With most images we can grasp immediately the proportions and sizes of the objects and people photographed. We know that most people are in the four to seven foot range and therefore can use that as a scale for the other objects. Where a chair is shown we know roughly what size it should be but there are many images where the sizes and proportions are far from clear. The fact that we can not readily reference the scale pushes the object towards an abstraction.
 
When we look through a microscope or a telescope we don't know, or need to, the absolute size of the items being viewed and the intermediary lenses separate us from the items. Once there are no intermediaries and we are shown a two dimensional photograph our scales of reference are lost and we need to search for clues about the scale. This temporary confusion is important and can be exploited by photographers to create patterns or viewpoints that intrigue. The actual object that was photographed becomes less important than it's representation - the "what is it?" question becomes the key issue.
 
There are obvious scale alterations that were alluded to above - the microscope and the telescope being prime examples. Very small specimens when enlarged to the scale of human vision can contain details that are fascinating. The view of astronomical phenomena creates patterns that we can only marvel at. Another class are the photographs where a microscope or telescope were not used but the objects photographed, the angles and the available light combine to create an image where all scale is lost. The final photograph is not an illusion but the actual object on the print is not immediately obvious. This section provides examples of these.