4 ms·

> 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability Which is what I'm saying. It's a compromise, rather than trying to match human vision. > "Lat

> 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability Which is what I'm saying. It's a compromise, rather than trying to match human vision. > "Lately I’ve been struck with how I really love what you can’t see in a photograph." - Diane Arbus. There is no focal length that doesn't involve a choice about what the viewer can see. There's always composition. You're always making a choice.

psychomugs 5y ago
And yet, as I've argued with objective statements re: field of view and subjective experience from others and myself, we use these wide angles because they are objectively and subjectively closer to matching our human vision. Once you get to a certain level, you can begin to make choices that invites the viewer to make a choice, and realize that your choices are only ever second to theirs. Wider lenses are more effective at this specifically because they gather more elements in the frame, inducing more ambiguity and opportunity for alternative interpretations, just like how we always have to decide where our cone of attention points. Stopping short of advising you to touch grass, I'd invite you to shoot exclusively with wides and fisheyes for a while, and practice soft focus for peripheral awareness [1]. Apart from that, no argumentation on photography through the limited medium of text is going to reconcile our perspectives. [1] https://www.victoriastellatoskeet.com/blog/at-home-eye-exercises-to-improve-soft-focus https://www.victoriastellatoskeet.com/blog/at-home-eye-exerc...
- falcrist 5y ago
  Except due to distortions and perspective differences, shorter focal lengths are objectively further from matching human vision. Subjects regularly look much further from the camera than they actually are. Objects at the edge of the frame are weirdly stretched. Whatever is closest to the camera will appear disproportionately large in your final image. Objects in the background are disproportionately small. Not to mention barrel distortions tend to be much more prominent as focal length is shortened. Normal focal lengths are the closest to human vision. Wide angle fisheye lenses could be ok with curved media, but otherwise they're just warped. Considering the area of focus of human vision, along with the fact that we don't see in rectilinear terms, trying to reduce all the aspects of human vision to one factor: field of view... seems foolish at best. If we viewed photos in some kind of spherical VR space or on curved media, then wider field of view with a fisheye lens could be argued to be more similar to human vision. However, we almost exclusively view pictures as flat sheets of paper or flat rectangular screens. For those reasons and others, 35-50mm is far more similar to actual human vision. https://petapixel.com/2012/11/17/the-camera-versus-the-human-eye/ https://petapixel.com/2012/11/17/the-camera-versus-the-human... Composition (and thus the number of elements in frame) is a choice that gets made by the photographer, and can be achieved by altering the scene, changing distance, or changing focal length. Having more or fewer elements in frame has nothing to do with mimicking human vision, and whatever focal length you've chosen is a decision you're making for the viewer. If you make a 360° photo, that's still a composition decision you're making on behalf of the viewer, and it directly effects how they consume your work. Now, if you want your image to be a wider angle, that's fine. That is a legitimate compositional choice... but it is a choice that you the photographer are making. It's not better or worse. Nor is trying to be "closer to human vision" inherently better or worse than any other choice. Knock yourself out with whatever focal lengths suit you.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - psychomugs 5y ago
    >Not to mention barrel distortions tend to be much more prominent as focal length is shortened. >Considering the area of focus of human vision, along with the fact that we don't see in rectilinear terms, trying to reduce all the aspects of human vision to one factor: field of view... seems foolish at best. If you can cherrypick to distortion, I can cherry pick to compositional element-gathering ability, of which a wide field of view is objectively better at, and which is actually more important to documentation-oriented photographers. To revisit the impetus for this conversation: >Some photographers feel the shorter focal lengths feel "more authentic" somehow. >Considering the area of focus of human vision, along with the fact that we don't see in rectilinear terms, trying to reduce all the aspects of human vision to one factor: field of view... seems foolish at best. The wideness is precisely why practiced documentary photographers/photojournalists choose 28-35mm for their more authentic representation; it is a better representation of the messiness of the world that takes a trained eye to organize. Empirically and experientially, experienced portrait photographers will use normals and telephotos for pleasing-yet-detached proportions, and experienced street/snapshot photographers will continue using wides for the authentic drop-the-viewer-in-the-world effect. To say that they should actually be using 50mm is... foolish at best. When someone pays me for portraits, I will use a 50-75mm, but when I want to remember what it was like to be somewhere doing something and living, I and many others will use a 28mm or 35mm. I will now go photograph grass with a 28mm and you should too.
    - falcrist 5y ago
      > If you can cherrypick to distortion I'm cherrypicking to perspective. Distortion is an additional argument, alongside field of view of the area of focus, etc. > documentary photographers/photojournalists choose 28-35mm for their more authentic representation I dispute the idea that there is anything like a uniformity of choices, and I dispute the idea that documentary photographers choose a focal length for authenticity purposes. If you're doing a documentary and especially if you're doing photojournalism, you're choosing focal lengths that properly frame your subject at whatever distance you need to stand at... because often you won't be able to choose your distance to the subject. This fstoppers article suggests that the two most useful photojournalism lenses are a 24-70mm zoom, and an 85mm portrait lens. https://fstoppers.com/originals/two-most-useful-lenses-photojournalist-should-carry-200048 https://fstoppers.com/originals/two-most-useful-lenses-photo... Other articles seem to suggest that photojournalists should carry zoom lenses covering a range from 12 or 16mm to 200mm, which makes perfect sense. I see no indication that 28-35mm is preferred. > To say that they should actually be using 50mm is... foolish at best. Then don't say that. What does this statement have to do with this conversation? > When someone pays me for portraits, I will use a 50-75mm, but when I want to remember what it was like to be somewhere doing something and living, I and many others will use a 28mm or 35mm. And that's fine. You can use whatever focal lengths you want to evoke different emotions. That's one of the reasons we don't just use one lens or one focal length all the time. This isn't really relevant to the assertion that short focal lengths are somehow closer to human vision.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

psychomugs 5y ago

And yet, as I've argued with objective statements re: field of view and subjective experience from others and myself, we use these wide angles because they are objectively and subjectively closer to matching our human vision. Once you get to a certain level, you can begin to make choices that invites the viewer to make a choice, and realize that your choices are only ever second to theirs. Wider lenses are more effective at this specifically because they gather more elements in the frame, inducing more ambiguity and opportunity for alternative interpretations, just like how we always have to decide where our cone of attention points. Stopping short of advising you to touch grass, I'd invite you to shoot exclusively with wides and fisheyes for a while, and practice soft focus for peripheral awareness [1]. Apart from that, no argumentation on photography through the limited medium of text is going to reconcile our perspectives. [1] https://www.victoriastellatoskeet.com/blog/at-home-eye-exercises-to-improve-soft-focus https://www.victoriastellatoskeet.com/blog/at-home-eye-exerc...

falcrist 5y ago
Except due to distortions and perspective differences, shorter focal lengths are objectively further from matching human vision. Subjects regularly look much further from the camera than they actually are. Objects at the edge of the frame are weirdly stretched. Whatever is closest to the camera will appear disproportionately large in your final image. Objects in the background are disproportionately small. Not to mention barrel distortions tend to be much more prominent as focal length is shortened. Normal focal lengths are the closest to human vision. Wide angle fisheye lenses could be ok with curved media, but otherwise they're just warped. Considering the area of focus of human vision, along with the fact that we don't see in rectilinear terms, trying to reduce all the aspects of human vision to one factor: field of view... seems foolish at best. If we viewed photos in some kind of spherical VR space or on curved media, then wider field of view with a fisheye lens could be argued to be more similar to human vision. However, we almost exclusively view pictures as flat sheets of paper or flat rectangular screens. For those reasons and others, 35-50mm is far more similar to actual human vision. https://petapixel.com/2012/11/17/the-camera-versus-the-human-eye/ https://petapixel.com/2012/11/17/the-camera-versus-the-human... Composition (and thus the number of elements in frame) is a choice that gets made by the photographer, and can be achieved by altering the scene, changing distance, or changing focal length. Having more or fewer elements in frame has nothing to do with mimicking human vision, and whatever focal length you've chosen is a decision you're making for the viewer. If you make a 360° photo, that's still a composition decision you're making on behalf of the viewer, and it directly effects how they consume your work. Now, if you want your image to be a wider angle, that's fine. That is a legitimate compositional choice... but it is a choice that you the photographer are making. It's not better or worse. Nor is trying to be "closer to human vision" inherently better or worse than any other choice. Knock yourself out with whatever focal lengths suit you.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- psychomugs 5y ago
  >Not to mention barrel distortions tend to be much more prominent as focal length is shortened. >Considering the area of focus of human vision, along with the fact that we don't see in rectilinear terms, trying to reduce all the aspects of human vision to one factor: field of view... seems foolish at best. If you can cherrypick to distortion, I can cherry pick to compositional element-gathering ability, of which a wide field of view is objectively better at, and which is actually more important to documentation-oriented photographers. To revisit the impetus for this conversation: >Some photographers feel the shorter focal lengths feel "more authentic" somehow. >Considering the area of focus of human vision, along with the fact that we don't see in rectilinear terms, trying to reduce all the aspects of human vision to one factor: field of view... seems foolish at best. The wideness is precisely why practiced documentary photographers/photojournalists choose 28-35mm for their more authentic representation; it is a better representation of the messiness of the world that takes a trained eye to organize. Empirically and experientially, experienced portrait photographers will use normals and telephotos for pleasing-yet-detached proportions, and experienced street/snapshot photographers will continue using wides for the authentic drop-the-viewer-in-the-world effect. To say that they should actually be using 50mm is... foolish at best. When someone pays me for portraits, I will use a 50-75mm, but when I want to remember what it was like to be somewhere doing something and living, I and many others will use a 28mm or 35mm. I will now go photograph grass with a 28mm and you should too.
  - falcrist 5y ago
    > If you can cherrypick to distortion I'm cherrypicking to perspective. Distortion is an additional argument, alongside field of view of the area of focus, etc. > documentary photographers/photojournalists choose 28-35mm for their more authentic representation I dispute the idea that there is anything like a uniformity of choices, and I dispute the idea that documentary photographers choose a focal length for authenticity purposes. If you're doing a documentary and especially if you're doing photojournalism, you're choosing focal lengths that properly frame your subject at whatever distance you need to stand at... because often you won't be able to choose your distance to the subject. This fstoppers article suggests that the two most useful photojournalism lenses are a 24-70mm zoom, and an 85mm portrait lens. https://fstoppers.com/originals/two-most-useful-lenses-photojournalist-should-carry-200048 https://fstoppers.com/originals/two-most-useful-lenses-photo... Other articles seem to suggest that photojournalists should carry zoom lenses covering a range from 12 or 16mm to 200mm, which makes perfect sense. I see no indication that 28-35mm is preferred. > To say that they should actually be using 50mm is... foolish at best. Then don't say that. What does this statement have to do with this conversation? > When someone pays me for portraits, I will use a 50-75mm, but when I want to remember what it was like to be somewhere doing something and living, I and many others will use a 28mm or 35mm. And that's fine. You can use whatever focal lengths you want to evoke different emotions. That's one of the reasons we don't just use one lens or one focal length all the time. This isn't really relevant to the assertion that short focal lengths are somehow closer to human vision.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]