I'm never taking selfies again. I knew my nose wasn't that big.

OMG thanks so much guys, I now know what a gazebo is!

This is so ridiculous. Everybody knows this information. What are you saying, you don’t need zoom lenses, you can just shoot everything with a wide angle lens.

As someone that did loads of architectural photography for years, THIS IS EVERYTHING. Camera placement must be done BEFORE focal length selection. Focal length should be selected based on how you want to crop what you see with the naked eye. Period. Thank you for this.

Finally, a good explanation of the "lens compression"

I've been saying this for years! Even getting into arguments with people who would get so upset about it claiming I was wrong. Thanks for making this video.

Been trying to explain this to other photographers (my first degree is in engineering). I am glad you could explain it MUCH better than I could.

Thank you!!! I had this wrong for forever and it was a few years into my photography journey before I figured it out. Great explanation and examples Lee!

Great explanation and examples, but I always learned it as "background compression" not "lens compression". Seems a bit more accurate and removes some of the controversy.

Wonderfully EXPLAINED!! It's about time someone (photography channel) clears up this subject in a concise, easily, and a understandable way. There is so much conjecture on the internet and from multiple photography channels about this subject that is completely nonsense. Thank you sir and keep up the extremely good work.

They call it background compression, which is about perspective and subject distance.

Thank you for the video. Essentially, perspective distortion is a product of the ratios between subject, object and all the distance in between. Then there's field curvature, barrel/pincussion distortion of the lens and lastly paralax. That's why the stitching software couldn't perfectly piece the images together.

Fantastic job explaining this! I was actually taught this in school with similar types of tests that we had to do ourselves, yet so many still didn't get it. It seems to be a tough idea for people to wrap their heads around.

Wow. out of thousands of tips, tricks, tutorials that I have watched.. never heard anyone explain it in that way.. BRAVO...

It's mainly called lens compression because the longer the lens the further you are from your subject(normally) so by having a longer lens it sort of forces you to go back further. You could just always crop a 24mm shot in super far then go for it haha

I had never heard it called lens compression but in school it was ‘background compression’ also falling under the umbrella term ‘forced perspective’ so I feel like it becomes a semantics argument. Great explanation of how it works. Thanks.

Really great video and the best explanation I've seen of this phenomena. Actually something I thought about as late as earlier today! I'd suggest calling is perspective change :)

Big thanks! Finally someone who understands simple principles of perspective and applies them to photography. There's too many videos where people tries to explain photography stuff with more or less self created ideas not understanding the nature science that's behind it.

There's a reason why people use a nodal mount when doing panoramas. Parallax is a form of perspective distortion but it is due to the refraction characteristics of the lens. That's not to disagree with the full content of the video but rather your experiment with the bicycle. The bicycle image shot with a nodal mount wouldn't have the same perspective distortion due to the null of nodal points, and you would get an image that actually stitches together.

This channel has improved so much this year. Really loving it. Great work guys.

This is a very interesting video, and proves a good point. As a fine art painter as my main medium I have studied perspective obviously a lot on my way to grad school. Say I'm setting a scene, and using standard two point perspective to compose such, the framing will always follow that multitude of size of subject compared to the background. Ie, the subject has a ratio to the background depending on the horizon line and the vanishing point. Thanks for the video it's not just applicable to photography, but art in general.

I love the compression/perspective distortion that you get when composing a shot with something like an 85 or 90mm lens. I'm still pretty new to photography and I never really knew what caused it but I knew I liked the way it looks. Thanks for breaking it down and explaining it so clearly.

Best explanation of this phenomenon that I have ever seen. By far. Thanks!

Good video. I do think a lot of people believe it's the focal length of the lens that causes this, rather than the distance and perspective. But the video here is 100% correct. I like the example of stitching the multiple closeup images... very effective.

It's photography...everything is perspective

This is one of the better examples of this phenomenon on KZfaq.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! Everyone knows this, we should all just shoot wide angle......Now that that is out of the way, fantastic video. Excellent explanation and something I honestly didn’t know. Keep it up!

I'm not a photographer, I'm more of a writer and maybe actor director. However, while I was learning perspective from one of Marshall Vandruff videos, he pointed out about vanishing points. Lots of books on perspective will tell you that it's wrong to put two vanishing points close together and make a distored image. Marshall then explained, it's similar to focal length. The closer the vanishing points, the more it's warped. It serves for various purpose. Like for horror style, intense alice in wonderland drawings, close vanishing points works well. Like Junji Ito or other artist that make that horrifying style manga, it works That's how I think of Lens I think. So if I use a wide angle lense on close up, it will give this serious heavy tone effect, I think

Yes, exactly. Basically if you have a sensor with infinite resolution, a wide lens is the only lens you need.

A practical take-away from all this is something I learned long ago: chose your camera location and angle to get the view and perspective you want, and chose the focal length lens (or zoom setting) that will fill the frame with what you want to show.

This really answered a question I had about using apsc mode on the a7iii vs another lens. I thought a disadvantage might be not getting as much compression.

I have watched this video a few times and I WILL AGREE WITH YOU that the distance plays a part BUT the lens plays a part as well. Your example using the bike and pointing out how the back tire is stretched made me realize that the wide angle lens will have a convex view more and more from the center of the lens to the edges. If you notice as you move with the naked eye back and fourth, there is no distortion, the back tire does not stretch. SO... I THINK the term we should use is LENS PERSPECTIVE DISTORTION not Lens distortion or simply perspective distortion. GREAT VIDEO!!!

I prefer to call it background compression, as in pretty much all cases you do not want to crop if you can avoid it. It's useful as in the actual use of lenses it makes more sense. That it has to do with difference in distance is good to know but doesn't affect what you're doing unless you go pretty wide.

Some photographes don't know anything any pretend like they know everything...but when I start watching ur videos damn I've changed my concept upon whole thing about photography . U have a great research..everyone should suscribed ur channel

Yay glad to hear I’m not the only one who prefers correct physics terms over photography terms haha.

What a simple and awesome well condensed "out of the park" explanation of something so common...this rocks! congratulations guys...

I avoided this video for some reason. Then watched mads peter iversons latest video from an iceland glacier which made me want to watch it. Good stuff.

I was about the be mad at the clickbait title until I realized this is spot on and you're right; we really need to stop using that nomenclature because it doesn't make any sense!

This was great! I did already get this, but many don't understand it, and it's important to understand this stuff to be able to take full advantage of every asset.

This and the one made by Mike Brown are the best videos on this planet explaining this subject people take so religiously. Thanks!

There is a depth of field difference that remains even at equal perspective between 200m and 24mm cropped right ?

Very clear explanation and awesome demonstration of how perspective changes with the lenses. But I think it would be wrong to assume that the people who responded that the lens created the compression didn't understand the concept, or that lens compression doesn't exist at all. Cropping in a photo taken with wide angle lens is equivalent of taking a photo taken with a telephoto lens with a tiny sensor, and how the depth is perceived does change with different focal length. I believe it is the combination of both focal length of the lens AND the perspective changes, not one or the other, that creates this effect.

3:10 exponentially? I think you mean significantly

that is the most professional tutorial i ever watched!!! appreciate for knowledge!!!

Does it REALLY matter what its called ?just need to know what and when it happens and when to make use of it !

Finally someone with very simple way of explaining these & clearing confusions

Very nice video! Clear and easy to understand. I see many arguments from those who dont believe man went to the moon because of diferent moon sizes in respect to astronauts. This video can explain what is really happening

I love when artists actually think. Nice man.

Create a video with crop factor and how it effects the DoF on equivalent framing (portraits)! That's also an ENORMOUS misconception in the photography community!

I’ve always been confused by other’s explanations bcs they never made sense! Thank you so much for this video, I always thought it had to do with distance and not lenses.

Came here to bash. Leaving out with a fresh new “perspective” (huh)

Love it! I argued with some of my friends about this and they did not get it for a while. Now at least I can give this video.

Lee, I think you’ve misunderstood ‘lens compression’. What you explain is what people mean but just call it lens compression. It’s the relationship between the photographer and the subject using different lens focal lengths and the position you have to stand in to get the photograph. And I think you’ve tackled this subject before. Still an entertaining video though so I don’t care.

Very nice video. Indeed, no difference in perspective across the different lenses, but maybe you could make a separate video that would explain the huge difference in bokeh (depth of field)?

Cool, I actually learned something.

Well described, nice and clear! Another way to think of it is that you can actually see the perspective with your eyes, before turning on the camera. Keep walking until the perspective looks right. Then think of what you want to include in your frame (=fov) and that determines the focal length.

Some say that gazebo is still growing.

This video really helps my study. Thankyou!

I remember having a "woah" moment when i first learned this. It makes sense, lenses dont change physics.

I don't normally like videos on KZfaq but today I have to make an exception over here. Finally som real talk about photography.

Sure, distance is a determining metric, but I think there's a better explanation. The video (and both articles) get close, but don't specifically mention it, and there's a comment below that says "perspective is everything" (a great summary that offers no explanation). I'd say that angles are everything. When you look at a scene (whether with the naked eye, wide angle or telephoto) there's exactly one spot in the very center and everything else is off to the sides at some angular distance from the center. The angular distance is a function of geometry, not optics, and can only be changed by moving the observation point or objects in the scene. Changing focal length will change the field of view, not the geometry. The angular distance between objects, and therefore perspective and apparent compression, remains the same unless the observation point is changed. FWIW, this is similar to the apparent movement of dashed white lines on a highway. The ones that are well out in front of you appear to move slowly because their angular distance from the center of your field of view changes relatively slowly compared to the ones that are close to the front of the car, or right next to you, which appear to whiz by far more rapidly. Our perception of speed, size, and distance are all related to angular distance. There's another comment below from somebody who obviously doesn't get the concept at all, that has (so far) been liked by 250 similarly clueless people, saying the point is to just use a wide angle because a zoom or telephoto is unnecessary. That would be partially true in an imaginary world that wasn't subject to the realities of technology and physics, but we're stuck in a real world that has limitations. Even if it were possible to make a sensor that had a billion pixels diffraction would require the resulting image to be downsized considerably, and the real world resolution wouldn't be 50 times better than a 20MP sensor. There's no free lunch, so if you want an image of a cardinal that can be printed at even a modest size you either need to get close to the cardinal or use a telephoto lens so that the cardinal occupies more useful pixels. Most importantly the post completely misses the point that what we see depends on where we stand. Composition and angular distance can only be changed by moving.

Thank you! I thought so. I heard two other KZfaqr talk about compression but I saw that they were too close to the subject and it was distorting. You verified my thought of backing up and crop a little.

Its correct, but actually the lens lens force you further or closer away, so trully the lens cause the perspective compression 😉

It makes me mad when anyone calls this "lens compression". The lens has nothing to do with it. The only thing that causes compression is distance. A longer lens only increases magnification, and basically just resolution. You can easily notice this by looking in the rear view mirror when you're driving or just walking backwards from a window.

Yes. 100% Distance is everything. Like.....everything.

Well, finally someone explained it properly with samples.

April 2020: 372 people so far are having severe cognitive dissonance.

This is good marketing for selfie-sticks that increases the perspective. Excellent video!

Also, there's no such thing as "exponentially closer" lol

You reminds us that distance to the subject defines depth relations, that's the first decision to make.That's why you shoot a classic portrait from 3 to 5 meters then you choose the focal regarding the frame you want. That's why you cannot crop with your feet cause you change the perspective as soon as you move. Zooms makes you crop and primes makes you choose your perspective When i use primes i start far from my subject an then i come close and i choose my lens according to the frame. Lens compression is not right but it s a very easy way to understand what happens most often when you use an ultra wide or a 300mm You can have a depth of field of 10cm with a wide angle, and 10x meters with a tele, it all depends from your point of view.

Your analysis is almost as wrong as the misconceptions that you are trying to clarify: 1. Whether you call it lens compression or perspective distortion, people tend to refer to the same thing that exists. You say that focal length doesn't compress, but your distance from your subject does. But the whole point is that the distance from your subject is dictated by the lens you're using and the perspective changes accordingly. The thing is, we humans see things through a certain focal length and regard the perspective it gives us as "normal", so we consider a normal lens the one closely replicates that perspective. If we take a shorter lens, it sees a wider field of view or more things from the same distance and in order to achieve this, it makes perspective look more dramatic than how we see it with a naked eye; with telephotos, the opposite applies, which is what people call "compression". So the reason compression is a thing is that using a wide angle lens you get the same view but different perspective than simply moving further to include more things, while using a telephoto will give you a different perspective than simply moving closer to your subject. 2. The fact that many people seem to think that a cropped photo of a wide lens has a different perspective than of a photo taken with a telephoto lens doesn't negate that compression is a thing. Your example about cropping conflates things further. When you crop a photo taken with a wide angle lens, you get the same compression as with a telephoto lens because you're essentially using your wide angle lens as a tele. By cropping, you're using only a portion of your sensor, so you get a smaller sensor and your lens is now a tele for that sensor size, so why would you get a different perspective from another tele? Conversely, if you stitch 10 photos that you took using your 85mm lens, the perspective looks the same as with using a wide angle because you're effectively having a sensor that is 10 times larger, and for that sensor size, 85mm would be considered wide angle. Confused enough?

I was not expecting this to be legit or informational.. But I have learned so much just now

This is like the physicists arguing that if nobody hears a sound it’s not a sound, it’s just a wave. Maybe there is no compression difference in theory, but in practice, his face looks stretched as fuck on the wide end. And that’s bad for portraits. It’s like knowing how to print audio information on a record, compared to what is necessary to operate a record player. Still I guess it’s nice to have the information out here.

Thanks for making this video! This is what I've been telling people who say " __mm is the ideal focal length for portraits because the lens doesn't cause compression to the face"

I'm sorry but I do not think you understand what you just did in your own video. A change in framing IS NOT perspective distortion. The fact that the images perfectly align and the same size in a cropped in version of Patrick at 24mm compared to the non-cropped version of Patrick at 400mm proves lens compression does exist. The confirmation of THIS FACT is that you stated you DID NOT CHANGE the physical location of the camera sensor after taking pictures with the 24mm and 400mm lenses. It's pure contradiction that you stated the lens was not the cause of this difference but distance was EVEN THOUGH YOU NEVER CHANGED YOUR PHYSICAL DISTANCE. The lenses most definitely caused the changed due to the phenomena called "MAGNIFICATION." How can you have a change in distance when two objects have not physically changed distance from each other? A crop SHOULD NOT change the physical size of the elements contained within a photo relative to its FOV & area this would be going against physics. A crop is magnification; perspective is a physical change of location which is not the same as FIELD OF VIEW. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification please read "Typically, magnification is related to scaling up visuals or images to be able to see more detail, increasing resolution, using microscope, printing techniques, or digital processing. In all cases, the magnification of the image does not change the perspective of the image." After NOT MOVING the camera, taking pictures at 24mm and 400mm, cropping in on 24mm picture, aligning the images, discovering the image are the same size relative to their FOV, and NOT discovering a change in physical size or transformation of Patrick then you should have ended the test and learned lens compression is real. Perspective distortion is the reason why Tilt-Shift and Perspective Control lenses are made for architecture photography. You see those photography are experiencing an actual distortion in their image that's causing the image to be physically out of place. Do I need to continue about your flaws with the bicycle portion of this video?

Exactly this I discussed with people for years. Quite hard to understand for folks which got teached that the lens does this. You are absolutely right!

I think you could have just started with a discussion about FOV and shown a diagram with an isosceles triangle displaying viewing angle, and consequently real vs. projected size and how using longer lenses to maintain identical projected size as you back up requires a decrease in FOV and consequently increased distortion. This video is a bit too black box-y to me; cameras and lenses are not magic.

Such a good explanation of what's actually happening. That pano stitch was great.

It's one of the useless facts that doesn't do any good to your photography. Another one is that full frame doesn't give you shallower depth of field. The only reason why anyone who's trying to tell you these kind of useless junk is only for showing off.

Excellent and I think it's the only way to show what different focal length would do to a picture. Great one!!!!

Absurd he bothered to make a video on this.

Excellent demonstration, congratulations! I realized some time ago that we can perceive this effect naturally by looking closely at ourselves in a mirror and then slowly backing away while looking at our face. As far as I know, we can't zoom in with our eyes, or make them fisheye; therefore it must be the distance, as shown in the geometric and practical explanation with different camera focal lengths and distances to the object/subject that you made in the video.

Thanks for the explanation in this video. Now i‘m leaning towards full frame

This is exactly what I was searching for. Thumbs up.

agreed with this concept. the distortion that you will get in wide angle lens can be fix by changing the distance from the subject

incredible! Thank you for clearing that out..

Dude, this was super informative for me, that after so many years of shooting, understood now this simple fact with your simple demo! I was sure it's associated with the focal length of the lens, but now I realize it's related to the subject to the lens distance! Thank you Lee!

so clear and important video to understand ,to understand perspective compression!!!!

great video and demonstration but I think the single issue that wasn't mentioned here is how focal length is tied to depth of field which makes the two pictures taken with different focal lengths fundamentally different despite the unaltered perspective distortion

Good educational video, but the poll at 5:35 is formulated incorrectly, the movement of the camera doesn't do the compression, it's the distance from the camera and the subject that does the 'compression'. You may not need to move the camera at all if you're already far enough from your subject.

Simply a fabulous and precious new aproach about lenses and it's "distortions". Tank you.

Wow this is so eye-opening - THANKS!!!

I haven't watched it but I don't use the term "lens compression" because lenses don't compress, it only renders at a certain focal length, and what separates wide angle from telephoto lenses are the different magnification at a given distance to the subject, that is at say, 10 metres from Patrick, he'll look the same from either a 24mm or an 85mm lens, the only difference will be the proportion he takes in the frame.

Thanks! That is what I’ve been looking for!

I had to do a similar test to prove to someone that sensor size doesn't change dof or light intensity. People interested in photography should be curious enough to compare shots taken at different distance, cropping etc. It's part of knowing the craft and ... of the fun.

The fact is that the wide lens gives a deeper depth of field, since the background can appear sharper than with a tele lens, hence we observe that compression of the background. Everything is a matter of appreciation and perspective.

3 years passed I still find this video educational.

Isn't the test supposed to be on images that fill the frame equally, shot out of camera? I think the assumption of comparing uncropped images and cropped image is flawed because that isn't the definition of lens compression?

Of course, you are right, and it is the distance that matters. However, when choosing a lens for shooting portraits in an enclosed space you have to consider it as if it was real - a 135 mm lens, if you have a studio large enough, will allow you to take close up shots without huge noses. A 35 or 50 mm lens will produce close up shots with larger noses because you have to be closer to the subject to get the "close up" effect. Unless of course you want to crop. Just saying - it's helpful to think of it as if there is real lens compression.... unless space is no issue.

3D modeling software correctly addresses this topic. It's the same in Blender as it is in SolidWorks. You can toggle "Perspective" on and off to get the same distortion or rectilinear imaging.