New victim of Mako2011

I think I am just a beginner at trying to force the discussion in the direction I want. 😉

Tom,

I'll admit to not having heard or read the phrase, correct perspective, until I read your OP. I didn't see the post as combative. I can't recall ever seeing one of your posts as combative.

Even after reading your explanation and a few others on the Google machine, it was unclear to me what a correct perspective is so, I stayed out of the discussion.

Why are there so many weird people on the internet?
A rhetorical question… LMAO

Thanks Bill, I appreciate that.

Is the explanation in the first post of this thread any help?

It's strange, "correct" perspective is something that was widely taught to photographers 50 and 100 years ago, but it seems to have dropped out of modern books and courses on photography.

Another way to visualise it is to take a photo of a scene that you frequently see, then make a print from the photo (say 8" x 6" or thereabouts). Go to the place from which you took the photo and hold the print up in front of you. Find the distance at which you need to hold the print so that everything in it looks exactly the same angular size as in the real scene behind the print. That is correct perspective. It's best to view it with one eye closed.

If you hold it too close, everything in the print looks larger than in the real scene beyond, if you hold it too far away everything looks smaller. The distance at which you need to view the print to see correct perspective depends on the focal length of the lens when you took the photograph.

There is a difference between guiding a discussion and trying to force people to agree with your viewpoint.

Why didn't you just use the definition of correct perspective exactly as written in The Manual of Photography instead of your definition of it? It's a shame because the premise of a discussion on correct perspective was what I find really interesting and lacking on DPR for quite a while. Use a third party definition in the OP and discuss your own interpretation as the discussion unfolds. You would have a topic of discussion and not a what was frankly a rather dogmatic interpretation.

This is what I mean, invented fact. It is notoriously difficult to do this, hold a photo up against a landscape and find the camera position. What you present as fact is almost the opposite of what observational data suggests. And shutting one eye doesn't make human perception behave the same way as a camera.

And you label my view a pseudo science.

Set the topic and allow the discussion, don't try to nail the conclusion in the OP!

It really is a shame because it's a very interesting topic, but may also be subject to the moderation of the DPR (not so) Open Forum all the same... :-)

Please read what I said.. You are the one inventing things! I did not say "hold up a photo and find the camera position". That is hard to do.

What I said was "go to the place from which you took the photo" and "find the distance at which you need to hold the print..." That means find the distance from your eye at which you need to hold the print. You are already at the camera position. It is easy to find the distance at which you need to hold the print for the angular size of objects in the print to match the angular size of objects in the real scene. It is easy to do.

To tell you the truth: Reading discussions like this, doesn't encourage me to think about, or look up any of the things discussed, but rather drop out, feeling like I can learn things better elsewhere or convince myself that it just isn't really important, given the way conversation around it evolves. Whether it's in a well-populated heavily-moderated environment or an overwhelmingly empty un-moderated environment, doesn't really make a difference in that case (even though I'd clearly prefer the second one in general), I'm losing interest by the second...

Tom, it's very easy to confirm your own point of view when you start by knowing the answer. If what you say is true that there is an exact and correct perspective then it should also be possible to do this in reverse.

I see images of Scotland all the time and recognise where they are taken, but they are never the same as I remember and I can never really find any viewpoint that really corresponds. As I said, it's a very interesting subject.

You really must revisit your base assumption that the image projected on the back of your retina is exactly the same as what you see, and therefore the same rules of geometry apply. For a start the image is the correct way up, and the right way round, it's modified without any shadow of doubt.

Which is the problems with some forums, you simply don't seem to be able to have discussions that progress. It just seems like a bunch of people trying to reinforce their own narrative, fit it within the framework they already understand. In this sense you not learning anything new, just translating it into what you already know.

I've lost interest. :-(

How many photographers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed.

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently.

7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

17 purists who use candles and are offended by light bulb discussions.

6 to argue over whether it’s ‘lightbulb’ or ‘light bulb’.

Another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid.

22 to tell THOSE 6 to stop being jerks.

2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is ‘lamp’.

15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that ‘light bulb’ is perfectly correct.

49 to post memes and gifs (several are of Michael Jackson eating popcorn with the words added, “I’m just here for the comments.”)

19 to post that this page is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a light bulb page.

11 to defend the posting to this page saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant here.

24 to discuss the merits of LED/swirly fluorescent light bulbs

44 to claim LED and fluorescent bulbs will kill you.

12 to post F.

8 to ask what F means.

7 to post ‘Following’ but there’s 3 dots at the top right that means you don’t have to.

3 to say “can’t share”

2 to reply “can’t share from a closed group”

36 People to post pics of their own light bulbs.

15 People to post “I can’t see S$%^!” and use their own light bulbs.

6 to report the post or PM an admin because someone said “f÷×$”

4 to say “Didn’t we go through this already a short time ago?”.

13 to say “Do a search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs”.

1 to bring politics into the discussion by adding that (insert politician of choice) isn’t the brightest bulb. This usually takes place within the first three comments.

50 more to get into personal attacks over their political views.

5 admins to ban the light bulb posters who took it all too seriously.

1 late arrival to comment on the original post 6 months later and start it all over again

I have started a new thread for the benefit of anyone who wants to continue the discussion about "correct perspective".

If you have any further comments on this topic, please post them there.