Originally posted by vonBaloney Hasn't everyone figured out by now you're talking about two totally different topics? One group is talking about "the 2-d representation on a flat surface of the 3-d world". The rest are talking about "where I am standing and the direction I am pointing the camera when I take a photo". Same word, two definitions. BOTH correct. I'm surprised no one has brought up psychological perspective (e.g. "my perspective on religion is blah blah blah") and tried to convince everyone else they are wrong about what they are calling "perspective".
+1
There are two concepts in play here, both fighting for ownership of the word
perspective.
The two concepts, hopefully described succinctly enough:
Concept 1) (Let's call this one "
Lines, Man!") An overall image can be said to have "lot's of perspective" if there are obvious radial lines, a great deal of convergence or divergence. If you crop that image, or use a different focal length, it will be said to have 'less perspective', because that divergence/convergence is less obvious in the crop than it is when you view the 'whole image'.
"Lot's of perspective", "Less Perspective":
Concept 2) (Let's call this one "
Sit Still!") The size relationships of various elements in an image that are different distances from the camera. If you move, the perceived 'distance' between these objects changes. If you crop, or use a different focal length, they do not. This is the concept most photographers are talking about when they talk about perspective, and can be shown with the
series of crops I posted earlier.
So... everybody good?
.