last bench, at the end of the bench. I had the camera lens at full wide angle and the only thing done to the picture was that I cropped it a bit and resized it.



The girl looks quite small compared to the trash cans.

This second one was taken on the far side of the building. I had to step into the road, so the angle is slightly different (I'm in the street), so I am further away from the trash cans than the trash cans are from the girl on the bench. I had originally planned on zooming in the whole way, but couldn't fit everything into the frame. This photo has only been resized, not cropped.



This photo shows the layout, the girl was sitting on first bench on the left (there's someone walking by it), the trash cans are in the center of the building (there'sanother personblocking one of them) and the truck is about where I stood to take the zoomed in photo.



I'm really impressed with how much of a difference it makes, and will definitely keep this in mind in the future.

[tiger98]

Good work Mtngal ! Your experiment and pictures makes more sense than the way it was stated in the news article. Jim