On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 23:30:12 GMT, "Jim Williams" wrote:

>>The real answer though is that a picture is a 2D rendering of a 3D
>>scene, and hence is never an exact replica. Rather, it is a projection
>>of the 3D scene to 2D, and makes various other compromises or choices
>>like what will be in sharp focus etc. One of the things that makes a
>>picture of a building successful is the viewer not feeling like the
>building
>>is leaning over. Unfortunately, that is the feeling they get when the
>>projection of a building to 2D has converging lines. Fixing converging
>>verticals is about more than convention-- it is about the psychology of
>>perception and the reponse people have to the images.

>Okay, I can buy that explanation... but I still don't LIKE it! To me,
>architectural photos with fully "corrected" perspective look more unnatural
>than not -- they make *everything* look like that weird-looking building
>that Phillip K. Johnson did for AT&T, the one that's wider at the top than
>at the bottom. Maybe I've got an abnormal psychology of perception!

Actually, carefully-made architectural photos that are taken from
a viewpoint that is not centered on the field of view DO slightly
under-"correct" the convergence of vertical lines... Otherwise the
photographs do look wrong. BTW, the Greek architects had an
interesting awareness of both vision and perspective, and introduced
both vertical convergence of vertical lines (to make you think the
building was taller) and curvature of horizontal lines (there's that
fisheye perspective, that we moderns don't think we see in...! ;-)
to make you think, again, that you were either closer to the
building than you were, or that it was larger than it was. (BTW,
I think your psycology of perception is quite normal... ;-)