Exploring Perspective

HAND.

"Your" field of view, or the camera's? If I blocked the right half of the camera's, everything to the right of the center lamp would be gone including the scene's viewpoint, so why would anybody do that?

As Bob said "Photographers have the luxury of making it the last thing they do, or just leaving that decision to the viewer. Maybe that's why they get confused about what is the scene and what is the picture.".

No the viewer can be off centre and the sightline can be off centre too. You can see it graphically below. I have shown the exact position of the sightline/camera axis

We are all used to the "bulls eye" use of one point perspective.

If I am standing on one of the rails of a straight railway rack stretching out to infinity, the result is pretty much the same, and I can frame my picure with the rail parallel with my eye sight line, cropped eccentrically.

It is exactly what I saw, stood to one side of the aisle. Diagonal shift was used to render the verticals vertical, and the roof trusses and benches parallel with the top and bottom frame edges.

I have just applied corrections to the pictures, that simulate closely the corrections our brain applies to a scene. We perceive the vertical walls of buildings as being vertical, even when looking slightly upwards.

I do not entirely agree with this. Take a look at the building where you live. look slightly upwards. Do you perceive the building as leaning backwards as the impression of key-stoning in photograph suggests? I would guess that 99.9% of people looking at a building with vertical walls, perceive the walls as being vertical, unless we are looking up at a very tall building.

The standard of photography in both paper and electronic publications has fallen drastically in recent years, as the NG part of the post shows clearly. I also would think that the importance of the picture editor has diminished drastically.

That is entirely consistent with what I said earlier in that not everyone's eyes and brain interact exactly the same.

That image, while nice artistically, looks unnatural to me for the reasons posted earlier.

I am thankful you have created this thread. It is good to correlate theory with practical examples.
When I first saw the above pic in a series you posted, I only glanced at this one because I was looking at the series as a whole. I was uneducated / blind to what was going on here but from memory, at the time I knew something was different.
Now I know, I can see what the intent was and appreciate the result. I have read many of your posts re shift lenses but only partially understood their purpose.
Photography has helped my vision / experience of the world, from noticing things in my peripheral view, to taking in distant things I never noticed. This thread in conjunction with the theory of Tom's threads has allowed me to build the conceptual framework that my mind enjoys. We really do have the best computer ever created, sitting right between our ears. We just have to learn how to use it...

Thanks.

One of the great things about photography, is that it forces us to stop and really look at the world around us. Yes, our onboard computer is unmatchable, in the way it interprets what we see though our eyes.

Thanks for sharing this!

It is interesting that the main subject of this painting (the twelve figures spread along the table) are in the essentially flat perspective of traditional paintings of that time. They are all more-or-less in a plane and show very limited impression of depth. The background with the dramatic one-point perspective looks like an afterthought.

If it was done today, it would probably be attributed to poor quality AI or a photoshopped image in which a dull background had been replaced by something more eye-catching!

I cannot remember the source, but they were not able at this point in time to apply perspective drawing to people.