Something to ponder!

Well, I think I'll take my punishment. Wash my keyboard out with soap and finally admit, I may have been wrong.

Regards, Horst

Punishment rescinded! Those who are prepared to admit they got it wrong and move on are exempt (that includes me, phew!)

I think it's time somebody put this topic into perspective

Thanks John, good demonstration of a picture being worth a 1000 words.

And what about mine? Taken exclusively for this thread!

Trying to curry favour with teacher, eh? Or is it because mine didn't have a lady

I realise this is slightly off the point you are making, but using f32 has caused you to lose sharpness because somewhere from about f11-ish and smaller, something called diffraction comes into play and the sharpness loss loses any benefit of increased DOF
Andy

Looking forward to Algi's rebuttal!

That's a nice magicians trick Tony You've magnified
one of them The one John posted has also been magnified
John's also has very little info in the 3rd dimension, (no depth)
which makes it hard to tell what lens it was taken with.

I could use the same trick to prove that a 1 foot and a 2 foot
length of wood are the same size by taking 2 photos and doubling the
size of the 1 foot piece of wood to match the 2 foot one on the
screen.

Back in the film days it was quite common for students to be
asked what FL's had been used to take pictures and it was the
24/28mm lenses that made Sunday Colour Supplements very popular.

Try taking a set of pano photos with alternating WA and Tele
shots then combine them without altering the magnification
and see what you get.

Would you say the perspective of these two lenses was the same...
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3386079
Note the angles of the rails.

Why is it that when you use a WA lens to photograph a building
you have to be EXTRA CAREFUL to have it vertical or it will
have badly converging verticals whilst you don't have to be
as fussy with a standard lens and even less with a tele?
Obviously the perspectives aren't the same.

I did mention in other posts that probably due to digital
displays photographers have mostly lost their seeing eye
for things like perspective. Painters on the other hand
have highly trained eyes and have developed techniques
such as foreshortening. I would say the figure at the
start of this tutorial looks like a WA shot, but if all
lenses produce the same perspective it could be a 500mm
Tele

No doubt you will all be happy when sensors become so good
that you will only need 1 lens say a 15mm and just crop
every shot to match Normal and Tele lenses

--

Algi, I haven't done anything apart from scan Pentax's images from "The Eyes" - give it up please.

Of course they're not if you take the picture from a different distance, as you do - you're usually much closer with the WA.

There really are none so blind as those that will not see.

I agree John although I am surprised that considering
you once used film you seem to have forgotten that to appreciate
perspective such as a life size 135mm portrait you have to stand at
the same distance that it was taken from or it will look flat.
If you enlarge twice as big you have to stand 2x the distance.

To appreciate a WA shot you should position your eye closer
to the print to see a more normal perspective.

For the same reason you can't compare side by side two shots
taken with different focal lengths, because they require
different viewing distances.

Roughly speaking if you view a WA shot close up and a Tele
shot from a distance they should look the same. That's also
how panorama stitching works.

There is no way a distorted WA shot can be produced by a Tele lens

It's pointless discussing perspective in the digital world
when people (unfortunately) only see 2D.

So less of this talk about photography and lets all get back to
buying equipment and blaming Ricoh

--

Algi, your increasingly desperate statements defending your demonstrably incorrect position are very entertaining - thanks!

Think you missed your true calling as a theologian

'You should position your eye closer when viewing WA shots'

No.... sorry, no - I mean, who does that?!

I'm rapidly losing the will to live Algi. Please just realise you are mistaken

If I'm wrong all the old Photo magazines are wrong as well

It was always advised, particularly with 135mm portraits to
look at them from a considerable distance a hand held 10x8
looked horrible if you didn't on the other hand a postcard
size print looked great handheld. This is why an 85mm lens
was preferred for portraits 10x8's handheld looked better
than 135mm's

Probably someone on a Leica forum could explain better.

--

Presumably the little placards under the pictures here contain instructions as to where to stand when viewing the picture....

If I didn't know better, Algi, I'd assume you're confusing the topic with a side-issue to distract from the fact that you're mistaken