Transferring what i see,to film (newbie)

[naoip]

Hi All,I'm sure this is a very basic question and i apologies for that (newbie)

Since starting photography recently,i find i'm really starting to look for photos walking around in my day to day life..But transferring what i see,to the photo i get are two different things..

I'm sure i read the 50mm lens is the closes lens to the human eye? What lens is comparable in LF 150mm?.. Ive recently withdrawn some books on LF from the library, which i'm hoping will help..

But basically thats what i want to know : getting the photo to matches what ive seen exactly...
thks for reading..
andy

[Colin Corneau]

I've read (in this august forum, if I remember correctly) that a ROUGH guide is to divide a LF lens focal length by 3 in order to get an approximation in the more familiar 35mm format.

Your results may vary, advisor accepts no responsibility for information presented, batteries not included, warranty null and void if prohibited by law, applicants may be asked to complete a skill-testing question, see your dealer for details.

[Ralph Barker]

People "see" differently, Andy. Focal length-wise, the 150mm "normal" lens for 4x5 matches how some "see". For others, something longer or shorter becomes their most-used "normal" lens.

One method of determining what is "right" for you is to walk around with a framing aid like this:

http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/Misc/Photo-gear/FramingAid1-500.jpg

where the knots in the string are at typical lens focal lengths. Walk around for a day taking "air photos", holding the string to your cheek and looking through the frame with the opposite eye closed. Make notes about which focal-length knot most closley matches how you see the scene. At the end of the day, the perfect focal length for you will have the most tic marks next to it.

[Preston]

Ralph's idea is excellent, not only from the standpoint of determining your 'natural' focal length, but also (by closing the other eye) you will learn to see in two dimensions, because your perception of depth will be altered.

-PB

[matthew blais]

I just wanna know how Ralph made the matboard stand on it's own..
I know he's a wizard, but...oh, must be a digital photo :D

[naoip]

Cheers for the advice..I thought at first Ralf's suggestion,might of been similar to go to the storeroom and ask for a long weight (wait) :D

Im going to try it tomorrow! I just read else where to cut a rectangular hole 6x9 inches, that sound right Ralf? thksss aj

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use a matboard with a 4x5 cutout almost all the time. Not only does it facilitate lens focal length and camera position, but also aids in sussing out compositions. That is what I use it for mainly. I also use the 4x5 cut out when shooting 8x10. I just double the focal length.

[Ralph Barker]

My cut-out is the actual size of the image are on 4x5 film, 96mm x 122mm as I recall, but 4x5 is close enough.

As to how to get it to stand on its own, all you need is a snake-charming flute made of steamed mat board. A few well-chosen notes, and up it comes. ;)

[Alan Davenport]

getting the photo to matches what ive seen exactly...

Can't be done...

[Leonard Evens]

The actual film area is about 96 x 120 mm, but 4 x 5 inches is close enough. If you want to use a different size frame, you need to adjust the distance(s) you hold the frame from your eye to compensate. A frame with a 4 x 5 inch cutout should fit in a coat pocket, and anything smaller, in addition for the need to adjust, needs to be held closer to your eye, which makes it more difficult to visualize the scene in relation to the frame.

You can enhance the value of a frame by marking the centers of all four sides. That makes it easier to center the frame on your visual axis. Also, you can estimate how much of a rise, fall or sideways shift you need to get what you want in the scene. If that exceeds what your lens can cover or your camera movements allow, then you can't take the picture. I've gone so far as to mark these limits in addition to the center marks on the sides of the frame. That often saves me the trouble of setting up the camera and then finding I can't encompass the scene with a rise, fall, or shift.

The 35 mm frame is 24 x 36 mm, which has an aspect ratio of 24 : 36 = 2 : 3 = 1 : 1.5. 4 x 5 has an aspect ratio of 4:5 = 1 : 1.25. So how you compare the two formats depends on which dimension you use. Using the short side, you get 96/24 = 4. Using the long side, you get 120/36 = 3.33. Using the diagonal you get about 3.6.

The standard focal length for a given format is usually taken to be the diagonal of the format. For 35 mm this comes out about to about 43 mm and for 4 x 5 to about 153 mm. The argument is that a typical person will "see" such an angle of view when looking at a scene. But this can vary a lot depending on the person and the scene. For 4 x 5, 150 mm is usually considered to be the normal focal length, but this can vary according to personal preference over a fairly broad range. For 35 mm, for historical reasons, 50-55 mm is usually taken to be the "normal" focal length, but this is actually a trifle long compared to the diagonal. The ratio 3 comes from comparing 150 mm to mm, but you would be better off using something more like 3.5.

[Peter Galuszewski]

From a more "philosophical" point of view, what you are asking about is the journey - not the destination - of photography. I am afraid that everyone who has so much as dabbled in photography has been pursuing that very notion: putting their vision of what they see onto film and paper, be it as exact a reproduction of reality or the most abstract of expressions.