Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 541805" data-attributes="member: 12496">No, let's not.  I doubt many of us actually take photos of graphics vanishing points.Let's discuss the first pictures you posted at top of this page, of the girl in front of the building.  Must have been some purpose for it too?The perspective there is the constant height of the girl, and the variable height of the building.   About how the building is made to look.400 mm lens FX, I'd guess camera was 100 feet from the girl.24 mm lens, camera maybe 6 feet from the girl.That is going to change perspective, don't you think?So of course you will see greatly different views in all those different locations there.  And whatever lens will capture each view, from wherever you were standing.And every distance was designed to keep the height of the girl constant.But if you stand in the same one place for every focal length, and then crop results as necessary to see the same view in all, then you will see the same perspective view in all, the same building and girl heights, in all of them, any and all focal lengths (because you are standing in the same place for all - perspective does not change with any lens).  Other than pixel count (which will suffer), their appearance will all be indistinguishable if you cropped well.    Perspective is NOT about the lens.  Agreed that procedure is probably not a useful goal, except that it strongly makes the obvious point that perspective is NOT about the lens.  It makes it dumb to argue that the lens causes perspective.  Obviously it does not.We could argue that the lens does make it desirable to stand in different places.  And I would agree, the pictures desperately need the 100 foot and the 6 foot distances.  But in the discussion about what causes perspective, perspective is only about where we choose to stand.  It is not about the lens.Perspective is the view you see when you stand in a certain spot.  Any  lens captures that view faithfully.  It can do nothing else.No, that assumption is bogus for purposes here.  Any perspective differences will strictly be due to where you choose to stand (to cause that constant subject size). It is NOT about the lens.  Where you choose to stand may be about the lens, but perspective is only about where you choose to stand.  Perspective is not about why you choose to stand there, but of course, we could choose where we stand for certain perspective goals.Stand at a different distance with the SAME lens, and you will get a different perspective. Or stand at the same place with a different lens, and you will get the same perspective.  It is about where you stand, not the lens. I would argue the lens is only chosen to frame the subject. I know your preferred assumption would argue the lens could be chosen to permit the distance that gives the perspective we want, but that is my argument too, perspective is only about where we stand.  <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />If you want to show evidence otherwise, the first step is to maintain a constant camera location, to rule out the effect of where you stand.  But of course, you cannot, because where you stand is the only factor affecting perspective.  We see the view that we see when we stand there.</blockquote>

Verification