On 22 Jan 2003 00:26:46 GMT, contaxman@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: "learning" wide angle lenses? - L - "Perception Vs. Perspective"

>>From: d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)

>>Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2003 8:35 PM

>>Message-id: <3e2fac31.4555389@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>

>>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...]

>>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).

>I don't think narrowly or widely about one perspective being better than

>another, both are just choices to use to make the most effective photograph

>(which may or may not be the most accurate according to the way the yey sees or

>(spherical) or the way most cameras see (rectilinear)). I think my point is/was

>that we should be ware of the differences between the way our eyes and our

>minds and our cameras see - hence the reason for renaming the thread in the

>subject line.

>Regards,

>Lewis

Yes. There are two issues: how we see; and how we choose to

represent in images we make. As I pointed out above in this

thread, I think it is useful for people to have a good idea

of how they see things, since this can prevent

misunderstanding of some representation types. Obviously,

NO image matches the "eye's view" in ANY respect, and we are

also free to choose all aspects in our images (two different

things) - but, something as basic as not understanding a

very common mode of seeing, and therefore dismissing the

more like "eye vision" mode as "less realistic", "more

distorted" or somesuch is undesirable, and is akin to

people assuming that we only see in red (by convention in

our images, and by learning), and therefore images with many

colors in them are "distorted"...;-) (This may be strictly true,

perhaps, but it is "uninformed" - and I think it is desirable

to dispel ignorance, when possible...;-)