Is "normal" perspective the most pleasing?

[GPS]

You couldn't be more wrong. Just think that pears were there long before the arrival of wide angle lenses. What is more, they're even sweeter than honey crisp variety apples! Just try them...

[adam satushek]

Sure pears can be sweeter...but they are never as crisp! Pears are mushy, and distorted. A good, normal, crisp apple goes a long ways towards making a pleasing photograph...or a good snack..or something..

Seriously though, interesting thread, i've enjoyed the various opinions thoroughly, sorry to get sidetracked.

[palec]

Excellent discussion. The simplest elements are those I often take for granted while I have not explored properly.

[Ken Lee]

From The Fine Print, by Fred Picker, 1975:

"Edward Weston's 8" x 10" negatives were all contact printed so all are roughly 71/2" x 91/2" when trimmed. Whether the subject was a translucent shell printed larger than life-size or the Oceano Dunes, Weston's single print size seems admirably suited. There is a mysterious rightness in photographs visualized print-size on the ground-glass.

I understand that Strand often makes a group of prints of graduated size from a negative before deciding on the dimensions of the final exhibition print. When I viewed his retrospective in 1970 of 500 prints, it was impossible for me to discern any pattern of sizing. Landscape, heads, full figures, and small forms in nature ranged from 5" x 6" contact prints to almost 11" x 14". Only a half-dozen landscapes were printed large, but none of these measured as much as 16" x 20". In all cases the prints seemed beautifully proportioned. Although Strand's flexible approach to the dilema is contrary to Weston's (whose print sizes were dictated by his equipment), both men produced exquisite work".

(For the record, the Strand retrospective at the Philadelphia Museum of Art was in 1971.)

[mdm]

Thats very intersting. I believe Strand also used only one lens in his later years, slightly long on 5x7 and normal on 8x10. So it seems he took the oppsite approach to many by changing camera rather than lens to achieve the pespective he was after.

[David_Senesac]

Probably 80% of my 4x5 large format landscape work has been with the normal 150mm lens. Because I almost always work out in the field away from roads where one has to carry gear, for weight and space sake, I usually carry just three focal lengths, 90mm, 150mm, and 300mm lens. Given a choice, I prefer the normal lens versus wide angle or telephoto because it best represents the usual human visual experience. Although a natural style is not a consideration of interest for the vast majority of landscape photographers, it is something that distinguishes my own work from the rest and that I emphasize.

The odd thing is back in the 80s and into the 90s when I was still shooting a 35mm SLR (set of several fixed lenses), I used wide angles more often, especially the 28mm. Then during a brief period I increasingly used a 6x7, that began to change. And for the last several years, I seem to only bother putting on the 90mm when I have no choice say to back up. One issue is with a view camera in the field, changing lenses takes some time, and the period when light is best is limited. Despite that it seems I often try putting on the 90mm only to disapprove of the result, then put the 150mm back on. I think part of that may be due to a fundamental change in my aesthetic sense of putting greater value on the main subject element size within a frame without complementing it it in ways that reduce impact. As though the loss of emphasis on main elements has become important. And thus I probably work to find such perspectives at usable distances where that works while in the past would be content with closer to subject wider prespective.

In landscapes, the foreground is an important frame element to consider. With fixed lens film cameras, using a normal lens often does not allow one to move close enough to foregrounds while maintaining adequate focus for bigger enlargements. However with a tiltable view camera, a normal lens can that is certainly another factor as to why I use my normal lens more now. In any case I will readily put on my other lenses if necessary. For instance this August while backpacking in the John Muir Wilderness, I calculated a location for capturing one of the best known Sierra Nevada peaks, Red and White Mountain. Due to topography, the only choice was to use my 300mm, else that subject element would loose size in frame emphasis it deserved. Accordingly, one morning I climbed up about 1k feet above our camp on a canyon wall just above a minor cliff to a location I doubt anyone has ever bothered to work then exposed this sheet when early morning light was optimal at 8:15am.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/11-L1-1.jpg

David

[Noeyedear]

It is often stated that a "normal" lens (one whose focal length is equal to the diagonal of the film size) produces images which appear "normal" - when not cropped and when viewed from a "normal" viewing distance.

(See Wikipedia for a nice explanation of "Perspective Distortion" with illustrations.)

Is "normal" perspective the most beautiful, the most pleasing? Or is it simply the least distracting?

I noticed when walking around art galleries, they almost all are painted from a natural perspective. When I see a painting with say a closeup wide angle, or blurry background approach it looks like a copy to me.
I just bought a Rolleiflex 3.5F, not having lenses to swop around is like a breath of fresh air when out taking pictures.
To be honest if I never see another extreme wide angle beach Sunset again I will not be disappointed.

Kevin.

www.treewithoutabird.com

[rdenney]

I noticed when walking around art galleries, they almost all are painted from a natural perspective. When I see a painting with say a closeup wide angle, or blurry background approach it looks like a copy to me.

While it is certainly true that wide-angle lenses can become cliche, it is not true that the perspective of a scene made using one is always "unnatural".

Also, I'm not sure photography has to be judged by what looks right for paintings. When a painter copies a purely photographic effect (such as selective focus), it looks like a copy. But the same is true when photographers attempt to copy painterly effects.

Special effects fail when they are conspicuous as a special effect. That's true for all art.

But I'm not sure that wide views always look like copies. Frederic Church painted this in 1857 (image from the Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, DC):



Rick "thinking a photograph of Niagara showing this view would require a short lens indeed" Denney

[Ken Lee]

Weathered Truck and Autumn Leaves, 2011
200mm Nikkor M, Tachihara Field Camera
4x5 TMY, D-23

After all this discussion, I got a 200mm lens for 4x5. I'm liking the sense of distance and space.

[Ed Richards]

Getting back to the original question about the aesthetics of a normal perspective, I also see the question as unrelated to lenses. To someone just looking at the pictures, normal to me means that they do not think about the perspective, that it looks normal as differentiated from unusual/funny/distorted/creative/etc. I have many pictures shot with a 90mm on 4x5 that viewers see as normal. If you were to go to the scene, however, and compare the view to that of the print you would realize that the print is very different. I have created a normal look but one that is different from the actual scene. Rick also showed this with his mountain lake. I have have pictures with a 47mm that look normal. OTOH, I have wide images that look really do not look normal to a viewer. But it is done as an aesthetic decision.

If you just plop down the camera and shoot, a normal lens will usually give an image that will look normal. You can change that, but it is the default. Wide and long lenses will give you images that are more likely to look "different" to the viewer, but they can all be used to look normal.

I think that normal looking images taken with wider or long lenses are more likely to catch a viewers eye because of the unconscious frisson caused by the mismatch between the expected notion of normal and normal in the image. This may be why there is a disproportionate number of successful images taken with unnormal lenses.