In an important sense, all photography is compatible with linear perspective. Most lenses aim to closely emulate rectilinear perspective, and those that don't a

In an important sense, all photography is compatible with linear perspective. Most lenses aim to closely emulate rectilinear perspective, and those that don't are still constrained by the location of the lens in space. A pinhole camera can see certain points in any scene, and not others. These points are the same points as a traditional linear perspective rendering with the same viewpoint would represent. Now, lenses do sometimes distort things, but they can't see areas of the scene that are occluded: light travels in straight lines. IMO there is something really straightforward about this situation. Any image is constrained by the lines of sight from the viewpoint, and linear perspective is just a projection in which to display this data, which is (to a very close approximation) the same, however you capture the image. So linear perspective, from this point of view, has little or nothing to do with lens-based media. It's a total commonplace of image formation and it doesn't have any consequences for how you use the camera to portray depth. Those decisions are unrelated to perspective. The fact that the lens can only see non-occluded points in the scene is the determining factor. The article is about more creative problems that arise when an artist interprets a scene, unconstrained by geometry in a way cameras never are. "This paper points out that artists almost never use “correct” linear perspective"