Josh, for photos to appear inline with discussion forums the width should not exceed 680 pixels. (The old width was 511 pixels, but most if not all photo.net forums have switched to a slightly larger default size.) Larger photos will appear as attachments, which readers have the option to click on to view.
John, here is a Wlipedia article on th subject s that you can hudge for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective I would say your example is an attempt a forced perspective. However to my mind doesn't quite come off as it doesn;t really fool the eye. But that is just my view. As I understand it forced perspective is when you are fooled into seeing things in the way the originator wishes you to see them by some kind of optical trickery. So for example in the wikipedia article they quote the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films where hobbits are made to look small and Hagrid is made to look big by careful positioning of the actors (normalish size) in the frame.The joke Leaning Tower of Pisa shot above is another example though again it is doesn't really convince!. In architecture these tricks have been around for a long time. The 16th century Scala Regia in the Vatican is one example. It is a long flight of stairs which not only ascends but also gets smaller as it goes up. The effect is to make the staircase look incredibly long and majestic as the eye is fooled into equating a decrease in size with distance.
> I wanted to know If this picture is considered forced perspective < Yes. Though the distortion of the Male Subject is off-putting. So I would mark it low, and not a technically good example. *** Also, by way of comment, if it is a cut and paste, or Post Production manipulation, then: No, it is not technically ``Forced Distortion`` - to the purist, Photographer. I guess therein lies another debate. WW
> Also, by way of comment, if it is a cut and paste, or Post Production manipulation, then: No, it is not technically ``Forced Distortion`` - to the purist, Photographer. I guess therein lies another debate. < SHOULD BE: Also, by way of comment, if it is a cut and paste, or Post Production manipulation, then: No, it is not technically ``Forced PERSPECTIVE`` - to the purist, Photographer. I guess therein lies another debate. sorry, My Brain was behind my fingers, WW
"Also, by way of comment, if it is a cut and paste, or Post Production manipulation, then: No, it is not technically " No it is not cut and paste although I did do alot of Burning and some Dodging. I am beginning Photoshop and am learning some tricks so I did cut him out of the same picture so that I could Burn and Dodge closer to him without doing those things to him. I told a friend of mine how I did that and he said that it was not necessary to cut him out like that and explained how to do it without the cut Thanks for your time Josh