At 03:12 9/26/00 , Ray Moth wrote:
>Gregg wrote:
>(snip) For an example of a distorted animal shot, here is a
>friends dog shot with the 24/2.8
>http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=80379&a=586164&p=15763910
>=======================================================================
>Good one, Gregg! Incidentally, AFAIK what we call 'distortion' is
>simply a matter of the distance from which we view photos. If you hold
>a photo taken with a WA lens close enough to your eye, it will not
>appear distorted any more because you then have the same 'perspective'
>as the lens. Likewise, a picture taken with a long focus lens will look
>more natural if viewed from a greater distance. I find the latter
>easier to understand, because all the long lens has done is to magnify
>what was seen in the distance, such as vehicles or light poles that
>appear very close together, owing to the compression of distance at
>long range. If anyone thinks I've got it cock-eyed, please say so.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>=====
>Ray
Nope, I'll agree, having done the close to the eye stunt with some WA shots.
Not only that, but cockeyed building-falling-backward shots (film plane
non-parallel to vertical) start to look natural with a big enough print and
viewing them with something close to the perspective of how it was shot.
What appears distorted only appears distorted because we don't always view
the print like we did the original scene. If you haven't tried it some
time, it's interesting and fun. Just make sure you're alone and don't let
anyone see you doing it. They'll think you're wacko.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|