# Perspective Distortion and How to Use it



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2014)

Perspective distortion can be one of the hardest concepts to understand but the simplest way to understand it is to think of it in terms of the foreground vs. background. If you use a 14mm lens to shoot a portrait of someone 4 feet from you with mountains a mile away in the background, the mountains will appear 10 miles away and very small in the background. Switch to a 50mm and move back to keep the person the same size in the frame and the mountains will appear closer and larger. Switch to a 200mm lens and move further back (again) from person to keep them the same size in the frame and the mountains will look huge and like they are right behind the person. Of course the depth of field gets shallower and by 200mm the mountains will be blurred unless you stop way down.

It's a particularly important concept to have in your pocket when you want to emphasize certain elements in a scene.

Here are some examples from a pretty dull commercial shoot I did last summer where I was trying to emphasize different details:

I started at 200mm in an attempt to make the sign which was relatively small and the gazebo which was about 75-100 feet away close in size (note how the trees fill the frame):






I moved a little closer and set my lens to 130mm to get a clean shot of the gazebo and more importantly, to compress the rows of roses that were smaller and more spread out than I had anticipated. The telephoto length makes these rows look much closer together and much closer to the gazebo than they really are, but they look further apart than they did at 200mm (note how the trees look a bit smaller and further away):





I switched lenses and shot this one at 22mm. I got very close the roses to emphasize the foreground, and even though they are just about 6 feet from the gazebo it looks far away (note how the trees look much smaller and much further away):





Finally, I moved back and shot this at 24mm to get the whole view, and similar to the previous shot, the rows are now showing the wide angle perspective distortion - they look much further apart than the really are:





A final example of how to use this creatively is this shot. My client really wanted both the roses and the gazebo in the shot, but I couldn't find any nice red roses near the gazebo. I found a fence covered in roses, but it was too far from the gazebo for wide angle shots. So I threw on my 70-200 and shot this at 70mm, stopped down to f/22. I ended up focus stacking the final shot, but wanted to show what can be done in camera to get the roses and the gazebo in the frame in the right proportions by using perspective:


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 20, 2014)

very nicely done....


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> very nicely done....


Thanks, Don. I thought I'd go beyond the normal samples to show how this technique is used in real-world shooting. It's particularly useful in shots like this when the client gives you extremely vague guidance like, "Shoot the Rose Garden and be sure to get shots of the roses and the gazebo." In cases like that, you want to give the client as many shots a possible. Personally, I liked this shot which I thought covered the feel of the place the best:





...And which shot did they choose??? The one I shot just for fun since I was there:





Typical commercial client ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 20, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I thought I'd go beyond the normal samples to show how this technique is used in real-world shooting. It's particularly useful in shots like this when the client gives you extremely vague guidance like, "Shoot the Rose Garden and be sure to get shots of the roses and the gazebo." In cases like that, you want to give the client as many shots a possible. Personally, I liked this shot which I thought covered the feel of the place the best:
> 
> ...And which shot did they choose??? The one I shot just for fun since I was there:


I would have gone with the first shot.... It shows the uniqeness of the area, where the first shot, very nice btw, is just a standard rose shot and could be from anywhere.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I thought I'd go beyond the normal samples to show how this technique is used in real-world shooting. It's particularly useful in shots like this when the client gives you extremely vague guidance like, "Shoot the Rose Garden and be sure to get shots of the roses and the gazebo." In cases like that, you want to give the client as many shots a possible. Personally, I liked this shot which I thought covered the feel of the place the best:
> ...


That was my thought, too, though I have to admit that when printed on a 40"x60" stretched canvas, the rose did look really nice on the light yellow wall in their lobby alongside some of my other shots that were a bit more unique.


----------



## thebowtie (Feb 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


Hi macguyver,
Thanks for giving a well-illustrated tutorial on perspective.
I think your last comments - indicating what the client wanted to use the photo for, and where - was also instructive - and maybe that (with the benefit of hindsight) could have driven the creative process more.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 21, 2014)

thebowtie said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Thank you for the nice comments and that's very true, but I didn't realize they were going to hang them in their lobbies at the time. The overall campaign started six months earlier was to capture unique photos of local landmarks, sights, and architecture. It was originally for brochures and fliers but they ended up using them for magazine ads, billboards, and to decorate their lobbies.


----------



## lion rock (Feb 21, 2014)

macguyver,
This is something I have been doing, having a person standing close to the camera and an interesting background that I want to be included. The subject is strong in the foreground and the background seems far away, yet it feels to be part of the picture.
Never thought that it is a matter of "Perspective Distortion", and you have written the whole description elegantly with examples. Thank you very much.
Funny how we look at a job. We have an impression of what wanted, but having seen something that came along unintended, we look at it with fresh view and then like it. The rose is such an unintended result. And it is BEAUTIFUL. I would lift it, if I was unscrupulous. Once upon a time, I saw a poster of a strawberry in a furniture store and it was such an impression on me that I like to shoot that way with some subjects.
Beautiful pictures, mackguyver!
-r


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 21, 2014)

Thanks a ton--awesome to see this with real world examples. I've done similar things to try and teach the concept, but mine was so much more clinical and boring. 

I'm going to bookmark this thread so I can refer people here instead of trying to explain it myself. 8)


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 21, 2014)

lion rock and thepancakeman, thank you both your nice comments about this post and my work. I'm happy to hear that you found the information helpful.

lion rock, I laugh every time my clients pick out photos because they never go for the creative, original work, they always pick the images that I take "because I'm there already". The rose did come out well and I appreciate your comments about it, but I laugh when I see it and the other photos my clients pick. Someday, I'll probably put together a book of all these photos called "What They Picked" and it will probably fly off the shelves


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 21, 2014)

Very nice, thanks for sharing.

Years ago, Joni Mitchell released a pair of compilation albums simultaneously, titled "Hits" and "Misses," respectively. As the story goes, the songs were all favorites of hers, but the "Hits" were commercial successes, and the "Misses" were not.

Along those lines, maybe your proposed book could be titled "What I Liked / What They Picked."

(No need to thank me now; I'll wait patiently for my royalty checks ...)


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 21, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> Very nice, thanks for sharing.
> 
> Years ago, Joni Mitchell released a pair of compilation album simultaneously, titled "Hits" and "Misses," respectively. As the story goes, they were all favorites of hers, but the "Hits" were commercial successes, and the "Misses" were not.
> 
> ...


Too funny - I like it a lot!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 22, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> A final example of how to use this creatively is this shot. My client really wanted both the roses and the gazebo in the shot, but I couldn't find any nice red roses near the gazebo. I found a fence covered in roses, but it was too far from the gazebo for wide angle shots. So I threw on my 70-200 and shot this at 70mm, stopped down to f/22. I ended up focus stacking the final shot, but wanted to show what can be done in camera to get the roses and the gazebo in the frame in the right proportions by using perspective:



I was wondering, if you had used the TS-E, would you be able to focus sharply on both the gazebo and the roses? (BTW, just inquiring about capabilities of TS-Es here, not attempting to suggest what could be done). Nicely written, thanks!


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 23, 2014)

Perspective is what took me some time to comprehend when I started. Now, Its second nature and it's a key tool for any serious photog to understand.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > A final example of how to use this creatively is this shot. My client really wanted both the roses and the gazebo in the shot, but I couldn't find any nice red roses near the gazebo. I found a fence covered in roses, but it was too far from the gazebo for wide angle shots. So I threw on my 70-200 and shot this at 70mm, stopped down to f/22. I ended up focus stacking the final shot, but wanted to show what can be done in camera to get the roses and the gazebo in the frame in the right proportions by using perspective:
> ...



No, I think you will find mackguyver used the 70-200 at 70 @ f22, no TS-E here. Having said that, he could have gotten the same shot using the 24TS-E from the same place and a 2X TC (or not) and a couple of degrees of forwards tilt at f8 and not had to stack, but he would have needed to crop. The ability to crop really depends on the required output and is a vastly overlooked aspect of perspective and lens use.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



That answered my question, thanks. 
I did notice that he used the 70-200 and focus-stacked, which is why I asked if he could have used the TS-E instead.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2014)

It is important to remember that the dof doesn't increase with the use of tilt, it just changes the plane of focus from perpendicular to the sensir to an angle to it, this changes the area of dof from a "box" bounded by the planes of acceptable focus that are all perpendicular, to two planes shaped like a wedge, this means you can end up with less dof close to the camera.

The photos down the page here ( http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/using_tilt.html ) really demonstrate the wedge of dof and how narrow it is close to the camera. Having said that, with careful use it is perfectly possible to get the plane of focus to almost any plane in the image, so a lake could be tack sharp all the way from the camera to infinity even wide open.

Obviously for the posted image you would need to be far enough away from the roses to get the full stem height within the wedge, otherwise the top, or the bottom, would be out of focus.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 23, 2014)

Thank you mackguyver, I learned a lot. More of this please. Veey informative.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> It is important to remember that the dof doesn't increase with the use of tilt, it just changes the plane of focus from perpendicular to the sensir to an angle to it, this changes the area of dof from a "box" bounded by the planes of acceptable focus that are all perpendicular, to two planes shaped like a wedge, this means you can end up with less dof close to the camera.
> 
> The photos down the page here ( http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/using_tilt.html ) really demonstrate the wedge of dof and how narrow it is close to the camera. Having said that, with careful use it is perfectly possible to get the plane of focus to almost any plane in the image, so a lake could be tack sharp all the way from the camera to infinity even wide open.
> 
> Obviously for the posted image you would need to be far enough away from the roses to get the full stem height within the wedge, otherwise the top, or the bottom, would be out of focus.



Thanks, that is very informative.
I have also benefited from the Gregory Heisler's explanation of the Rudy Giuliani photo and why he uses view cameras. Helped me understand tilt.


----------



## Roo (Feb 23, 2014)

Thanks Mack! Great info


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2014)

Guys - thanks again for the nice comments and I'm happy this was helpful. As for the tilt shift / focus-stacking question:

I focus stacked - will have to find the final shot - it's buried somewhere on my other server - but I will note that 70-200 f/2.8 IS II really sucks for focus stacking. The reason is because it focus breathes like crazy when going from near minimum focus distance to near infinity. 

For this shot, I suppose the TS-E 90mm might have worked well, but I don't know if I could have tilted enough to get everything in focus. I don't have any experience with this lens, but given my use of the TS-E 24 II, I think the elements would have been too far apart to solve the focus using tilt alone, but I'm not sure.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 23, 2014)

There's a new post on Canon's DLC about this, at least for portraits:
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2014/20140603_stoner_lens_blog.shtml


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 26, 2014)

And another nice article - this one for landscaper shooters:
Beyond Simply Zooming: A True Pro Secret


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 13, 2015)

Just a footnote to this post - I have added some samples of a stadium shot at 17, 24, and 34mm to show the huge differences in perspective between them. Note the size of the statue in relation to the stadium:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25112.0


----------



## monkey44 (Feb 16, 2015)

I've always called that "compression" as opposed to "perspective" ... and have been using telephoto lenses in landscape shots for years for a unique take on scenes with flowers, trees, bushes, rocks, etc on trail shots ...

I've always liked the technique -- and never thought of it as "a method" specifically, just as a technique to pull some great background into a scene, or push some great foreground into a scene -- makes the scene seem 'busy' which often changes the entire focus point of a wide shot made 'thinner' ... not sure I'm explaining it properly, but it's a great way to present distance a bit closer and more compact than will a wider angle lens.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 16, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> I've always called that "compression" as opposed to "perspective" ... and have been using telephoto lenses in landscape shots for years for a unique take on scenes with flowers, trees, bushes, rocks, etc on trail shots ...
> 
> I've always liked the technique -- and never thought of it as "a method" specifically, just as a technique to pull some great background into a scene, or push some great foreground into a scene -- makes the scene seem 'busy' which often changes the entire focus point of a wide shot made 'thinner' ... not sure I'm explaining it properly, but it's a great way to present distance a bit closer and more compact than will a wider angle lens.


monkey44, they are the same thing - but that only applies to telephoto, whereas the term perspective distortion applies to the optical effect of wide and telephoto focal lengths. It's something most people know about in theory, but most beginners don't understand how to use it. If you remember your early shooting days, you probably thought wide angle lenses were used _to get it all in_ and zoom or telephoto lenses were used _to get close_. I was writing for these beginners looking to go beyond those concepts of wide and long lenses


----------



## monkey44 (Feb 19, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > I've always called that "compression" as opposed to "perspective" ... and have been using telephoto lenses in landscape shots for years for a unique take on scenes with flowers, trees, bushes, rocks, etc on trail shots ...
> ...



Yes, I was agreeing in a round-about way, I think. 

Equipment use should never be "labeled' and 'compartmentalized' or confining in a way that minimizes the potential creativity of a camera or a lens, or even a photographer for that matter. Seeing beyond the labels will often provide amazing results if you can pull yourself out of that circle of a viewpoint. I can remember watching a completely different baseball game than the fans when looking at an entire game thru a telephoto lens ... all the little things most fans never see. Pretty interesting 'perspective' of a game. Hardly ever knew the score until the end.

"Getting it all in", yes, and missing the details -- but I find getting a piece of a scene is often more intriguing and interesting, and often more challenging as well. 

And, to those beginners you mention -- don't be afraid to expand your goals -- it will hurt nothing but your ego if you miss, and that's easily repaired when you capture that one great artistic shot everyone else missed.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 23, 2015)

The good news is that I understood this concept... the bad news is I still don't like using perspective in my own efforts... I may understand it... but I don't like it. :/


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 23, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> The good news is that I understood this concept... the bad news is I still don't like using perspective in my own efforts... I may understand it... but I don't like it. :/


You're funny - and I understand. I don't think about a lot when doing certain types of work, but for certain scenes (like the stadium example, it has a huge impact on the shot and what is and isn't emphasized.


----------



## DRR (Feb 23, 2015)

Nice post, thanks for putting it together. 

Reading through another photog's thought processes and why they made certain decisions on certain shots, and the benefits and tradeoffs that each shot entails, really helps me because it helps me cut down the amount of trial and error I have to do if I can mimic your thought process/decision making process.

Again, thanks, nicely put together.


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 28, 2015)

Hi Macguyver. 
Thank you for the explanation of this phenomenon, very informative, clearly and concisely written, easily understood. 
Also the secondary explanations of tilt shift are very informative. 
Thanks to all. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## sulla (Feb 28, 2015)

As for the use of the TS-E 90:

Yes, it is perfectly possible to tilt the plane of focus horizontally. For this you need to tilt a lot - which is possible - and to set the focus to near infinity- also possilbe. Then the folcal plane tilts to some 90°. But then it also moves down like 1,5m below the lens.

This is perfect if you shoot a path leading to the gazebo and you want the stones on the path and the gazebo in focus. Not so perfect if you want to have the roses level to the lens, as they will be quite a bit above the plane of focus then.

A difficult - if not impossible - shot for the TS-E 90...


----------

