4 ms·

Again, I disagree with the assertion that wider is any more true to human vision, primarily since distortions are immediately apparent as the focal length gets

Again, I disagree with the assertion that wider is any more true to human vision, primarily since distortions are immediately apparent as the focal length gets shorter than 24mm or even 28mm. Using very short focal lengths just compresses what would otherwise be peripheral vision towards the center. This isn't somehow "more true" to human vision. In order for such short focal lengths to truly be representative of human vision, you'd have to abandon rectilinear optics and flat media; and you'd have to graduate the level of detail such that most of the resolution was concentrated in the center rather than the periphery. If you're not willing to do so, a "normal" focal length reproducing the central vision will always be truer to human vision due to having a more reasonable perspective.

psychomugs 5y ago
I can't tell if you're arguing for or against barrel distortion to improve accuracy, but both exist in either case [1,2]. Our attention and peripheral vision come into play also in how we consume a photograph. You will employ your peripheral vision less when you view images on your phone compared to a wall-sized print. Additionally, the longer the focal length, the more prescriptive the effect; the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at. Wide lenses invite the photographer to work with juxtaposition and layering, and the viewer to selectively attend to different elements, which is actually in agreement with your closer-to-experience angle, i.e. the viewer must decide where to focus their cone of attention in a wide-angle photograph, just like they would in real life. Again, I am not dealing with an absolute capital-T True representation of human vision. We are constrained to modern optical formulae and 2D mediums of commercially available photographic equipment. You could snowball this all the way into stereoscopic 3D fisheye videos livestreamed from eyewear, to get even closer to True human vision. I still maintain that wide lenses are so useful and popular for documentary and snapshot purposes because they record more of the elements we once and will attend to; a more convincing simulacrum. It's no coincidence that 35mm and 28mm and wider are used by so many photojournalists and street/documentary photographers, often exclusively in the latter case. [1] https://petapixel.com/2016/08/01/laowa-12mm-f2-8-widest-f2-8-lens-zero-distortion/ https://petapixel.com/2016/08/01/laowa-12mm-f2-8-widest-f2-8... [2] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089935-REG/rokinon_12m_n_12mm_f_2_8_ed_as.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089935-REG/rokinon_1...
- falcrist 5y ago
  I'm arguing that wide angles are only more representative if you use fisheye distortion and project the image onto a curved media. If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision. > the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at. This is always true at every focal length. Your choice of composition informs the viewer whether it's a wide angle shot or super-telephoto. > ...wide lenses are so useful and popular for documentary and snapshot purposes because they record more of the elements... Shorter lenses do incorporate more into the image. That doesn't make them more or less representative of human vision.
  - psychomugs 5y ago
    > If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision. Below ~12mm, yes. 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability; even with a 21mm, I have to be right in front of someone for them to fill the frame, because I would have to do the same if I were looking at them with my own eyes. > This is always true at every focal length. Your choice of composition informs the viewer whether it's a wide angle shot or super-telephoto. "Lately I’ve been struck with how I really love what you can’t see in a photograph." - Diane Arbus. Photography, with its receptiveness to stream-of-conscious approach and synchronous rearing with postmodernism, is an inherently subjective medium. Joel Meyerowitz, on his use of wide angle lenses, terms the explicit look-at-this approach as 'collecting' [1]. There are subgenres dedicated to not collecting, introducing ambiguity that invites the viewer to form their own interpretation of the recorded reality. I took a walk this afternoon and looked at a tree ~5m away. I could visualize framing the trunk of the tree with a 50 or 75mm, but also noticed a child running towards the tree. The childless telephoto perspective would've been a more accurate representation of my subjective experience of focusing on the tree, but an objectively less accurate representation of what I was actually seeing in my field of vision. A tree-only photo tells you to look at the tree, whereas a wider perspective invites you to consider the relationship between the disparate elements. Meyerowitz also waxes poetically about this [ibid]. Again, the Ricoh GR and Leica Q, the most popular dedicated street/documentary cameras, have 28mm lenses, and the Fujifilm X100 a 35mm. Essentially all of the street photographers I've met internationally use either a 28mm or 35mm most of the time. There is a visceral you-are-right-there-in-the-moment feeling from looking at a wide angle photograph, especially when printed large, that simply cannot be reproduced with a normal-telephoto. [1] https://youtu.be/Xumo7_JUeMo?t=154 https://youtu.be/Xumo7_JUeMo?t=154

psychomugs 5y ago

I can't tell if you're arguing for or against barrel distortion to improve accuracy, but both exist in either case [1,2]. Our attention and peripheral vision come into play also in how we consume a photograph. You will employ your peripheral vision less when you view images on your phone compared to a wall-sized print. Additionally, the longer the focal length, the more prescriptive the effect; the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at. Wide lenses invite the photographer to work with juxtaposition and layering, and the viewer to selectively attend to different elements, which is actually in agreement with your closer-to-experience angle, i.e. the viewer must decide where to focus their cone of attention in a wide-angle photograph, just like they would in real life. Again, I am not dealing with an absolute capital-T True representation of human vision. We are constrained to modern optical formulae and 2D mediums of commercially available photographic equipment. You could snowball this all the way into stereoscopic 3D fisheye videos livestreamed from eyewear, to get even closer to True human vision. I still maintain that wide lenses are so useful and popular for documentary and snapshot purposes because they record more of the elements we once and will attend to; a more convincing simulacrum. It's no coincidence that 35mm and 28mm and wider are used by so many photojournalists and street/documentary photographers, often exclusively in the latter case. [1] https://petapixel.com/2016/08/01/laowa-12mm-f2-8-widest-f2-8-lens-zero-distortion/ https://petapixel.com/2016/08/01/laowa-12mm-f2-8-widest-f2-8... [2] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089935-REG/rokinon_12m_n_12mm_f_2_8_ed_as.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089935-REG/rokinon_1...

falcrist 5y ago
I'm arguing that wide angles are only more representative if you use fisheye distortion and project the image onto a curved media. If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision. > the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at. This is always true at every focal length. Your choice of composition informs the viewer whether it's a wide angle shot or super-telephoto. > ...wide lenses are so useful and popular for documentary and snapshot purposes because they record more of the elements... Shorter lenses do incorporate more into the image. That doesn't make them more or less representative of human vision.
- psychomugs 5y ago
  > If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision. Below ~12mm, yes. 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability; even with a 21mm, I have to be right in front of someone for them to fill the frame, because I would have to do the same if I were looking at them with my own eyes. > This is always true at every focal length. Your choice of composition informs the viewer whether it's a wide angle shot or super-telephoto. "Lately I’ve been struck with how I really love what you can’t see in a photograph." - Diane Arbus. Photography, with its receptiveness to stream-of-conscious approach and synchronous rearing with postmodernism, is an inherently subjective medium. Joel Meyerowitz, on his use of wide angle lenses, terms the explicit look-at-this approach as 'collecting' [1]. There are subgenres dedicated to not collecting, introducing ambiguity that invites the viewer to form their own interpretation of the recorded reality. I took a walk this afternoon and looked at a tree ~5m away. I could visualize framing the trunk of the tree with a 50 or 75mm, but also noticed a child running towards the tree. The childless telephoto perspective would've been a more accurate representation of my subjective experience of focusing on the tree, but an objectively less accurate representation of what I was actually seeing in my field of vision. A tree-only photo tells you to look at the tree, whereas a wider perspective invites you to consider the relationship between the disparate elements. Meyerowitz also waxes poetically about this [ibid]. Again, the Ricoh GR and Leica Q, the most popular dedicated street/documentary cameras, have 28mm lenses, and the Fujifilm X100 a 35mm. Essentially all of the street photographers I've met internationally use either a 28mm or 35mm most of the time. There is a visceral you-are-right-there-in-the-moment feeling from looking at a wide angle photograph, especially when printed large, that simply cannot be reproduced with a normal-telephoto. [1] https://youtu.be/Xumo7_JUeMo?t=154 https://youtu.be/Xumo7_JUeMo?t=154