5 ms·

The photos in that article are equally as bad as the effect being described, as not taken at the same time, with the same numbers of people in shot. So it is ha

The photos in that article are equally as bad as the effect being described, as not taken at the same time, with the same numbers of people in shot. So it is hard to compare and gives a biased view. Definitely valid points being made, but not having directly comparable photographs weakens the argument, to me. I'd rather see shots of the same crowds and locations for direct comparison, which would make the explanations more clear.

bena 6y ago
Thank you. It's especially egregious in the Showa Kinen Park photos. Unless lenses can make people disappear, there are people along the right side of the path in the first of those photos and none on the right side in the second. They really should have had a second photographer and then one takes a photo with the 28mm and one with the 300mm at the same time and in roughly the same place.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > none on the right side in the second Look again. They're not close to the camera, sure, but they're still there off in the distance. Kinda demonstrates the author's point, really.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    I don't think it does make the point, as they are depicting different crowds (or different parts of the same crowd) that differ objectively in their density. The claim, on the other hand (and which, in general, I agree with), is that you can manipulate the apparent density of the same crowd.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Indeed, and in addition, the convergence of lines seems to suggest that they are taken from different hights (the first from above adult head height, and the second from below it.) In the first case, this seems to fill the frame with people.
- Bluestrike2 6y ago
  The first was shot with a 400mm lens; looking at the second (the 28mm shot), you can see a grouping of people across the width of the path in the distance. It's possible that the shots were taken roughly at the same time and location, minutes a few seconds, depending on whether the photographer had to swap lenses. That said, it's not a very useful example when it comes to demonstrating the effect, and the framing with the rows of trees converging make it even worse. There's a link higher in the discussion[0] I think better demonstrates how differences in perspective and the distance between subject and background can distort how we perceive an image than photos taken in the same spot. There are two photos of the same socially-distanced line, one taken with a telephoto lens looking down the line and another that was taken with a wider lens from the side. The change in camera position makes the difference incredibly obvious, even more so than two photos shot from the same location. What's unfortunate is that the first photo in the link, with the people's faces laid out across the frame diagonally, is the more aesthetically pleasing photo and also the more likely one for a photojournalist to shoot. It showcases more of the people present, highlights the emotions at play amongst the people in line, places them in a vibrant and moving city context, and pulls the viewer's eye along a specific path. Ask a photojournalist, and it's basically the framing that comes to mind when they think "people standing in line on a sidewalk." And there's no question which of the two an editor would choose in pre-pandemic times. But given the social distancing taking place in the line, it's also significantly less faithful to the actual moment being captured. And that goes against everything an ethical photojournalist strives for. 0. https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2020-04-26-hvor-taet-er-folk-paa-hinanden-disse-billeder-er-taget-samtidig-men-viser-to https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2020-04-26-hvor-taet-er-folk-...
  - bena 6y ago
    Your link is much better at demonstrating what they want to in the top level link. Showa Kinen is clearly two different areas. Or if the telephoto lens is the area in the background, it's zoomed in to a degree that makes it not really the same area being pictured. Whereas in yours, they have easily identifiable people and landmarks so you can tell they're the same place and that not much has moved.
    - 6y ago
croes 6y ago
Better examples https://mobile.twitter.com/baekdal/status/1254460167812415489 https://mobile.twitter.com/baekdal/status/125446016781241548...
- ghaff 6y ago
  That is much better. The Japanese photos I think one could reasonably say "I don't care what lens they're using that's still a lot of people." Whereas those photos, there's a clearly well-spaced out line that the head-on telephoto shot makes look like a mob.

bena 6y ago

Thank you. It's especially egregious in the Showa Kinen Park photos. Unless lenses can make people disappear, there are people along the right side of the path in the first of those photos and none on the right side in the second. They really should have had a second photographer and then one takes a photo with the 28mm and one with the 300mm at the same time and in roughly the same place.

rootusrootus 6y ago
> none on the right side in the second Look again. They're not close to the camera, sure, but they're still there off in the distance. Kinda demonstrates the author's point, really.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  I don't think it does make the point, as they are depicting different crowds (or different parts of the same crowd) that differ objectively in their density. The claim, on the other hand (and which, in general, I agree with), is that you can manipulate the apparent density of the same crowd.
mannykannot 6y ago
Indeed, and in addition, the convergence of lines seems to suggest that they are taken from different hights (the first from above adult head height, and the second from below it.) In the first case, this seems to fill the frame with people.
Bluestrike2 6y ago
The first was shot with a 400mm lens; looking at the second (the 28mm shot), you can see a grouping of people across the width of the path in the distance. It's possible that the shots were taken roughly at the same time and location, minutes a few seconds, depending on whether the photographer had to swap lenses. That said, it's not a very useful example when it comes to demonstrating the effect, and the framing with the rows of trees converging make it even worse. There's a link higher in the discussion[0] I think better demonstrates how differences in perspective and the distance between subject and background can distort how we perceive an image than photos taken in the same spot. There are two photos of the same socially-distanced line, one taken with a telephoto lens looking down the line and another that was taken with a wider lens from the side. The change in camera position makes the difference incredibly obvious, even more so than two photos shot from the same location. What's unfortunate is that the first photo in the link, with the people's faces laid out across the frame diagonally, is the more aesthetically pleasing photo and also the more likely one for a photojournalist to shoot. It showcases more of the people present, highlights the emotions at play amongst the people in line, places them in a vibrant and moving city context, and pulls the viewer's eye along a specific path. Ask a photojournalist, and it's basically the framing that comes to mind when they think "people standing in line on a sidewalk." And there's no question which of the two an editor would choose in pre-pandemic times. But given the social distancing taking place in the line, it's also significantly less faithful to the actual moment being captured. And that goes against everything an ethical photojournalist strives for. 0. https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2020-04-26-hvor-taet-er-folk-paa-hinanden-disse-billeder-er-taget-samtidig-men-viser-to https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2020-04-26-hvor-taet-er-folk-...
- bena 6y ago
  Your link is much better at demonstrating what they want to in the top level link. Showa Kinen is clearly two different areas. Or if the telephoto lens is the area in the background, it's zoomed in to a degree that makes it not really the same area being pictured. Whereas in yours, they have easily identifiable people and landmarks so you can tell they're the same place and that not much has moved.
  - 6y ago

croes 6y ago

Better examples https://mobile.twitter.com/baekdal/status/1254460167812415489 https://mobile.twitter.com/baekdal/status/125446016781241548...

ghaff 6y ago
That is much better. The Japanese photos I think one could reasonably say "I don't care what lens they're using that's still a lot of people." Whereas those photos, there's a clearly well-spaced out line that the head-on telephoto shot makes look like a mob.