On 21 Jan 2003 10:17:03 GMT, contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:

[...]

>When you are viewing a scene your unaware of how your mind alters the total

>picture while it processes all these scans, so yes it does take some "training"

>to see photographically and see the difference between what we see/perceive w/

>our eyes and what we will record w/ a camera, but in actuality, a camera placed

>at the same exact spot as one of our eyes should, in effect, see the same

>arrangement of shapes/compostion/perspective relationships between foreground,

>middleground and background see the exact same image relationships as the eye

>does.

[...most snipped...]

[BTW, it would be nice to leave threads attached to the

original post...]

I guess I disagree with much of this post, though your

first line above may indicate why... For those who see

"narrowly", your explanation may make some sense - but

for those of us who see "widely", it is obvious that

the perspective type commonly thought of as "correct"

(rectangular perspective - in which all subject straight

lines are rendered straight in the image) is not as good

a representation of the way we see as the "wrong" one is

(spherical [or "fisheye"] perspective). See for more

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective and

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/perspective-correction.htm.

BTW, it is very easy to show in a couple of ways that

our eye-viewing perspective-type is not rectangular,

and that some of the effects you noted (verticals staying

parallel on tipped views of buildings, for instance)

are simply characteristics of spherical perspective...