>>4504805Your original point that I was responding to was when you said
>Focal length changes framing, that's all.Perspective distortion and compression are separate from framing, but they can be used as tools during the process, along with, as you said, subject distance.
You can blab all you want. Nothing changes the fact that no 14mm lens is going to achieve the same background "nearness", or the enlargement of the background that makes it appear closer, that a 110mm lens will do. With the same subject, no way are you going to get the background to look as close like
>>4504743 as it does on the right, as if you were going to do it with the left's lens—there's no way. It's a simple fact of the matter, that's how zoom lenses work and other lenses don't do this. The "distance from the subject" has nothing to do with it, the zoom lens impacts light differently because it is magnifying, not just collimating/refracting the image.
See:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81Ky-0tpqHY>Compression is just another kind of perspective distortionYes that's true, but why it relates to framing? Only when it is used as such, to create a framing in terms of the actual part of the composition of the scene that you are trying to direct the viewer to look at.
You said "focal length changes framing, that's all". You know that is not true.
Compression is not an artifact of "framing" neither is "shadow" an artifice of "audio", they are completely different realms. One is an impact of the lens, mechanically given, that it is working with photons through the engineering of the lens array intended to display the image. That is why though, not every lens is created the same. Not every lens is equal. Of course you know all of this, you are stupid(if you don't).
Anyways, I don't have the time to argue. I'm glad you see fit to take the dip.
