Point of view

Over the (many) years I've been playing with cameras, I've had some favorites

that always seemed to make better pictures, or at least pictures I liked more

than others. Obviously, different lenses will produce differing images of the

same subject, but one trend I've noticed is that the pictures that have had the

best composition were most often made with cameras that have waist-level

viewfinders.

 

I'm not sure it's a "back to the womb" sort of reaction, but the perspective of

a child may instinctively be more appealing than the eye-level view we sort-of

grownups usually experience.

 

That said, Ansel Adams frequently hauled his gear up to the roof of his station

wagon for the best perspective. Was that simply to take advantage of the

controls afforded by his view camera, or do you suppose it had some

psychological implications of seeing the world from a higher plane?

 

In selecting the best angle when composing a picture, it might serve well to

keep in mind the emotional impact our selection of camera height might have on

the viewer.

I have felt that many engaging photographs that I enjoy the perspective is different. Not always higher or lower, but different from eye level and to me that small adjustment can have a real impact on an image. One of our "dirty little secrets" as photographers is taking pictures from places, areas, elevations that others can't or won't be able to reach. How many pairs of pants have been stained after a wedding shot, or football game. I have struggled with the waist level view finders myself, but I enjoy the work of others who use them.

FWIW, crawling around on the ground is not my idea of a good time but if necessary to get the shot, what the hey. I also have close at hand, knee pads as well as tall ladders in which to give a unique perspective to an image.

A movie called the Ipcress(sp?) Files was made long ago that used very inventive (ahem) camera angles. A reviewer made me laugh out loud when he wrote that the acting was very good, the story was compelling, but it looked like it was shot by a hyperactive crawling creature who could go anywhere, and did. Yep. Inventive and entertaining if you were maybe stoned. It was over the top.

 

About the child's eye view - has anyone gone back to their childhood home and been surprised by how small it really was? Sure. I wonder if the appeal of very wide lenses has something to do with the recapitulation of the sense of being small. (or is that stoned?)

Pico, you've (again) given me an idea: perhaps a good personal assignment would be to do a series of pictures not only from a child's physical perspective, but one that would capture the sense of wonder and inquiry he feels about his fresh new world. I'm sure it would sharpen our senses and dust off some of our jaded views.

<i>Pico, you've (again) given me an idea: perhaps a good personal assignment would be to do a series of pictures not only from a child's physical perspective </i><p>

I experience something like that recently, but not on purpose. I crashed my bicycle and for a while saw the world from an ant's view.<p>

Seriously, it might be a great exercise, Dick. One of the many impressions I still can recall from childhood was the utter strange mystery of the world, sometimes scarey. Yes, we might want to try to go back there. Interesting. Thanks for that.

"In selecting the best angle when composing a picture, it might serve well to keep in mind the emotional impact our selection of camera height might have on the viewer."

 

Along with selection focal length, aperture, shutter speed, etc., I absolutely agree with your statement.

 

I think that most people are used to the regular adult eye-level view as they go on all their lives seeing the world from that point-of-view. Different POVs do bring freshness and make the viewers more involved, IMO. Indeed one way to achieve a different POV is by varying the camera height, and waist-level VF cameras work great here. In a pinch, a right angle viewfinder attachment on SLR will work as well. However, in my experience, the easiest tool to achieve varying POV is by using digicams with flip-screen.

 

Aside from varying camera height, there are other ways to achive different POVs. Tilting the frames and using reflections are few of my more favorite methods. Combining non-eye level camera position, frame tilt, reflection, etc. will normally yield a more interesting image, IMO.

 

As for Ansel Adams, I would guess that shooting from his wagon's roof top would give him images with different POV (higher) as well as possibly not having to deal with high growing vegetations blocking his view if he were to shoot at ground level.

In the 1920s people began to notice the phenomenon of changing the photographic point of view. No one at the time had seen much of those sort of "belly-button" perspectives, and they stirred a new life and artistic interest into photography. People were shooting low, shooting upwards, and downwards, and crooked. Here's one of my favorites: by <a href="http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A4975&page_number=39&template_id=1&sort_order=1">Alexander Rodchenko</a><br><br>

The Point of view can often be more important to the subject then the subject itself.

Until the advent of Impressionist painting, most paintings were painted from an eye level view. One of the techniques introduced by the Impressionists was the elevation or depression of the point of vue.

<i>In the 1920s people began to notice the phenomenon of changing the photographic point of view. </i><p>

Sergei Eisenstein (Russian) had a lot to do with it, too. His motion pictures were the publics first experience with motion picture close-ups, variously formatted scenes (aspect ratios) in the same film. Great stuff!

"I've had some favorites that always seemed to make better pictures, or at least pictures I liked more than others."

 

Mine's not the camera or the viewfinder as my ace is the lense. To me, the lense is my eye to the world that represents how I see. The body, the viewfinder, is nothing more then the box that holds that magical lense.

 

It's all about the lense baby. :)

I think it might be interesting to ask different people to draw different everyday objects to see how often they would automatically attempt a perspective vs. an orthographic view. The individual drawing experience or training might greatly influence what they would do, but I'm wondering, even though we see others at eye level, wouldn't a waist level shot be less distorted?