Asmospheric perspective

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

"As the distance between an object and a viewer increases, the contrast between the object and its background decreases, and the contrast of any markings or details within the object also decreases"   Source:wikipedia

Find it a little strange the above  is rarely discussed in photography.
 

[Betty LaRue]

Clarity helps in LR, but it doesn’t get back the detail!

Ive tossed many images because of that inherent problem. Atmospheric fuzziness.

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

23 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Clarity helps in LR, but it doesn’t get back the detail!

Ive tossed many images because of that inherent problem. Atmospheric fuzziness.

 

This is more or less what i'm alluding to Betty. People talk about sharpness, pin sharp from front to back and so on, but that is not how we humans see. We can not  see the detail of a leaf 100 yards away, we can not tell if the bird in the tree is sparrow or a tit without a pair of binoculars.

 

After a certain distance from our position,  objects are as you state, fuzzy.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Cee Dee Dickinson

[Mr Standfast]

Perhaps it's not discussed much because we're loking at the subject and not the background?

 

[Allan Bell]

Dehaze is good for that problem as it increases mid tone contrast but be careful it can be taken too far.

 

Allan

 

[Allan Bell]

1 hour ago, Mr Standfast said:

Perhaps it's not discussed much because we're loking at the subject and not the background?

 

 

Is that loking about?

 

Allan

 

[John Morrison]

9 hours ago, Cee Dee Dickinson said:

We can not  see the detail of a leaf 100 yards away, we can not tell if the bird in the tree is sparrow or a tit without a pair of binoculars.

The best explanation of this phenomenon is by Father Ted.

[Martin L]

Crispness, sharpness seems to be a digital obsession, the ability to inspect images at such a high magnification on a PC I guess doesn't help.

I used to stress about it quite a lot but remembered that I never did in the film days.

My limitations as a photographer certainly outweigh the limitations of my ancient equipment

I tend to chill about it now, lots of other things to worry about.

 

 

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

3 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

Perhaps it's not discussed much because we're loking at the subject and not the background?

 

The subject is never seen in isolation, it is always seen on or in a background because we use  a cone of vision. On the periphery of the cone of vision is fuzziness.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Cee Dee Dickinson

[Mr Standfast]

3 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Is that loking about?

 

Allan

 

Your guess is as good as mine. Stay safe.

[Hanna_Fate]

Generally, atmospheric perspective in photography is either in the scene or not.  It's not like in painting, where an artist can add the effect to increase the apparent depth of the image.

 

I suppose one could edit it into a photo, but that would be a lot of work.

 

 

[spacecadet]

14 hours ago, Cee Dee Dickinson said:

"As the distance between an object and a viewer increases, the contrast between the object and its background decreases, and the contrast of any markings or details within the object also decreases"   Source:wikipedia

Find it a little strange the above  is rarely discussed in photography.
 

Assuming you mean "aerial perspective", the more usual term, probably because it's all but meaningless.

Wikipedia isn't always reliable, you know. Did you get the stuff about trees and continental drift from there as well?

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

2 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Assuming you mean "aerial perspective", the more usual term, probably because it's all but meaningless.

Wikipedia isn't always reliable, you know. Did you get the stuff about trees and continental drift from there as well?

 

No,  i meant Atmospheric perspective.. I made a typo

[spacecadet]

Just now, Cee Dee Dickinson said:

 

No,  i meant Atmospheric perspective.. I made a typo

I wasn't quibbling about your spelling.

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

4 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I wasn't quibbling about your spelling.

Not got a clue what you are quibbling about to be honest. Atmospheric perspective is also known as aerial perspective.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Cee Dee Dickinson

[Bill Brooks]

The subject or centre of interest in a photograph should be sharp contrasty and saturated. That way your eye will be drawn to the subject. Anything else in the photograph should be softer, lower contrast, and a more neutral colour. Distance should fade off to a bluer, less sharp,  lower contrast. This way the foreground or middle ground subject does not have competition, and the final 2D image has a 3D look.

 

In his notebooks Leonardo da Vinci suggested that distant backgrounds be painted with a blue soft cast so the resulting 2D image has a 3D aerial perspective, and the warmer foreground subject matter stands out against the cold background.

 

In landscapes working with polarizers, extended depth of field, and a plus setting of Dehaze in software only works against the photographer.

 

Apply the principle to writing. "There is a tide in the affairs of men that taken at the flood leads on to fortune" Simple and to the point. If Shakespeare were to act like some photographers and throw in everything but the kitchen sink, It might read "There is a big, rushing, oncoming, high, tidal bore in the money making hard working business affairs of men and women that taken when the tide is flooding high and higher will float your financial boat and make you a very rich, very fortunate, man or woman." Where is the proper emphasis?

 

This 2D photograph was, out of the camera, sharp and contrasty throughout  and taken on a clear day.  I used software to place a gradated filter on the top 2/3 of the image. The filter became stronger into the distance and was set to both negative sharpness and a negative dehaze.
 

 

[Cee Dee Dickinson]

Excellent post Bill in my humble opinion.

If you go into a feild of grass, wheat and  look down about two metres ahead of your position you will be able to see individual blades of grass and  husks of wheat.  As you raise your head up to look at the horizon, these details will disappear and objects will be come "fuzzy" or soft. Even those blades of grass, wheat husks close to you would become soft as these would now be on the periphery of your vision.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Cee Dee Dickinson

[Cal]

2 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

The subject or centre of interest in a photograph should be sharp contrasty and saturated. That way your eye will be drawn to the subject. Anything else in the photograph should be softer, lower contrast, and a more neutral colour. Distance should fade off to a bluer, less sharp,  lower contrast. This way the foreground or middle ground subject does not have competition, and the final 2D image has a 3D look.

 

In his notebooks Leonardo da Vinci suggested that distant backgrounds be painted with a blue soft cast so the resulting 2D image has a 3D aerial perspective, and the warmer foreground subject matter stands out against the cold background.

 

In landscapes working with polarizers, extended depth of field, and a plus setting of Dehaze in software only works against the photographer.

 

Apply the principle to writing. "There is a tide in the affairs of men that taken at the flood leads on to fortune" Simple and to the point. If Shakespeare were to act like some photographers and throw in everything but the kitchen sink, It might read "There is a big, rushing, oncoming, high, tidal bore in the money making hard working business affairs of men and women that taken when the tide is flooding high and higher will float your financial boat and make you a very rich, very fortunate, man or woman." Where is the proper emphasis?

 

This 2D photograph was, out of the camera, sharp and contrasty throughout  and taken on a clear day.  I used software to place a gradated filter on the top 2/3 of the image. The filter became stronger into the distance and was set to both negative sharpness and a negative dehaze.
 

 

A productive and valuable post. I wouldn’t quite agree with your specific processing on the photo, perhaps not fading the sky as strongly as my eye is actually drawn to that part of the image with it being much brighter. But I can definitely see your logic and thinking and interestingly enough I just recently sold a photo which fits into a similar set of criteria. 

[Betty LaRue]

Where thing went wrong for me is when I used a telephoto to compress distance in a landscape. For instance, the distant mountain I was framing and zooming into. The atmospheric haze made my main subject unclear even if the mountain filled a good part of the frame.

That was early on in my photographic journey, and I learned better.