If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The first one 'whooshes' whereas the second (corrected) one is more of an everyday leisurely stroll. The original pulls me into the scene and appears to have more 'distance, the second one isn't so 'exciting' somehow.
The original, with it's converging verticals and inherent sharpness (and slightly more going on...) is the better version for me. Photography needn't be about reality, particularly when it comes to perspective and our perceptions of it, and in this context the distortion suits the scene perfectly.
I've just been viewing your other London shots and I was particularly impressed with those taken of and around the London Eye. I think you'll end up buying that ultra wide zoom...
I prefer the corrected perspective version. It is what the eyes see apart from how appealing or not it is. Photography and the role of a camera is about WYSIWYG, or at least as close as possible.
Personally I prefer the photographed scene to match as close as possible the naked eye view.
All the rest for me are just there to create nice impressions or special effects, which are also nice but they can be done later by human interaction with some software.
Photography and the role of a camera is about WYSIWYG, or at least as close as possible.
Is it?
The camera never sees what the eye sees; never. It's a two dimensional, flattened version of WYS with a narrower angle of view, fewer colours, less detail and all lenses distort the image to some degree, apart from the T/S types.
Secondly, the camera is a tool. If anything has a role to play, it's the person using it and it's fundamentally what they see (and how they wish for it to be seen) which determines the outcome. The camera itself is not responsible.
Thirdly, if photography is all about WYSIWYG, then I'm finished; here and now
Finally, do you see in black and white George, because I don't
All the rest for me are just there to create nice impressions or special effects, which are also nice but they can be done later by human interaction with some software.
They can be done in-camera, too. Freedom of expression and creativity in your photography is not and need not be limited to post-processing. Unless you can give me a good reason why it should, of course
Originally Posted by Archangel Photography and the role of a camera is about WYSIWYG, or at least as close as possible.
Is it?
The camera never sees what the eye sees; never. It's a two dimensional, flattened version of WYS with a narrower angle of view, fewer colours, less detail and all lenses distort the image to some degree, apart from the T/S types.
Of course it is about WYSIWYG.
This is on what camera reviews are based, of how close to reality each camera's output is.
The camera sees part of what the eye can see in terms of field of view. The part of field the camera can record is a 2D partial part of field the eye sees. I didn't say the opposite here. I said "at least as close as possible".
Though the 2D the camera sees should match the 2D the eyes see when excluding the "z" dimension.
In other words "Height" and "Width" that both human eyes and camera see, should come to a match or to the closest possible approximation of what the eyes can see in 2D.
In camera reviews this is examined in a camera for accuracy by the "barrel distortion" test at wide angle and the "pincusion" test at telephoto.
Secondly, the camera is a tool. If anything has a role to play, it's the person using it and it's fundamentally what they see (and how they wish for it to be seen) which determines the outcome. The camera itself is not responsible.
The camera of course is a tool. Though is a tool to capture and reflect reality as close as possible and based on that aspect cameras are designed. Cameras are not designed based on the principle how each of us want things to appear in terms of geometry and personal preference. The human interference gives an extra opportunity to overcome camera misinterpretations due to environmental lighting by refining other parameters such as metering, noise reduction, contrast, e.t.c, but all these are related to picture refinement and not to alteration of geometry of an object(s), or scene.
There is no camera so far that I know of that lets the user adjust the shape geometry of an object or scene.
Thirdly, if photography is all about WYSIWYG, then I'm finished; here and now
Photography is about WYSIWYG and that is what all of us try to do. All of us buy cameras according to which camera we think reflects the output as close as the original theme. All of us try to capture a given theme/moment and all of us judge the output in comparison of what the natural environment/scene/theme looked like when we clicked the shutter. That is why all of us comment and critique on photos (highlights, noise, contrast, e.t.c. If it was otherwise nobody would bother to critique and offer suggestions on photos and there wouldn't be any reason to do so anyway if the output of the camera is a personal wish of how someone wants his photos to look like, rather than how close to the reality the output of a camera is.
When you photograph the models for their portfolios why bother to use a studio with special lighting, caring for natural skintones, e.t.c? Why bother to capture the model under the exact lighting conditions you have created?. I see exactly the opposite of what you claimed earlier Tim. With your photos generally and especially with the model ones, you show exactly that "WYSIWYG" really matters to you Tim and actually it is the way to be.
For example, based on what criteria you bought one from the most expensive DSLRs? Based on how accurate records reality or based on how good you can achieve natural environment alterations and distortions? In which review your camera (and any other camera) was judged as how good it alters and distorts nature and not in how good it records and represents reality?
Finally, do you see in black and white George, because I don't
Nobody sees in black and white, the camera does only. But even the camera does so, it is a sophisticated electronic device that tries to imitate human eye and what that eye sees. In doing so the cameras have done a great progress so far in representing a 3D human eye view into a 2D plane monitor or printout and applying colors to the B&W way they see, in order to approximate and match as accurate as possible the colored theme or scene. Also progress in camera design technology is always based on the output in comparison with the actual as seen with eyes.
They can be done in-camera, too. Freedom of expression and creativity in your photography is not and need not be limited to post-processing. Unless you can give me a good reason why it should, of course
Freedom and expression in photography resides to certain borders. Photography is not an abstract art, it is not drawing or painting where someone can alter reality according to what is in his mind.
Photography leaves plenty of room for expression and creativity in terms of ways of capturing a natural theme and not in terms of taking a natural theme and distorting its geometrical form. So someone might like to transform his/her photos in monotones or duotones or applying other effects (skin tones, fog, e.t.c) but he/she cannot (it is not realistic to be precise) change a human face into e.g a square or triangle face, or show a standing human inclined, because it distorts a natural theme and its form as that exists in nature.
A good example of that is the face portraits that from close distance you need to zoom, otherwise the face shape geometry appears distorted. Someone might like it to see it distorted in a photo, but in real life it is not like that and such geometrical distortion/alteration does not reflect reality.
So photography like every other aspect in life have some limits. While it leaves space for freedom, creativity, expression and alteration (e.g different angles of capturing, portrait/landscape framing, highlights and hues adjustments) does not forgive nature distortion in terms of color and geometry.
But anyway, here I was talking about geometrical distortion and generally altering or distorting real natural shapes and of how the camera recorded the scene in comparison of what the human eye sees. I was not talking about not adjusting basic image parameters such as contrast, saturation, e.t.c
We are only exchanging opinions
Known thing between me and Tim
It was just delayed this time a little
The most charming is that nobody knows in what thread and under which conditions it will happen!
Of course it is about WYSIWYG.
This is on what camera reviews are based, of how close to reality each camera's output is.
No George, it isn't about WYSIWYG, which is precisely why Ian's original image above (and nearly all images taken using wide-angle lenses and also long telephotos, where the persective is compressed) looked the way it did.
What you failed to say in your previous post was that cameras are fundamentally about recording a scene which is approximately that seen by the human eye, BUT that many cameras and lenses give you the means to deliberately distort what the human eye saw in order to create an alternative illusion. The only people who truly make accurate representations of a given scene are those using specialist (adjustable focal plane) equipment for architectural photography and of course T/S lenses on SLRs. Everyone else (and I mean everyone...) is getting a distorted, flattened, narrow version of what they could see with their own eyes.
For example, I regularly shoot interior design projects for architects and designers and one of the things I do is to create the impression of size and space when in fact the room or space might be quite small and somewhat confined - it's a realistic looking image, but in no way does it reflect reality. Ian's lens deliberately distorted the image of the Millenium Bridge and made St.Pauls appear way further away than it actually is from that point, thus producing an image with way more drama and visual interest than the corrected version, which looked dull and "safe" in comparision.
The camera sees part of what the eye can see in terms of field of view. The part of field the camera can record is a 2D partial part of field the eye sees. I didn't say the opposite here. I said "at least as close as possible".
Though the 2D the camera sees should match the 2D the eyes see when excluding the "z" dimension.
In other words "Height" and "Width" that both human eyes and camera see, should come to a match or to the closest possible approximation of what the eyes can see in 2D.
In camera reviews this is examined in a camera for accuracy by the "barrel distortion" test at wide angle and the "pincusion" test at telephoto.
Er, I know all this George. It doesn't however change what I was saying
There is no camera so far that I know of that lets the user adjust the shape geometry of an object or scene.
And if you don't know of it, it doesn't exist.......is that right? C'mon George....
A wide-angle lens does precisely that. Move it higher when shooting buildings and the distortion is reduced, thus affecting the geometry. Move it sideways and the same happens to varying extremes. Move closer and further away and again, you have a range of distortions relative to reality.
A long telephoto also changes geometry, although it does so via compression of the depth of a given scene, unlike a wide-angle lens.
Fisheye lenses? Do they not distort the scene at the time the shot is taken? Is the distortion not adjustable by moving the camera, thus giving the user a range of exagerrated perspectives from which to choose?
A tilt/shift lens literally alters the geometry of a scene, although it's designed to allow one to create a more visually accurate representation of that scene.
In all the above cases we're talking about lenses (afundamental component of ANY camera...) which routinely do precisely what you said couldn't be achieved. And that's before I even mention the specialist cameras whose very focal plane can be adjusted to alter geometry and perspective........
When you photograph the models for their portfolios why bother to use a studio with special lighting, caring for natural skintones, e.t.c? Why bother to capture the model under the exact lighting conditions you have created?. I see exactly the opposite of what you claimed earlier Tim. With your photos generally and especially with the model ones, you show exactly that "WYSIWYG" really matters to you Tim and actually it is the way to be.
What I do in the studio with my models has absolutely nothing to do with my comments in the previous post, nor does it have any bearing on this discussion. That said, the fact that you perceive that WYSIWYG is something that matters to me is interesting in itself. Some other time maybe...
For example, based on what criteria you bought one from the most expensive DSLRs? Based on how accurate records reality or based on how good you can achieve natural environment alterations and distortions? In which review your camera (and any other camera) was judged as how good it alters and distorts nature and not in how good it records and represents reality?
Nobody buys a camera for it's ability to distort George, but then nobody buys a regular camera in the belief that it won't distort reality to some extent or another! However I'm sure that if you told a forum full of photographers that "Photography and the role of a camera is about WYSIWYG, or at least as close as possible..." you'd find many of them telling you (in varying degrees of politeness) that the role of the camera is whatever they want it to be, not what you deem it to be.........which was my point from the outset.
Freedom and expression in photography resides to certain borders. Photography is not an abstract art, it is not drawing or painting where someone can alter reality according to what is in his mind.
Photography leaves plenty of room for expression and creativity in terms of ways of capturing a natural theme and not in terms of taking a natural theme and distorting its geometrical form
This is patently your personal opinion and nothing more. We're touching on a previous thread now and in the knowledge that (a) we'll never agree on this and (b) that you'll spend all day writing and editing your post (something I don't have the time or inclination to do...), I'm just going to say that I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree with every word of the above quote
I read the last two paragraphs regarding the differences between in-camera distortion and post-processing and considered responding in detail, but then I realised that I wasn't debating post-processing with you, so it's totally irrelevant and therefore not necessary for me to address those points.
Anyway, as far as Ian's photos are concerned, you are of course perfectly entitled to prefer whichever one you want - it's entirely subjective, after all. However, I object to the occasional (thankfully rare) sweeping statements I see here which - despite their obvious ambiguity and / or inaccuracy - seem to be posted as if they're immutable facts. There's a difference between the "I believe........but I respect that others may disagree" approach and the dogmatic "This is how it is.............because I said so" and no amount of posting paragraph after paragraph of justifications will change that. At least, not for me anyway
I have nothing more to say on this matter, so please accept my withdrawal from this discussion
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalise advertising, and to analyse site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment