New victim of Mako2011

Apparently the DPR forum is not a place for discussions.

Fortunately not all DPR forums are moderated by the one mentioned here.

There are quite a few discussions going on on DPR's Nikon Z forum which is moderated by Mako2011 among others moderators. And not all participants are in agreement. But nobody is insulting each other nor calling names, discussions stay civil and on topic. And some even dare to say that Sony's AF is better in some respect. BTW, that forum is very active.

I am frankly astonished that my opening post is considered to be "combative" and encouraging a punch up. I would be genuinely interested in what others think (and why). My intention had been to try to avoid arguments about the science of "correct perspective" and to try to get a discussion going with photographers who understand "correct perspective" and use it. I had been hoping to avoid attacks from those who think that there is no such thing as correct perspective. Forlorn hope as it turned out!

Here is my OP in full to save you having to click the link:

Tom,

I understand that you intended to stimulate a reasoned and calm discussion -- indeed, your title could be answered by "yes" or "no"; but it seems that the very mention of the topic on DPR acts like a red rag to a bull, and giving a definition that some people, for some reason that I do not understand, consider inaccurate and controversial, plus the bit in bold type, just encouraged the opposition. As you admitted in your opening sentence, there are apparently more on that forum who disagree with you than are on your side. So your question is one that cannot expect a sensible answer there.

I am sorry that such things happen, but it seems to be par for the course on DPR, for which reason, while I read a few fora, I have not participated in any for nearly a year. Although I was a member there for over ten years, I never got to know any of the other members, which I found odd. Here things are the opposite, and we can give our opinions frankly without incurring rancour.

Best,

David

So you think that we should avoid discussing certain topics (based on sound science) in case they arouse the ire of pseudo-scientists who disagree?

No doubt you think the world should be taken over by pseudo-scientists and everyone who disagrees should be silenced.

George Orwell's predictions seem not far off.

Of course not!

David

This initial comment of yours suggests to me that you are glad that my thread on DPR was terminated and that you feel that the fault was largely mine rather than the other contributors.

Are you now saying that that is not the case?

DPR can be a cesspit. Certain subjects get cause argument and discord, as anybody who has used that site for a while can tell you. Or just post here where things a calmer and threads do nt get locked, or be prepared to have your thread blocked and maybe get a ban too.

I made a thread on the Open forum some time ago, about shooting with a shift lens. Nothing very special. A shit storm developed from those who insisted that the modern way is to do it in post, and I got a ban from you know who, for stating a contentious thread.

I hardly post on DPR anymore, I just got tired of the fact that anything sensible gets rubbished by the resident idiots.

The fact remains that DPR has a far larger active membership and there are many intelligent and knowledgeable people there as well as the idiots.

I try to live with the realities of that website. I do not wish to offend or antagonise anyone, but I am not willing to refrain from speaking the truth (as I see it) to achieve that. Some people are looking for excuses to be offended and that certainly does make life difficult!

However, I am not prepared to give up yet.

[deleted]

I do agree that the moderation on some forums is not as neutral as the moderators imagine but instead subconsciously tends to support and promote the moderators own personal viewpoint. Maybe because they think in far too absolute terms in that, "you know, the truth is obvious to all..." thinking their opinion is a global overview and not just a specific perspective based only on the information and experience that they have encountered.

And what generally happens here is that the forum becomes dominated by those of a common, defined viewpoint and the active membership reflects that smaller subset.

And I shall say it here, DPR is far from the centre of creative photography, and a long way from the font of photographic knowledge. It is mainly where people with a technical knowledge of cameras try to define photography by the metrics that they understand, the technical knowledge of cameras. Long, never ending discussions on the exact definition of exposure with the previso that "we must define a common language and understanding of the meaning of words." Which translates, not as you would think to "we can discuss with a common grounding," but rather "you must start with my exact definition, then I'll correct you."

It is not scientific discussion but some trying to impose their own nomenclature of how they rationalise their own thoughts within their own experience and knowledge. There is very little movement or progression of understanding that should follow with a discussion.

To be fair in the case of TomAxford's thread this wasn't a thread about, "lets discuss the general idea that there is a principal of correct perspective and how you achieve it (relative to centre of perspective)." Far from it, Tom did what he often does which is to try to force you to discuss through reference only to his specific viewpoint [1]. And as you can imagine trying to discuss the idea of a human viewing a photo "but only if you accept it as fact that correct perspective can only mean exactly the same perspective as was seen by the camera" is a little limiting on the discussion front.

This is a long way from a scientific or even balanced discussion, and as Tom is well aware a lot of forum members disagree with the basic proposition. But just as the discussion was generally trending towards acceptance of the general idea and resistance to being forced to accept the principal of "with exactly the same perspective" Tom came back on and again tried to force people to discuss only by first accepting, or not disputing, his specific viewpoint.

That he came back and again nearly demanded that can only respond if we agree, and was probably a little short in telling the rest to "put up and shut up" was probably the killer for the thread. But it was doomed from the opening post.

I think can be generally accepted is that this is not the way to conduct a rational or scientific discussion, and that the conclusions of the discussion may vary from fact. Regardless of your position o perspective.

[1]which is to paraphrase that how we perceive perspective in a image (human perception) can be described by the same mathematics used to define image formation by a lens. But even the definition Tom posted himself from The Manual Of Photography defines correct perspective as: when the print is viewed in such a way that the "apparent" relation between...

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.