While the majority of photographers, painters, and others involved in creating or interpreting 2D images have adopted the standard, mathematically defined concept of (linear) perspective, Ray has created his own personal definition of perspective.. He has every right to do so, but it is neither legitimate nor rational for him to argue that the consensus definition is wrong while his is correct.
I assure you that there is no-one more interested in the possibility that I am wrong. If my eyesight and sense of perception are faulty, I'm the first one who wants to know. If my reasoning is faulty or illogical, or the evidence I base my reasoning upon is not factual, I'm the first one who wants to know.
I see no merit in maintaining an illogical and incorrect position on any
matter just for the egotistical satisfaction of appearing to be right or winning the argument.
You will find many references on the internet expressing the opinion that the standard lens (45 or 50mm for 35mm format) provides the sense of perspective that most closely matches human vision. However, since I'm not the sort of person to blindly accept any opinion as being true simply because there is a consensus on the matter, I've tested this for myself, taking numerous shots of the same scene at different focal lengths, and found that 50mm (on 35mm format) does indeed more closely match what I see in reality, in terms of spatial relationships and in terms of assessing the real distance to the viewer (me) of the subject that's been photographed.
Now, it could be that I'm part of a minority group of people who are 'perspectively' challenged, and that most people are able to immediately see the true spatial relationships and distances in a photographic image, whatever focal length of lens has been used.
If this is the case, then in my defense I will mention that Leonardo da Vinci appears to have had a similar problem, according to the following extract from the University of Chicago. However, the telescope hadn't been invented in his time.
Leonardo da Vinci, writing soon after the invention of scientific perspective, dismissed it as perspectiva accidentalis, and in his work Trattora della Pittura noted the distortive effects of perspective in wide angles and the various visual manipulations and elisions that occur from arbitrarily moving the constructed vanishing point in a painting. Leonardo encouraged painters instead to focus on parallel developments in aerial perspective – gradations in color, shadow, and texture to denote three-dimensional relations.
It would be interesting if you could tell me which of the following statements, upon which I base my reasoning, is incorrect.
(1) The standard lens, 50mm for 35mm format, most closely matches the natural perspective of the human eye.
(2) Shots from wide-angle lenses, uncropped, make distant objects appear further away and make close objects appear closer than they actually are in reality.
(3) Cropping any image, whether in camera or in post-processing, is effectively no different than using a longer focal length of lens that provides the same angle of view as the cropping.
(4) The effective focal length of any lens is a relationship between its actual focal length, the size of the sensor, and/or the degree of cropping in post-processing.
(5) It's not the focal length of the lens per se
that has any bearing on perspective, but the effective focal length
It would help if you could specify which of the above statements is wrong in your opinion. We could then concentrate on the problem area instead of going round in circles.