There is a common misconception that the reason why we often use a photo as a reference is because we don’t know where to look. Photography is a visual medium that is used for a wide range of purposes, regardless of what we think our needs are.
It’s true that we dont look at all of the photos we see because we rarely see the same photo twice. For instance, we rarely see people with the exact same clothes or hairstyles again and again in a single photo. But we often see a photo that has been cropped to make it seem more in-focus, or even with shorter focal length.
The reason we see some photos in our head is because we are able to put together a composite of images from different viewpoints. That’s why we can often see the same person on a train a dozen times. But if we are limited to one direction, we can only see the same thing a very limited number of times. That’s why we often see the same thing in a photo taken from a completely different angle.
The problem with photos from different viewpoints is that they are often not always in focus. There are two types of photos that can appear blurry: Those with shallow depth of field that often appear blurred because they are not in focus; and those that appear to have been manipulated to appear in focus.
This is where the “shortened photography” effect comes into play. Most people often look at photos from different angles, and they don’t do it to see how blurry they are. They do it so they can see how they look when taken from the same angle.
The effect is a matter of perspective, but the shortening of the image is due to the lens. When the lens is not in focus, as in the case of the camera, it is hard to get a shallow depth of field effect. The effect becomes much more pronounced at the focus distance of the lens. This has caused much debate about what exactly is the depth of field and how it relates to the photo.
It has been speculated that, when the camera is pointed directly at the subject, the image is not the same depth of field as if the camera is placed a fraction of a second later. This is the case for a wide-angle lens whose focal length is less than a fraction of one millimeter.
The photo below shows a slightly exaggerated depth of field and thus more subject blur. The depth of field for this image is 1/4. As you can see, the subject blur is still visible but much more pronounced.
To be honest, I’d have to say I was a little bit disappointed in the end. Although I was impressed that the camera was able to get the depth of field to where it was and that it was able to get the focus right on the subject, I was also a little disappointed that it was not able to keep up with the subject.
If you’re going to do something like this at least make sure that the lens is actually right on the subject. Otherwise there is always the idea that you can get “foreshortening” and it will look great even though it is wrong. So while I was impressed that the lens was able to get the depth of field that it did, I was also a little disappointed that the subject blur was able to take us along.