Is "normal" perspective the most pleasing?

[Ken Lee]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29) 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?

[jp]

I think normal is most versatile, but I hesitate to generalize to the extent you are asking with regard to a subjective question.

[Vaughn]

Extremes can tend to seem gimmicky after awhile -- including the extreme of staying away from extremes. I tend to stay with "normal" lenses as they fit better with how I see and work. In the end it is how the lens is used rather then the lens itself that matters.

[Nathan Potter]

All depends on the subject and the interpretation that you want to apply to it. If I had to generalize I would say that the lens focal length wants to be transparent to the image. If the viewers eye is drawn to or distracted by the compressed perspective of a tele or the exaggerated perspective of an ultra wide in deference to the subject then one can argue that a normal lens could be more pleasing.

The comment "gimmicky" by Vaughn is good because if a gimmick is obvious in an image then it is a distraction and can weaken the message in the image.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Michael Alpert]

Ken,

I think you are asking whether a photograph that is "distracting" (meaning, I think, self-referentially distracting) is less "pleasing" to the viewer. The question is easily answered if you define photography as a means to supply simple optically-generated document-images without the photograph-as-photograph calling attention to itself. If you understand photography as a means of self-expression as well as a means to document subject-matter (which, I am sure, is how you understand photography) then "pleasing" really means "meaningful." In that sense, I would answer that there is no formula for making meaningful (pleasing) images. In many situations--including some commonplace landscape situations--a photographer/artist may feel compelled to choose a lens that differs significantly from the perspective of eyesight, even if the resulting photograph becomes more obviously a construction.

[Heroique]

A key sentence from Ken’s Wiki link:

“Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens per se – two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used.”

But change your lens, and you will likely change the mood or “level of pleasure,” even if the perspective distortion stays the same.

-----
A shot w/ a wide lens can give me just a normal level of pleasure.

However, my normal lens (a 150mm g-claron) often surprises me w/ ultra-wide levels of pleasure.

[Vaughn]

Valid statement, Heroique, but key? I tend to see it more this way;

Note that the perspective distortion is caused by the choice of lens, not the distance per se -- two shots of the same scene (framed identically) will exhibit very different perspective distortion depending on which lens is used.

In other words, if I have a mountain that I wanted framed by two particular trees, the lens choice will determine where I put the camera (distance) and how much "distortion" I will get.

[Jay DeFehr]

A key sentence from Ken’s Wiki link:

“Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens per se – two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used.”

But change your lens, and you will likely change the mood or “level of pleasure,” even if the perspective distortion stays the same.

And, in order to maintain the same framing when changing focal lengths, one must also change the lens- subject distance.

The above is why portrait lenses tend to be longer than normal, and why they tend to get shorter as the format size increases/ image magnification decreases. I've grown to appreciate the rendering of shorter-than-traditional portrait lenses, though I acknowledge I use them with care.

[Ken Lee]

Just to be clear: I'm asking about perspective. My question is about aesthetics: Is "normal" perspective the most pleasing?

If any are confused about how perspective is affected by film size/focal length/shooting distance, please read the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29). I provided the link to avoid technical discussion. :)

[Kirk Gittings]

As someone who has sold thousands of images either to collectors, magazines, architects etc. etc and had over 80 exhibits, all of which gives one some knowledge about people's taste. I would say no-speaking about either my personal aesthetic (with my personal work) nor to all these zillions of various clients I deal with either as an artist or a photographic illustrator. Over the years my use of a normal lens has greatly diminished. I rarely even put one on the camera anymore. If I am hiking I don't bring one. "Normal" IME is boring.

[Heroique]

This famous bit of scripture from St. Ansel I cannot agree with:

“In general, I do not find the normal lens especially desirable, functionally or aesthetically. The angle of view and depth of field characteristics do not seem favorable to me in interpreting space and scale. In my experience, lenses of shorter or longer focal length are usually preferable in an aesthetic sense. I frequently find that the ‘normal’ concepts and performances are not as exciting as those that make an acceptable departure from the expected reality” (from “The Camera,” Chapter 5).

Go ahead, call me a heretic – throw your stones, tie me to the stake. My 150mm g-claron has pleased me more than my 110mm or 240mm ever will! However, I do need all three to be completely happy in the long run. ;^)

[Ramiro Elena]

I think Broadbent had some interesting thoughts on the subject. The way he normaly chooses "wider" lenses for his still-lifes in order to achieve a perspective closer to the human eye.
I don't know if that is true because one tends to go into jaw-drop when admiring his work. So I'm led to believe he is right.
It also hard to separate other pleasing aspects of a photo from perspective itself. At least for me, light, depht of field, composition or the subject itself might make the take pleasing enough that I have a hard time deciding if choice of the lens was the most pleasing.

[Kirk Gittings]

This famous bit of scripture from St. Ansel I cannot agree with:

“In general, I do not find the normal lens especially desirable, functionally or aesthetically. The angle of view and depth of field characteristics do not seem favorable to me in interpreting space and scale. In my experience, lenses of shorter or longer focal length are usually preferable in an aesthetic sense. I frequently find that the ‘normal’ concepts and performances are not as exciting as those that make an acceptable departure from the expected reality” (from “The Camera,” Chapter 5).

Go ahead, call me a heretic – throw your stones, tie me to the stake. My 150mm g-claron has pleased me more than my 110mm or 240mm ever will! However, I do need all three to be completely happy in the long run. ;^)

There is a reason he is nicknamed Saint Ansel.:)

[rdenney]

To me, the special effect is the extreme focal length. What makes a short lens look like a short lens is because so much of the subject is in the image. If we move closer to limit that expanse of subject, the perspective becomes distorted. But that distortion means that closer subject elements are enlarged with respect to more distance subject elements that we are accustomed to seeing. This can emphasize that closer element and make it more important in the composition, though we run the risk of overemphasizing it in the hopes of creating drama. Or, we can end up with an image that shows too much subject and has no focus--nothing to draw the eye into the scene. Landscapes with short lenses often have that problem. The distant mountains become unimportant, etc.

I tend to err on the former--too much emphasis which ends up looking melodramatic. With me it's a congenital defect. But I'm made my share of the second kind of lens-too-short mistake, too. I'm still drawn to short lenses, though.

With long lenses, one can isolate the subject, or magnify the importance of the background. So, a tree that would have sky as a background with a short lens might have mountains as a background with a long lens.

With faces, most don't want their nose emphasized with respect to their faces, so my tendency is to set up a bit farther away and use a longer lens to control framing. It seems to me that people are accustomed to viewing each other from a distance of arm's length or more, and a photo from a foot with a really short lens is going to magnify the nose and make the face look pointed compared to what we might be used to. But too long a lens often makes their face look too flat, even though that seems to be a fad from time to time. A long lens does have the benefit of being more selective about the background.

Rick "thinking camera position is the first most important decision we make" Denney

[Vaughn]

Right you are Ken, but my point was more about how one sees. Having used mostly "normal" lenses, and having spent a lifetime seeing more or less "normally" (actually I have been very near-sighted for 45+ years), the images I create tend to be of the "normal" perspective. It was not until I started using an 8x10 that I got more than one lens and started to explore the issue of differing perspectives.

I still tend to see "normally", and consider short or long lenses usually when I can't get what I want with my 300mm. I assume those with more experience with non-normal focal lengths get to a point where they can see at that focal length, or at least have a close idea and can predict the image on the GG. I am getting there, but no rush...

Viewers are probably the same way. The aesthetical quality of an image as perceived by the viewer (based on perspective due to lens use) might depend on their visual "education". The use of camera phones and their very wide angle lenses (and often close distance) is making that wide perspective more "normal".

A bit of a ramble...oh well.

[Heroique]

The use of camera phones and their very wide angle lenses (and often close distance) is making that wide perspective more “normal.”

Interesting because it suggests “normal” is based on social conditioning, not the eye’s physiology.

[Vaughn]

Interesting because it suggests “normal” is based on social conditioning, not the eye’s physiology.

No, just that aesthetics might be more strongly influenced by social conditioning than by physiology, though physiology has a strong role.

The movie/TV industry must deal with the same issues (the use of perspective and its effects on the audience).

[Ken Lee]

Here's another way of asking the same question: If not the normal perspective, then is there some other perspective that is most pleasing ?

[Michael Alpert]

Just to be clear: I'm asking about perspective. My question is about aesthetics: Is "normal" perspective the most pleasing?

Ken,

If you have two photographs taken of the same subject with lenses of different focal lengths, you can legitimately ask a viewer which photograph is aesthetically more pleasing. Then you can discuss and evaluate the answer. But to ask a viewer which perspective IN GENERAL is more pleasing is to ask an unanswerable question. Art is nothing if not specific. The integrity of any individual work of art is truly more than the sum of its parts, technical or otherwise. No answer to your question can be correct because your question is based on general, and therefore nonsensical, criteria.

[Jay DeFehr]

Vaughn,

Excellent points! When I was reading the AA snipet I was thinking about the cameras of his day used by the general, and most had normal lenses. That might be part of the reason AA was bored by the normal perspective. I wonder if contemporary photog's will feel similarly about wide angle perspectives, ie- too common/ boring?

[Heroique]

When I was reading the AA snipet I was thinking about the cameras of his day used by the general public, and most had normal lenses. That might be part of the reason AA was bored by the normal perspective.

This is interesting too, perhaps another case of social conditioning on “normal” and how we perceive its attending pleasures. Makes one curious whether AA would have thought differently about his preferred wide perspective if he had used a modern cell phone that showed him (and everyone else) “wide” all the time. Perhaps we sometimes over-estimate the influence of physiology on our artistry, being the highly social and adaptable creatures that we are.

[Vaughn]

Judging by ancient art, how we see, reconize, and represent perspective has gone through radical changes over time -- but our eyes have not significantly changed over that time.

Vaughn

[Leigh]

I think the whole idea of relating lens focal length to film diagonal makes no sense.
Given the wide range of aspect ratios in common usage, the whole concept seems tenuous at best.
You don't look at the world on the diagonal, unless you're in a hammock.

It would make more sense to base lens selection on the horizontal angle of coverage, since that's the way we perceive the world.

I think it depends on the subject and the vision of it that you're trying to create.
I seldom use the "normal" 80mm lens on the Hasselblad, but frequently use the "normal" 135mm or 150mm lenses on the 4x5 cameras.

Focal length is just a creative tool, to be used however you choose.

- Leigh

[Hoang]

I love normal lenses BECAUSE they are boring :)

[Robert Hughes]

Normal perspective may be most pleasing, but is definitely most versatile.

[Oren Grad]

Here's another way of asking the same question: If not the normal perspective, then is there some other perspective that is most pleasing ?

I don't think there's one perspective that's universally "most pleasing".

My own "normal" is 7/8 of the format diagonal. I don't find lenses at the format diagonal to be as widely useful, and in a one-lens outfit I usually find them awkward and limiting for the way I see.

The exception is for panoramic formats - say, 2:1 or longer - where I tend to key on the vertical field rather than the diagonal, and I'll usually want something shorter than the 7/8 guideline would suggest.

[Sal Santamaura]

...My own "normal" is 7/8 of the format diagonal...Which 227.6 mm lens are you using on whole plate? :)

[Ken Lee]

Yet another way to consider this question, is to evaluate the sense of distance that we get from the photo.

By analogy, different times of day have different moods or feelings. Some people like photographs made at dawn and dusk, when the light gives a texture and glow. Others, like John Sexton, prefer to make images just before sunrise and just after sunset. To those people, there is definitely a "most pleasing" form of lighting. To those people, such lighting is most flattering to the subject.

So is there a most flattering sense of distance from the subject?

John Sexton's Quiet (http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Light-John-Sexton/dp/0821217755) Light gives detailed information about each photograph: exposure, focal length, filter etc. The book contains 45 images made on 4x5 film with lenses of varying length. Here's the tally:

90 mm 5
120mm 4
150mm 2
210mm 26
300mm 4
360mm 2
500mm 2

I'm not making any claims here, just investigating.

[Alan Gales]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29) 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?

After I left High School I attended the local community college. My major was Commercial Art. I loved the art part and was pretty good at it but I hated the commercial part. My figure drawing 3 instructor tried to convince me of my talent and that I needed to attend the Chicago Institute of Art. Not desiring to become a starving artist, I went into a Sheet Metal apprenticeship. I know you are all asking, "What?". I'm one of those few individuals, so I have been told, who have an interest in art and mechanical reasoning.

When I started shooting 35mm I wanted nothing to do with a "normal" lens. I was all about shooting "art" and nothing about shooting normal boring photography! When a subject called for a normal lens I just forced myself to use a wide angle or a long lens. Of course I missed a lot of shots with my ignorance.

The subject calls out for the camera distance and the focal length of the lens. I feel that each are equally important.

Of course I may use a long lens when someone else uses a wide angle and still someone else uses the "normal" lens. Everyone sees the subject differently in their mind's eye. This is called artistic interpretation.

Ansel didn't care much for the normal lens. Henri Cariter-Bressen shot only with one. There is no right or wrong answer. The best answer is to use the lens that works for you.

[John NYC]

"Normal" IME is boring.

I had a thread where I talked about boring focal lengths and got raked over the coals by people saying there was no such thing as a boring focal length and that I was an idiot for suggesting there was. Will be interesting to see if you get the same reaction for a similar comment. :-)

Of course, like most threads on this board, many people did not actually bother to understand my point, which was that the most common perspective is the most boring at any given time in history. My argument went that pictures in the focal length equivalent of 28mm to 35mm with everything in focus are actually the most boring because every digital point and shoot and phone camera makes those now.

[ic-racer]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29) 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 have no issue with the term "Normal Lens" because everyone knows that that is. However I have found it to be no more, or less "Normal" than any other lens. In fact no matter what lens you put on the camera the perspective never changes.

[Oren Grad]

Which 227.6 mm lens are you using on whole plate? :)

I bounce back and forth between 210 and 240. I wish I had a 225mm Apo-Sironar-S. ;)

[Oren Grad]

So is there a most flattering sense of distance from the subject?

That's just the flip side of your perspective question. I like 7/8 precisely because of how that renders space. OMCV. (Others' Mileages Clearly Vary.)

[Heroique]

In fact no matter what lens you put on the camera the perspective never changes.

Here’s an analogy to help address the “normal” and “pleasing” parts of this important issue.

If I share the same viewing position w/ a hawk, the perspective is identical for both of us.

But my “normal” human vision would (very likely) be displeasingly wide for him, and his “normal” raptor vision would be displeasingly long for me.

But to return to our shared perspective – I suspect it would appear “normal” and perhaps even “pleasing” to both of us, no matter whose eyes we were using. For it wouldn’t change – even if the angle of vision did change to a displeasing degree.

[mdm]

A camera has 1 eye so it does not have a sense of depth as we do. A photograph flattens space onto its surface. The perspective, or the space and the way it is flattened is chosen by the photographer, by chosing where to put the camera and what focal length lens to use. A normal lens in my hands has different perspective to a normal lens in your hands, focal lenth is only half of the equation. Given the same situation, no 2 people make exactly the same photograph therefore there is no such thing as "normal" perspective. I personally find a normal lens most pleasing.

[Heroique]

I personally find a normal lens most pleasing.

Another heretic.

I suddenly feel less alone.

And so does my magical 150mm g-claron.

[Mark Stahlke]

To paraphrase Ansel Adams: There are no boring lenses (or perspectives), only boring photographs.

As someone else said, the subject matter and the photographer's vision determine the lens or perspective choice.

If I may be so bold as to use one of my humble images as an example, this image was shot with a 55mm lens on 4x5. Is this perspective displeasing or distracting? I don't think so. I think the wide angle perspective gives it an energy and dynamism that a similar shot with a normal lens would be lacking. In my opinion the wide angle perspective pushes this shot from the mundane to an almost abstract study of lines and planes, tones and textures. The wide angle lens gave me what I wanted. I ask again, is this perspective displeasing or distracting? Would a normal perspective be more pleasing or less distracting?

http://www.markstahlkephotography.com/Convention_Center_files/conv_center.jpg

[Ken Lee]

So is there a most flattering sense of distance from the subject?


That's just the flip side of your perspective question. I like 7/8 precisely because of how that renders space.

Thank you!

[Bruce Watson]

Is "normal" perspective the most beautiful, the most pleasing?

For me, no.

I've been reluctant to post on this thread because I'm sort of confused by it. I'm confused because I don't see it. I've been wandering around the house looking a photographs of mine shot with lenses from 80mm to 240mm. I know from experience that I tend to shoot about equally with my 110, 150, and 240mm lenses on 5x4. To tell you the truth, I can't tell by looking at the prints which lens I used to make the capture. Some of them I just happen to remember, but some I just couldn't tell ya.

Perhaps this is because I use lenses a little differently. My only consideration when choosing a lens is angle of view. I walk the scene to find the best spot to make the photograph, then choose the lens that lets me capture what I'm after from that spot. I don't know that I've ever moved the camera position to accommodate a lens.

End result is that I can't say that a photograph I've made with one lens is any more pleasing to me than a photograph I've made with a lens of different focal length.

[Ken Lee]

"It would make more sense to base lens selection on the horizontal angle of coverage, since that's the way we perceive the world."

Let's use a circular sheet of film whose diameter is 6 inches. A 4x5 inch sheet would fit snugly inside. The diagonal of that 4x5 inch frame is 6 inches or ~150mm.

A lens that is 150mm above that frame would have a viewing angle of around 53 degrees. A 120mm lens would give a viewing angle of 64 degrees. A lens that is 225mm above the frame has an angle of around 36 degrees. A 300mm lens has around 28 degrees, and a 450mm lens has a viewing angle of around 19 degrees... is that right ?

That's using the diagonal. Are you suggesting that we use horizontal measure - IE the longer of the two lengths ?

[Will Frostmill]

That's using the diagonal. Are you suggesting that we use horizontal measure - IE the longer of the two lengths ?

Ken,
I sometimes prefer the horizontal measure, because it is more useful for predicting how many people I can fit into a group shot indoors. More "sky" is just a bonus. But I bounce between 4:3 and 6:6 ratios most of the time, and an enormous amount of my work is people, in groups, indoors.

I find that "normal" focal lengths can be annoyingly selective (Particularly the "long normals" of 85mm on 6x6, and 50-55 on 35mm.) They are pretty nice for from-the waist-up portraits, though, and are perfect for "found compositions."

[Steve M Hostetter]

I use a 480mm - 600mm as my "normal" on 8x10" now don't argue with me and go to your room! Is your homework done young man?

[Ken Lee]

I haven't gone away :) I'm doing some of my own testing.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/focallength.jpg

Meanwhile, I continue to contemplate Oren's remark:

"I like 7/8 precisely because of how that renders space."

[John NYC]

I haven't gone away :) I'm doing some of my own testing.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/focallength.jpg

Meanwhile, I continue to contemplate Oren's remark:

"I like 7/8 precisely because of how that renders space."

The testing looks fun. Looking forward to your explanations of the shots.

[Oren Grad]

Meanwhile, I continue to contemplate Oren's remark:

"I like 7/8 precisely because of how that renders space."

It fits New England spaces. :)

[Vaughn]

What is 7/8?

[rdenney]

I haven't gone away :) I'm doing some of my own testing.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/focallength.jpg

Meanwhile, I continue to contemplate Oren's remark:

"I like 7/8 precisely because of how that renders space."

You know, of course, that you could take the border of the one on the right and draw it in the one on the left, and within the border, the two pictures will be identical. Only camera position dictates near-far relative relationships, and composition dictates what should be in the frame. That dictates the lens length.

In the music world, one well-known pedagog has stated that all instrumental solos are either love songs are pirate songs. Using that as a (distant) metaphor, for me all photos are either majestic sweeping views or significant subjects selected from that vastness. For me, a normal lens lacks the sweep to do the former or the selectivity to do the latter from most any given camera position. When I look through a normal lens, I find myself often either wanting to see more of the scene or wanting to isolate the subject more selectively.

Trying to get too much sweep from the wrong spot or too much selectivity leads to obvious short and long lens distortion. But being at the right spot with the right lens might make it difficult to discern the focal length used by just looking at the print.

Rick "getting better at articulating the issue for himself" Denney

[John NYC]

Only camera position dictates near-far relative relationships, and composition dictates what should be in the frame. That dictates the lens length.
...
When I look through a normal lens, I find myself often either wanting to see more of the scene or wanting to isolate the subject more selectively.
...
Rick "getting better at articulating the issue for himself" Denney

I am not following. Without cropping, if you frame a scene to include the same elements and only those elements, and in doing so you use a wide and a normal lens, the relationships of elements in the photo to the viewer will look different due to the fact that you had to move the camera to accomplish the same framing. You had to stand in a different place relative to all those things in the scene.

[John NYC]

I am not following. Without cropping, if you frame a scene to include the same elements and only those elements, and in doing so you use a wide and a normal lens, the relationships of elements in the photo to the viewer will look different due to the fact that you had to move the camera to accomplish the same framing. You had to stand in a different place relative to all those things in the scene.

Adding that this wiki article explains it all really clearly...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)

[Ken Lee]

I am not following.

As I have pointed out several times - and as the title of the thread suggests - I am discussing the aesthetic aspect of a well-understood technical fact: Which sense of depth is most pleasing? Which perspective is most pleasing? Is there an inherently most pleasant distance or feeling of space?

To better grasp the relationship between distance/focal length/perspective, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29)

Incidentally, I already cited that article in my first post, the one which opens this thread. Great minds think alike :)

[Ken Lee]

What is 7/8?

Read Oren's post :)

"My own "normal" is 7/8 of the format diagonal."

[Ken Lee]

You know, of course, that you could take the border of the one on the right and draw it in the one on the left, and within the border, the two pictures will be identical.

Yes, but as they appear here, they feel different. They have different senses of space or distance. One feels deep, the other feels flat. Composition aside, which feeling of space is most pleasant? I'm not mentioning the focal length of the different images.

Of course, some aren't interested merely what is the most pleasant or beautiful to behold. They are looking for novelty, interest, uniqueness. That's fine. I'm just a sensualist in these matters.


In the music world, one well-known pedagog has stated that all instrumental solos are either love songs are pirate songs. Using that as a (distant) metaphor, for me all photos are either majestic sweeping views or significant subjects selected from that vastness. For me, a normal lens lacks the sweep to do the former or the selectivity to do the latter from most any given camera position. When I look through a normal lens, I find myself often either wanting to see more of the scene or wanting to isolate the subject more selectively.

Well stated. Many would agree, but not necessarily all. It's a trend, and there's probably a physiological reason for it.

Most people would reject images that are excessively flat or excessively deep, seeing both as distorted, contrived, even cliché (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A9). That's because we all share the same basic optical mechanism. Again, I'm not talking about what makes for unique or sensational images - just what is most beautiful.

[rdenney]

I am not following. Without cropping, if you frame a scene to include the same elements and only those elements, and in doing so you use a wide and a normal lens, the relationships of elements in the photo to the viewer will look different due to the fact that you had to move the camera to accomplish the same framing. You had to stand in a different place relative to all those things in the scene.

Ken clearly had his camera at the same location for all shots. If you take the image on the right in his series, you could superimpose it directly on the image on the left. It would not fill the frame, but the part of the frame it did fill would be identical. That is a demonstration that camera position dictates perspective relationships. Focal length dictates magnification, which, in turn, dictates how much of the scene one will show from that location.

Rick "if you move the camera, the perspective changes, even if you use the same lens" Denney

[rdenney]

Yes, but as they appear here, they feel different. They have different senses of space or distance. One feels deep, the other feels flat. Composition aside, which feeling of space is most pleasant? I'm not mentioning the focal length of the different images.

If you put those four prints in your series in separate places, and asked different people to rate them on their sense of space, then I don't think you'd get the clear correlation that you see with the four images lined up side by side. In fact, if you printed them at different sizes so that the house remained the same size in all four prints, you'd get a different impression. Doing that would, it seems to me, take away the difference in magnification, and reinforce the point that the main difference is the choice of what is included in the frame.

Thus, for me they feel different because of what they include. Most people, I suppose, are pretty good at interpreting a realistic image to convert the flat presentation to a three-dimensional image in their minds. It is harder to do when there is less foreground in the picture. Pictures made with long lenses usually include less foreground, so it doesn't "print" in what I see as being as spatial. I suppose that can be overcome with dramatic lighting that provides modeling, or with such techniques as selective focus (in the same way that drafters and artists achieve dimensionality using line quality).

Even portraits made with very long lenses look to me as though the person's face has been removed from their round skull and laid out flat. But the reason for that is because we are used to seeing people at that magnification (i.e., apparent proximity) from five or six feet away. So, we become accustomed to what people's faces look like from that position. When we use a long lens, we take a distant face and make it big (increase magnification) so that it appears close. But the relationships look unnatural--the ears are too big and the nose is too small--and thus we perceive a flattened look. Photographers see the picture and say "the lens was too long" or "for that person, such a long lens makes the picture command attention". It's easy with faces because we have so much experience looking at them from that particular distance. Mountains and many other subjects are more difficult because people have such varied experiences with them.

Beauty for me is completely elusive. I don't think I'm ever struck by beauty in the natural scene in the way I would be struck by the beauty of, say, a woman. For me, the scene is either inviting or forbidding. The former invites a relationship, and the latter commands respect. Both are worthwhile, it seems to me. But I have only my own perceptions to go on here, and they are an amalgamation of what I have experienced both in terms of nature and in terms of previous art that depicts nature.

Maybe my tenuous pirate song/love song metaphor can be stretched in a different direction. It seems that often when doing landscapes we are either seeking drama or tranquility. Some people will interpret the former as beauty, while others will interpret the latter as beauty. Drama (which not taken to the cliche extreme of melodrama) commands respect or awe, while tranquility invites peaceful intimacy.

It seems to me that the main choice we make to achieve one or the other is what we include in the frame. Focal length seems to me a means to that end, not the deciding factor itself. I can think of dramatic landscapes made with both short and long lenses, and I can think of tranquil landscapes made with both short and long lenses. It is probably difficult to serve tranquility with extremely short lenses unless the scene is really painted with a broad, smooth brush, but even then using the very short lens may often be a way to wring drama out of a tranquil scene, for the person who is seeking drama. I'm sure I'm guilty of that frequently enough.

Rick "still unable to connect focal length and beauty with a straight line" Denney

[Ken Lee]

If you put those four prints in your series in separate places, and asked different people to rate them on their sense of space, then I don't think you'd get the clear correlation that you see with the four images lined up side by side. In fact, if you printed them at different sizes so that the house remained the same size in all four prints, you'd get a different impression. Doing that would, it seems to me, take away the difference in magnification, and reinforce the point that the main difference is the choice of what is included in the frame.

Thus, for me they feel different because of what they include. Most people, I suppose, are pretty good at interpreting a realistic image to convert the flat presentation to a three-dimensional image in their minds. It is harder to do when there is less foreground in the picture. Pictures made with long lenses usually include less foreground, so it doesn't "print" in what I see as being as spatial. I suppose that can be overcome with dramatic lighting that provides modeling, or with such techniques as selective focus (in the same way that drafters and artists achieve dimensionality using line quality).

Even portraits made with very long lenses look to me as though the person's face has been removed from their round skull and laid out flat. But the reason for that is because we are used to seeing people at that magnification (i.e., apparent proximity) from five or six feet away. So, we become accustomed to what people's faces look like from that position. When we use a long lens, we take a distant face and make it big (increase magnification) so that it appears close. But the relationships look unnatural--the ears are too big and the nose is too small--and thus we perceive a flattened look. Photographers see the picture and say "the lens was too long" or "for that person, such a long lens makes the picture command attention". It's easy with faces because we have so much experience looking at them from that particular distance. Mountains and many other subjects are more difficult because people have such varied experiences with them.

Beauty for me is completely elusive. I don't think I'm ever struck by beauty in the natural scene in the way I would be struck by the beauty of, say, a woman. For me, the scene is either inviting or forbidding. The former invites a relationship, and the latter commands respect. Both are worthwhile, it seems to me. But I have only my own perceptions to go on here, and they are an amalgamation of what I have experienced both in terms of nature and in terms of previous art that depicts nature.

Maybe my tenuous pirate song/love song metaphor can be stretched in a different direction. It seems that often when doing landscapes we are either seeking drama or tranquility. Some people will interpret the former as beauty, while others will interpret the latter as beauty. Drama (which not taken to the cliche extreme of melodrama) commands respect or awe, while tranquility invites peaceful intimacy.

It seems to me that the main choice we make to achieve one or the other is what we include in the frame. Focal length seems to me a means to that end, not the deciding factor itself. I can think of dramatic landscapes made with both short and long lenses, and I can think of tranquil landscapes made with both short and long lenses. It is probably difficult to serve tranquility with extremely short lenses unless the scene is really painted with a broad, smooth brush, but even then using the very short lens may often be a way to wring drama out of a tranquil scene, for the person who is seeking drama. I'm sure I'm guilty of that frequently enough.

Rick "still unable to connect focal length and beauty with a straight line" Denney

Thank you very much! And for taking the time to explain! You've made many good points worthy of consideration and reflection.

[John NYC]

As I have pointed out several times - and as the title of the thread suggests - I am discussing the aesthetic aspect of a well-understood technical fact: Which sense of depth is most pleasing? Which perspective is most pleasing? Is there an inherently most pleasant distance or feeling of space?



With only using lenses in everyday situations and not performing tests, I have gravitated -- almost against my will because of many people always running them down -- to normal lenses, so that must be my personal answer.

[Ken Lee]

There are many equations with more than one solution. For example, the Square Root of 9 is both 3 and -3. Both answers are true :)

Perhaps people have different tastes in this area, as they do in so many others. For example, some people crave salty snacks, others reach for sweets invariably. It's a matter of their individual body chemistry - what the ancients called "constitution".

So in the end, the perspective/depth sense we like, may be more a reflection of our own makeup, than anything universal.

[John NYC]

So in the end, the perspective/depth sense we like, may be more a reflection of our own makeup, than anything universal.

Agree.

[John NYC]

Ken clearly had his camera at the same location for all shots. If you take the image on the right in his series, you could superimpose it directly on the image on the left. It would not fill the frame, but the part of the frame it did fill would be identical. That is a demonstration that camera position dictates perspective relationships. Focal length dictates magnification, which, in turn, dictates how much of the scene one will show from that location.

Rick "if you move the camera, the perspective changes, even if you use the same lens" Denney

In your final quip, that was my point exactly. If you want to include more or less of a scene, you can move the camera with any lens, but the way that lens renders perspective is the same. With a wide lens, things in the foreground will always be exaggerated in size no matter where you put the camera. There will just be different things in the foreground that are exaggerated in size if you move the camera.

I guess what I am having a problem understanding is the ramifications for you based on what you are saying... You say you always want to include more or less of scene when you look through a normal lens. This means that your working method if you follow what you described would be...

Find the spot you want to put the camera.
Visualize the exact boundries of your preferred framing of the scene
Pick the lens from your bag that does just that
That lens is rarely a normal lens

Would that be how you got to the conclusion for your preference?

[John NYC]

It seems to me that the main choice we make to achieve one or the other is what we include in the frame. Focal length seems to me a means to that end, not the deciding factor itself. I can think of dramatic landscapes made with both short and long lenses, and I can think of tranquil landscapes made with both short and long lenses. It is probably difficult to serve tranquility with extremely short lenses unless the scene is really painted with a broad, smooth brush, but even then using the very short lens may often be a way to wring drama out of a tranquil scene, for the person who is seeking drama. I'm sure I'm guilty of that frequently enough.


Check out Mike Stacey's LF work if you have not already seen it.

[aduncanson]

Ken,

Is there a reason why you chose to make your four photos from the same position?

Clearly making your four photos from distances proportional to focal length so that the building (or other part of the subject) was the same size in each, would be a different experiment and would almost certainly result in different preferences. I believe that it would better reflect the way that I use different focal lengths. That is, I choose the focal length to fill my focusing screen with my subject and the desired context, from my selected perspective.

It can be argued that by making all four photos from the same camera position, you did not vary the perspective at all, but really only made changes in the selection of context so that the viewer's preference reflects principally how the viewer feels about the inclusion of trees and grass surrounding the building.

I know that I have seen vocal disagreement on this forum about sweeping statements like the following, but to me perspective is identical to "point of view", incorporating both viewing angle and distance. For the view camera, I would expand that definition to also include back movements that affect the relationship of subject and context elements.

To assess perspective alone, you might need a subject with no significant context. I am not sure what that would be, maybe a vase or pot (some simple shape) isolated on a uniform featureless background. It is likely that even under such a controlled experiment, viewer preferences in perspective would depend on the selected shape and lighting. A human (or animal pet) head would be another suitably simple shape, but the powerful relationship we develop with faces might make it an (important) special case.

Best of luck with your investigations - Alan

[rdenney]

I guess what I am having a problem understanding is the ramifications for you based on what you are saying... You say you always want to include more or less of scene when you look through a normal lens. This means that your working method if you follow what you described would be...

Find the spot you want to put the camera.
Visualize the exact boundries of your preferred framing of the scene
Pick the lens from your bag that does just that
That lens is rarely a normal lens

Would that be how you got to the conclusion for your preference?

That happens often enough. Many times, the location where I can set up a camera is constrained by the situation, and I often have to take the place where setting up the camera is physically possible.

In the attached image, I wanted the iron frame over the well to frame the famous door to the Espada Mission in San Antonio. A shorter lens would have required a closer position, which would have caused the frame to be too large with respect to the mission facade. Too far with a longer lens, and the frame and door would have become one. I did walk around looking for the right spot. I would have preferred a spot slightly to one side, but there was a wall there. The perspective relationship was the driving requirement for this image.

(I did go back later and try to make an image with the frame outside the facade, by using a 90 instead of the 8-1/2" lens I used here. Way goofy.)

Now, the question is how much of the scene to include in the image. A longer lens would not have shown all of the well itself, and that would have made the image more difficult to interpret. It wasn't my intention to confuse the viewer, which is why I further separated the spatial relationship using both tonal values (printing it to keep the iron dark and the facade light) and selective focus (using f/5.6, as I recall). A shorter lens would have included too much of the scene, and I wanted the well frame and the church facade to be the dominant subject.

I don't like the right edge of the photograph, however. If I trim it more, the tree loses its connection to the ground. But where it is, I'm including a vapor lamp that I'd rather not have. That's one of several reasons I would have preferred to be slightly to the right.

Not all my photographs are as dominated by perspective relationships as this one, but it's something I'm thinking about all the time. It's my architecture and drafting background, I guess. It's hard for me not to see in perspective, having learned how to render perspectives using precision mechanical drawing techniques. You guys are old enough that I don't have to explain that, heh.

(The issue comes up often with people considering different formats when their only experience is with 35mm. In the digital world, there is vast confusion between those who have 24x36 digital sensors and those who have 15x23 sensors, when both cameras use basically the same lenses. People call it a "crop factor" or whatever, but they often believe that the lens itself contains the perspective relationship, when in fact those relationships are all dictated by the camera position. That is not a confusion for most large-format photographers, even if we debate how to describe it.)

Rick "veteran of many 'crop factor' battles" Denney

[rdenney]

Ken,

...I know that I have seen vocal disagreement on this forum about sweeping statements like the following, but to me perspective is identical to "point of view", incorporating both viewing angle and distance. For the view camera, I would expand that definition to also include back movements that affect the relationship of subject and context elements.

To assess perspective alone, you might need a subject with no significant context. I am not sure what that would be, maybe a vase or pot (some simple shape) isolated on a uniform featureless background. It is likely that even under such a controlled experiment, viewer preferences in perspective would depend on the selected shape and lighting. A human (or animal pet) head would be another suitably simple shape, but the powerful relationship we develop with faces might make it an (important) special case.

To your first point, I apply a mechanical drawing definition, which is the relative size of near and far subjects. That is distinct from perspective in the sense of a philosophical point of view. Clearly, Ken's question relates to the former.

And since the near-far relationships don't change by changing a lens (unless the camera position is also changed), I don't include the framing as part of that definition. Others might, but I think that confuses rather than clarifies. I'm trying to keep the near-far size relationship and the magnification issues separate because I find that helps with understanding. Most people on this forum already understand it even if they can't articulate it, but that understanding comes from experience working with many formats. Not all photographers have such experience.

To your second point, here are a couple of comparisons of faces, with the size of the subject held constant within theframe over a range of focal lengths. Of course, the camera position had to be changed to maintain the subject size within the frame, and the difference between the images is based on that. With faces, it's pretty easy to find the range of what looks pleasing and flattering to the model. Multiply everything by about 3.5 and pretend they are using 4x5.

http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2010/07/21/the-ideal-focal-length-for-portraiture-a-photographers-experiment/

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

Rick "thinking that what seems fairly easy with faces isn't so easy with many other subjects" Denney

[John NYC]

That happens often enough. Many times, the location where I can set up a camera is constrained by the situation, and I often have to take the place where setting up the camera is physically possible.

In the attached image, I wanted the iron frame over the well to frame the famous door to the Espada Mission in San Antonio. A shorter lens would have required a closer position, which would have caused the frame to be too large with respect to the mission facade. Too far with a longer lens, and the frame and door would have become one. I did walk around looking for the right spot. I would have preferred a spot slightly to one side, but there was a wall there. The perspective relationship was the driving requirement for this



In this image you have eliminated many of the visual clues to the relationships among the items in the picture, mainly by excluding the ground and the things that might be sitting on it or growing out of it between the well and the mission.

In this case, using a wide versus normal would have less of an impact. What I don't like about wides in my personal use is the exaggerated perspective of nearby items WHEN you can tell they are exaggerated by clues in the surroundings. If you always frame your wide angle shots to eliminate this, then the difference between normal and wide might seem to one to be the decision of what to include or not include in the frame, as you have been saying. What I have found for me, is that in practice it is not just that. I often want to include items in the scene that do show a complete idea of the spatial relationships of the items in the scene, and I want that to appear fairly natural, which is what normal or something around normal gives me.

[Ken Lee]

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

Judging by the 50mm version as "normal", the model benefits from having her face flattened a touch, in my humble opinion. Hence the popularity of slightly long lenses when shooting portraits.

[aduncanson]

Rick,

I think that your definition of perspective taken from the world of mechanical drawing is essentially the same as that I applied, and I thought that your comments to Ken starting with post #47 were getting at the same point. I just wanted Ken to address why he chose the experimental design that he did, since it eliminated the actual differences in perspective provided by different focal lengths and reduced the issue to one about the inclusion of context.

What I find interesting about the examples you linked to, is that in both exercises I find the differences in perspective to be pretty subtle among focal lengths greater than 100mm (on the 35mm frame.) This seems surprisingly coincident with my general disinterest in lenses longer than about 2.4x the negative diagonal.

I have thought about this in the past and decided that what we call perspective is actually the effect of different magnifications applying to different parts of the face such as the tip of the nose, the eyes and the ears. (This would be the "relative size of near and far subjects" in your language.) For longer lenses the distance between the ears and the nose becomes insignificant compared to the distance from the lens to the face in general, so that the differences in magnification are subtle. I am curious how this finding would vary with a different type of subject. It would seem to depend on the depth of the subject compared to its width, since the subject's width determines the minimum camera distance for a given focal length.

Our preferences would also seem to depend strongly on how we are used to seeing a particular subject. I have (somewhere) a favorite portrait of my love taken with a 24m lens. She, and others, never liked it quite as much as I did. :-)

- Alan

[rdenney]

In this case, using a wide versus normal would have less of an impact. What I don't like about wides in my personal use is the exaggerated perspective of nearby items WHEN you can tell they are exaggerated by clues in the surroundings. If you always frame your wide angle shots to eliminate this, then the difference between normal and wide might seem to one to be the decision of what to include or not include in the frame, as you have been saying. What I have found for me, is that in practice it is not just that. I often want to include items in the scene that do show a complete idea of the spatial relationships of the items in the scene, and I want that to appear fairly natural, which is what normal or something around normal gives me.

Agreed and that restates a point I was trying to make earlier. If you use a shorter lens and include more in the frame, that extra stuff will definitely change the way the photo reads. That's why drawing the frame boundaries is so important, despite the fact that I suck at it.

But here's a test: What lens (with respect to normal) was used with the photo linked below?

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/tidal-flat-4x8-lores.jpg

No fair looking at the web page before guessing. Hint: It is more distorted than you might think. Second hint: It is cropped from the top.

Rick "noting that a lot of ground surface is included in this one" Denney

[rdenney]

What I find interesting about the examples you linked to, is that in both exercises I find the differences in perspective to be pretty subtle among focal lengths greater than 100mm (on the 35mm frame.) This seems surprisingly coincident with my general disinterest in lenses longer than about 2.4x the negative diagonal.

Yes, it seemed that way for me, too. But I still find the need for longer lenses, as a means of extracting the composition I want from a distant scene. I needed 6 times normal to make a photo of Mount McKinley. Less than that from the vantage point available to me became a photo of the Alaska Range.:)


I have thought about this in the past and decided that what we call perspective is actually the effect of different magnifications applying to different parts of the face such as the tip of the nose, the eyes and the ears. (This would be the "relative size of near and far subjects" in your language.) For longer lenses the distance between the ears and the nose becomes insignificant compared to the distance from the lens to the face in general, so that the differences in magnification are subtle.

I like this description.

Rick "always appreciating a better way to describe things" Denney

[rdenney]

Check out Mike Stacey's LF work if you have not already seen it.

Tranquility was definitely his goal, and he achieved it with both short and long lenses. I like minimalist music but I have trouble performing it. It's probably the same with my photography. I keep going for drama and end up overstepping.

Rick "thanks for the link" Denney

[John NYC]

Agreed and that restates a point I was trying to make earlier. If you use a shorter lens and include more in the frame, that extra stuff will definitely change the way the photo reads. That's why drawing the frame boundaries is so important, despite the fact that I suck at it.

But here's a test: What lens (with respect to normal) was used with the photo linked below?

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/tidal-flat-4x8-lores.jpg

No fair looking at the web page before guessing. Hint: It is more distorted than you might think. Second hint: It is cropped from the top.

Rick "noting that a lot of ground surface is included in this one" Denney

Hard to guess because there are still not objects at various points in the front, middle and far middle where the viewer can relate the relative sizes of the objects. And I don't know grasses well enough to know if that grass is the type that is 3 inches or 10 inches tall.

In sum, to me, this is still a picture where a wide angle would not bother me much, but I am assuming this was not taken with a wide.

[ic-racer]

Seven pages and no one can define "Normal" perspective. I have no idea what that is. I suspect it is non-fisheye but I'm not sure. What would "Abnormal perspective" be? A composite view from many angles? Picasso's Cubist view? Visual field view in a parallel universe?

[Ken Lee]

Seven pages and no one can define "Normal" perspective. I have no idea what that is.

Perhaps you missed this section in the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29) cited several times in this thread (emphasis mine):

"Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and long-lens or telephoto distortion,[1] when talking about images with the same field size. Extension or wide-angle distortion can be seen in images shot from close using a wide-angle lens (with an angle of view wider than a normal lens). Object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, and distant objects appear abnormally small and hence more distant – distances are extended. Compression, long-lens, or telephoto distortion can be seen in images shot from a distant using a long focus lens or the more common telephoto sub-type (with an angle of view narrower than a normal lens). Distant objects look approximately the same size – closer objects are abnormally small, and more distant objects are abnormally large, and hence the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects – distances are compressed."

The illustrations in the article are also straightforward. It's a topic that has been well understood and profusely documented for decades.

[rdenney]

Hard to guess because there are still not objects at various points in the front, middle and far middle where the viewer can relate the relative sizes objects. And I don't know grasses well enough to know if that grass is the type that is 3 inches or 10 inches tall.

In sum, to me, this is still a picture where a wide angle would not bother me much, but I am assuming this was not taken with a wide.

Actually, it was taken on 6x6 format with a 30mm full-frame fisheye. So, it's extremely wide. The horizon is straight only because it went through the optical center of the frame, and I moved it off-center by cropping unneeded sky. The shape of the curvy tidal drainage was the key for me--I wanted it to have a certain relationship with the mountains and grasses. The edge of that drainage was nearly at my feet.

The point is that the addition or exclusion of those clues is part of the process, at least for me, and an aspect of framing distinct from determining the desired perspective relationships. I have made many photos with that fisheye where I consciously hid the fact that it was a fisheye, but still took advantage of the fisheye's enlargement of central subjects and appropriately round rendering of round subjects. It was not obvious to you because I was intentionally not making it obvious. (I don't always succeed.)

Rick "who'd love to have a 50mm full-frame fisheye for 4x5" Denney

[Vaughn]

Why do people get so hung up by the use of the terminology "normal lens". I believe it refers to a lens that is close in focal length to the diagonal measurement of the film. It does not mean what lens one uses on a regular basis, nor what one is use to seeing.

My my...:D


Read Oren's post

"My own "normal" is 7/8 of the format diagonal."

Thanks, Ken!

[John NYC]

It was not obvious to you because I was intentionally not making it obvious. (I don't always succeed.)

Rick "who'd love to have a 50mm full-frame fisheye for 4x5" Denney

You hit the nail on the head here from what I have been trying to say I don't like about wide angles, when someone does make it obvious that relationships between objects are skewed in a cartoon-like way that screams wide angle. That ruins a picture for me personally. It doesn't look pleasing to me, to refer back to the title of this thread. It looks purposefully unnatural and in a jarring way.

Mike Stacey often uses a 165mm on 8x10 and it doesn't bother me one single bit.

In the cases where the exaggerated perspective of relative objects is minimized/hidden, I would say that is an attempt to make it look more like a normal perspective, which must mean something eh? ;-)

[John NYC]

Why do people get so hung up by the use of the terminology "normal lens". I believe it refers to a lens that is close in focal length to the diagonal measurement of the film. It does not mean what lens one uses on a regular basis, nor what one is use to seeing.

My my...:D



Thanks, Ken!

Yes. It is unfortunate that whoever came up with the term chose that particular word, as it is overloaded with other baggage as well in our society.

[Heroique]

Seven pages and no one can define "Normal" perspective. I have no idea what that is. I suspect it is non-fisheye but I'm not sure. What would "Abnormal perspective" be? A composite view from many angles? Picasso's Cubist view? Visual field view in a parallel universe?

“Normal” perspective is, indeed, Picasso’s Cubist view:


Possibly the biggest difference between human vision and photographic vision is that our eyes scan a scene in pieces, and our minds assemble a composite – more collage than mosaic, because the pieces aren’t from precisely the same time. Or even the same vantage point. [Source: the “Physiology of the eye” thread]

“Normal” perspective is the last thing a normal lens can capture. Or any lens.

[Brian C. Miller]

In sum, to me, this is still a picture where a wide angle would not bother me much, but I am assuming this was not taken with a wide.


You hit the nail on the head here from what I have been trying to say I don't like about wide angles, when someone does make it obvious that relationships between objects are skewed in a cartoon-like way that screams wide angle. That ruins a picture for me personally. It doesn't look pleasing to me, to refer back to the title of this thread. It looks purposefully unnatural and in a jarring way.

Mike Stacey often uses a 165mm on 8x10 and it doesn't bother me one single bit.

Actually, I picked up immediately that Rick used a wide lens. But then again, I like wide lenses, when I think it's appropriate. I usually use a wide lens to separate an object from the background, and I want the background in focus. But sometimes I like to play around, and let everything go curvy.

I photographed a tree, and I found that with my 6x7's 90mm, a house in the background intruded on the tree. The next year when I came back, I had acquired a 45mm. Now the house is shown far back from the tree, which is defined by itself. When I bought a 35mm lens from a forum member, I had a ball bending things around. Would I use the 35mm with the tree? No. The 45mm keeps the perspective I want for the tree, but the 35mm would be too much for it.

[ic-racer]

Perhaps you missed this section in the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29) cited several times in this thread (emphasis mine):

"Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and long-lens or telephoto distortion,[1] when talking about images with the same field size. Extension or wide-angle distortion can be seen in images shot from close using a wide-angle lens (with an angle of view wider than a normal lens). Object close to the lens appears abnormally large relative to more distant objects, and distant objects appear abnormally small and hence more distant – distances are extended. Compression, long-lens, or telephoto distortion can be seen in images shot from a distant using a long focus lens or the more common telephoto sub-type (with an angle of view narrower than a normal lens). Distant objects look approximately the same size – closer objects are abnormally small, and more distant objects are abnormally large, and hence the viewer cannot discern relative distances between distant objects – distances are compressed."

The illustrations in the article are also straightforward. It's a topic that has been well understood and profusely documented for decades.

I know what perspective is. How can it be abnormal? The term "Normal Perspective" is like "Normal Gravity," "Normal Light," "Normal Rotation," "Normal Electrical Charge" etc.

Could this thread, by chance, be about angle of view?

[John NYC]

I know what perspective is. How can it be abnormal? The term "Normal Perspective" is like "Normal Gravity," "Normal Light," "Normal Rotation," "Normal Electrical Charge" etc.

Could this thread, by chance, be about angle of view?

Ken put normal in quotes in the title of the thread showing that he understands this is an often debated term, I am sure. But it is a generally accepted term used throughout photography technical literature for decades to mean the perspective of a lens whose focal length is roughly the diagonal of the film image area. Rightly or wrongly, some people believe that the perspective of such a lens yields relationships between near and distant objects in a picture in a way that is similar to the way our eye sees. Similar, but not the same is key.

That said, I don't think that anyone can make a reasonable argument that their eye sees more like a 47mm on 4x5 when it comes to how near, middle and distant objects appear within a scene.

[aduncanson]

ic, Ken's Wikipedia reference includes a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens) defining a normal lens. It is defined in terms of the print size and the related normal viewing distance so if you are in a mood to question all uses of the word "normal" then you will probably not be satisfied. Wikipedia takes this normal viewing distance to be equal to the print diagonal and the normal focal length consequently turns out to be the negative diagonal, as is conventional. There will certainly be variation in normal viewing distance among viewers, resulting in differences in the effective value for the normal focal length for each viewer but that dependency need not invalidate the concept of normal viewing distance since the characteristics of the vision of the human population (certainly after correction) seem to be distributed closely around an average. [I mean, I used to work with a guy who preferred to sit on the floor with a paper box on his head and scribbled his work on paper placed over an aluminum plate taped to his desk chair, but most folks view their computer monitors from the same 18 to 24 inches that I do.] I think that it is valid to take as a normal viewing distance, the minimum distance that allows a typical viewer to take in the entire composition and evaluate it as a whole. This does not mean that I never put my nose to the glass, but when doing so, I am obviously looking at something less than the whole photograph.

Wikipedia's definition of a normal lens implicitly relies on the idea of a perspective center which is essentially the position of the taking lens relative to the film, replicated in front of the print, but moved out proportional to the print magnification. When a print is viewed from this perspective center, there is (generally) no perceived distortion. If viewing from inside of the center of perspective (as may occur when the use of a long taking lens pushes the perspective center further from the print), one sees compression of depths. When viewing from outside the perspective center, (because of a short taking lens, perhaps) one sees expansion. The normal lens produces a photo which when viewed from the normal distance results in neither expansion nor compression.

[Heroique]

Since it addresses the phrase “natural perspective,” the first sentence of Alan’s link above deserves instant visibility:


“In photography and cinematography a normal lens is a lens that reproduces perspective that generally looks “natural” to a human observer under normal viewing conditions, as compared with lenses with longer or shorter focal lengths which produce an expanded or contracted field of view.”

Picasso might flinch, but in the end, Wiki, much like Ken, does put quotes around “natural” (as a modifier of the noun, perspective), and that should help soothe people, like myself, who take exception to the phrase, “natural perspective” or “normal perspective.”

-----
One should keep in mind, however, that no matter how times you change the lens (if that’s the only change), or how much the “naturalness” of perspective changes when you do so, perspective itself has always stayed the same. Its perception has not.

Someone had a story about a hawk a few posts back...

[ic-racer]

Ken put normal in quotes in the title of the thread showing that he understands this is an often debated term, I am sure. But it is a generally accepted term used throughout photography technical literature for decades to mean the perspective of a lens whose focal length is roughly the diagonal of the film image area. Rightly or wrongly, some people believe that the perspective of such a lens yields relationships between near and distant objects in a picture in a way that is similar to the way our eye sees. Similar, but not the same is key.

That said, I don't think that anyone can make a reasonable argument that their eye sees more like a 47mm on 4x5 when it comes to how near, middle and distant objects appear within a scene.

A lens cannot posess the property of perspective. Perspective is independent of the lens and dependent only on subject distance.



When is perspective abnormal other than in photoshop and compute graphics? If I am close to a subject the nose will be bigger in relation to the rest of the face. That is normal perspective for a close subject distance. I can only speculate that an abnormal situation would be when the nose is made smaller in photoshop and the ears are made bigger and in that case the perspective would be abnormal.

[John NYC]

A lens cannot posess the property of perspective. Perspective is independent of the lens and dependent only on subject distance.



When is perspective abnormal other than in photoshop and compute graphics? If I am close to a subject the nose will be bigger in relation to the rest of the face. That is normal perspective for a close subject distance. I can only speculate that an abnormal situation would be when the nose is made smaller in photoshop and the ears are made bigger and in that case the perspective would be abnormal.

I am not going to argue with you. We are using standard photographic terms and conventions here to discuss a concept I think we are all familiar with. Whether you think those conventional terms should be thrown out is another discussion.

[ic-racer]

I am not going to argue with you. We are using standard photographic terms and conventions here to discuss a concept I think we are all familiar with. Whether you think those conventional terms should be thrown out is another discussion.

Hi, John
I didn't realize I was quoting you. No offense, just my 2 cents (and worth every cent)..:D

[Michael Roberts]

totally in the fwiw department, I think this is an interesting discussion, though I confess I haven't yet made it through all the comments. Mark's picture caught my eye, so here's my 2 cents to this point. I tend to shoot with normal, wide, and longer lenses--sometimes extremely long (610mm on 4x5). But what drives the decision for me is subject matter and composition; choice of lens length is subordinate to that. I do a lot of landscapes and mostly those call for normal or wider lenses. When I want to select only part of a scene--a pattern on a rock wall, a petroglyph, a tight shot of water coursing around a boulder in a stream, a section of an aspen grove (your typical intimate landscape), then I usually choose a longer lens, unless I can get close enough with a normal lens. My 152mm stays on my 4x5, and my 300mm stays on my 8x10 because for most of the places I go, those normal lenses tend to be my lens of choice.

Mark, I liked your photo of the convention center, but I decided the sidewalk and sky were too distracting from the angles and lines of the steps and roof, so I would crop as shown. What's interesting about this, to me, is that you would likely need the wide lens to get in as much of the design elements as possible, but would also need to crop to a different format to eliminate distracting elements that the wider lens captures. I find this to be true in many of the instances where I need a wide lens to get in some elements of a scene that a longer lens cannot, but then need to crop out unwanted bits that also are captured. Of course, this is as much a result of the format/aspect ratio (80%, 70%...40%) as the relative focal length--but sometimes the two are interdependent.


To paraphrase Ansel Adams: There are no boring lenses (or perspectives), only boring photographs.

As someone else said, the subject matter and the photographer's vision determine the lens or perspective choice.

If I may be so bold as to use one of my humble images as an example, this image was shot with a 55mm lens on 4x5. Is this perspective displeasing or distracting? I don't think so. I think the wide angle perspective gives it an energy and dynamism that a similar shot with a normal lens would be lacking. In my opinion the wide angle perspective pushes this shot from the mundane to an almost abstract study of lines and planes, tones and textures. The wide angle lens gave me what I wanted. I ask again, is this perspective displeasing or distracting? Would a normal perspective be more pleasing or less distracting?

http://www.markstahlkephotography.com/Convention_Center_files/conv_center.jpg

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/space.jpg

I've been looking through some older photos, to see how space was rendered. Here's one where the sense of distance is pleasing (to me): not overly compressed, not too wide, but not "normal" either.

It was made on 4x5 with an old 210mm Heliar. (Another lens I should have probably kept... Oh well.) TMY, D-76, Sinar P.

[John NYC]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/space.jpg

I've been looking through some older photos, to see how space was rendered. Here's one where the sense of distance is pleasing (to me): not overly compressed, not too wide, but not "normal" either.

It was made on 4x5 with an old 210mm Heliar. (Another lens I should have probably kept... Oh well.) TMY, D-76, Sinar P.

Lovely.

When I know from experience of similar or the same locations what the near far relationships of the elements in the scene are, that is when "normal" on up to short tele represent them most appealingly to me personally.

[mdm]

What focal length did you use for landscape 12 and 15? I think it depends, however the extremes always look unnatural to me. Anything between 180 and 300 on 5x7 and 135 and 210 on 4x5 feels ok. Balance.

[rdenney]

I've been looking through some older photos, to see how space was rendered. Here's one where the sense of distance is pleasing (to me): not overly compressed, not too wide, but not "normal" either.

It was made on 4x5 with an old 210mm Heliar. (Another lens I should have probably kept... Oh well.) TMY, D-76, Sinar P.

This image provides two or three focal length effects. The view through the window is like a long-lens composition. It's like a photograph of a distant scene made with a long lens framed by a window at "normal" perspective. The perspective therefore works at several levels.

Rick "interested in compositions through doorways and windows" Denney

[Greg Miller]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29) 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?

Every scene has different spatial relationships between the objects in the scene. And those objects have different shapes, forms, and textures. No one perspective will render every scene as the "most pleasing" or "least pleasing. It all depends on the scene. Otherwise, why would we have so many choices in lens focal lengths, from very wide to very long?

[Ken Lee]

What focal length did you use for landscape 12 and 15?

Both photos were made on 4x5 film with a Fujinon 240A. Lately I've been thinking that the images from it are just a bit too flat, and that a 225 or 210 would be ideal: the camera would have to come just a bit closer. Hence this thread :rolleyes:

Call me crazy, but I can't help but notice that the Cooke Portrait PS945 (http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/largeformat.html), is exactly 9 inches or 229mm. Not an accident, I have to presume. Click here (http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/popup/cliveruss_ps945.html) to see some photos made with it.

Who else makes/made 9 inch lenses?

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/l12.jpg

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/l15.jpg

[Justin Cormack]

A lens cannot posess the property of perspective. Perspective is independent of the lens and dependent only on subject distance.


No as pointed out above, it is a function of the subject distance and the print viewing distance. You can renormalise the distortions of nose and eye size by viewing at the corresponding distances.

[Michael Graves]

Rick "thinking camera position is the first most important decision we make" Denney[/QUOTE]

Actually I always thought the "Hmmm....I think I'll go shoot some film today" was the FIRST most important decision.

Michael "Stealing from one of his Favorite Members" Graves

(and no, I'll never do that again.)

[Sal Santamaura]

...I can't help but notice that the...Cooke Portrait PS945...is exactly 9 inches or 229mm. Not an accident, I have to presume...Who else makes/made 9 inch lenses?...I'm unaware of other currently manufactured lenses in that focal length and leave discussion of any such vintage lenses to those who are better informed on the subject.

The PS945 being exactly 9 inches is definitely not an accident. In small and medium formats, conventional perspective taste dictates that portraits be made with a lens twice the image's diagonal. In large format, however, as a result of much greater bellows extension at portrait focus distances, the rule of thumb that evolved to support similar perspective was that the lens used should equal the sum of the image's sides. 4+5=9. Voila.

With all due respect and apology to Christopher Broadbent, whose focal length preference is different than 'conventional perspective' for portraits.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have normal lenses for both 4x5 and 8x10. I use them if the image calls for them.

[Armin Seeholzer]

"Normal" IME is boring.

It is indeed!
I use very often a 135mm or a 210mm on 4x5 did not use my 150mm for many years, really should sell it!
But in my opinion the light is more important then the lens it contributes more for a pleasing look in the long run.
Maybe thats the reason why its cold "Photography" ( painting with light ) and not painting with a lens!
Of course the lens will also help, but for to get a 3 D look you need good light! Of course a Heliar/Xenar/Sironar/Symmar helps also a bit!

Cheers Armin

[GPS]

"De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum".

[Ken Lee]

The reckoning of "normal" perspective requires that the focal length of the taking lens, match the diagonal of the film or sensor. Similarly, the print viewing distance should match the diagonal of the print.

Let's say we make a photo on 4x5 with a lens whose length is 2x the film diagonal, namely 300mm (12 inches). Now we make an 8x10 image and view it at 12 inches away. If we view it at "normal distance" - the diagonal of 8x10, 300mm or 12 inches - it should look "compressed" or "flat", by a factor of 2. However, If we step back and view the image at 24 inches (600mm) - twice the normal viewing distance - the image should look "normal" again.

A quick search of the web shows that the average reading distance is somewhere between 12 and 20 inches. Mine is around 18 inches for example.

When viewing an 8x10 print from 18 inches (instead of the "normal" distance of 12 inches), we are are at 150% of the normal viewing distance. It should look 50% less flat.

A 9 inch lens (on 4x5) is 50% longer than "normal". A portrait made with a 9 inch lens, when viewed at 50% longer than normal distance, looks... normal.

Could it be that because we view our portraits from 150% of "normal" distance, we like lenses that are 150% of normal focal length?

[John NYC]

The reckoning of "normal" perspective requires that the focal length of the taking lens, match the diagonal of the film or sensor. Similarly, the print viewing distance should match the diagonal of the print.

Let's say we make a photo on 4x5 with a lens whose length is 2x the film diagonal, namely 300mm (12 inches). Now we make an 8x10 image and view it at 12 inches away. If we view it at "normal distance" - the diagonal of 8x10, 300mm or 12 inches - it should look "compressed" or "flat", by a factor of 2. However, If we step back and view the image at 24 inches (600mm) - twice the normal viewing distance - the image should look "normal" again.

A quick search of the web shows that the average reading distance is somewhere between 12 and 20 inches. Mine is around 18 inches for example.

When viewing an 8x10 print from 18 inches (instead of the "normal" distance of 12 inches), we are are at 150% of the normal viewing distance. It should look 50% less flat.

A 9 inch lens (on 4x5) is 50% longer than "normal". A portrait made with a 9 inch lens, when viewed at 50% longer than normal distance, looks... normal.

Could it be that because we view our portraits from 150% of "normal" distance, we like lenses that are 150% of normal focal length?

After reading this post, we just tried viewing a print made on 35mm film with an 85mm lens (a head and shoulders shot). We viewed it at 18 inches and then at 5 feet, to attempt to exaggerate the differences you are describing.

While subtle, we both agree that the nose is more "spread out" looking when viewing at 18 inches than at 5 feet. The eyes also seem closer together and more natural at 5 feet.

[GPS]

If you asked the same question a painter, would it make sense? Why should that be different in photography? :confused:

[Rory_5244]

Lovely images, Ken L.

I don't know, but for cash-strapped me, 'normal perspective' lenses sure are cheaper than most everything else. :)

[Jim Andrada]

Interesting thread.

It occurs to me though that the underlying assumption is that we're thinking about subjects where there IS a sense of perspective. But I think sometimes the photographic intent is to eliminate or alter the so called "normal" sense of perspective. Many years ago I photographed a lot of wall graffiti, weathered signage, etc - the subject was flat and it wouldn't have made much difference what lens was used aside from more or less technical considerations of practical camera placement (ie don't back up into the street to get more of the wall into the photo!), sharpness, etc. (I mainly used a 305mm Repro Claron on a 5 X 7 Linhof). For what I wanted to do I sort of thought of this as my "normal" lens.

[Ken Lee]

"De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum".

Thank you for the illuminating Latin saying. I love that sort of thing!

I looked it up and it means "There's no arguing about taste". Is that like "To each his own"?

[Ken Lee]

If you asked the same question a painter, would it make sense? Why should that be different in photography? :confused:

It would make sense. Weren't painters the ones who pioneered the study of perspective?

[mdm]

Could it be that because we view our portraits from 150% of "normal" distance, we like lenses that are 150% of normal focal length?

Interesting idea. If a negative is to be printed very large and viewed from less than normal viewing distance, such as a big Gusrky, one would use a different lens to what would be used if one was contact printing a 5x7 which will be viewed from further than its normal viewing distance. Or rendered at 800px wide on a monitor.

Still though, it depends on the use of the image. In magazines for example food photography v sports photography where players are depicted as a heros or gladiators and lenses are often long out of necessity. Or in architechture where the photographer is trying to make a building look habitable and attainable to a buyer.

[GPS]

Thank you for the illuminating Latin saying. I love that sort of thing!

I looked it up and it means "There's no arguing about taste". Is that like "To each his own"?

Yes, it is. :)

[GPS]

It would make sense. Weren't painters the ones who pioneered the study of perspective?

They did but it surely does not mean they would say that there exists a perspective that is the most pleasing of them all... Are apples the most pleasing fruit? The question doesn't have a general answer, only a personal one. Coloribus et gustibus...:)

[Heroique]

It would make sense. Weren't painters the ones who pioneered the study of perspective?

The Italian Renaissance painter, Uccello, was one of the pioneers.

Late at night, when his wife would call him to bed, he would cry out:

“O, che dolce cosa e questa prospettiva!” (“How pleasing perspective is!”)

:p

[adam satushek]

"... Are apples the most pleasing fruit?," (GPS)

Yes, yes they are. Especially apples of the honey crisp variety.

....on the other hand...pears are quite pleasing too, but I would argue that a pear is nothing more than an apple shot up close with a wide angle lens......

[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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29) 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):

http://www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/permanent/images/Church_76_15.png

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

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/l54.jpg
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.

[Zaitz]

I agree with Ansel and find 'normal' maybe the least pleasing. I 'see' (I think) very good with telephotos and super wides so that is what I generally use. I need a 150 for 8x10.

[GPS]

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

Ken,
I don't know if you realise that but you yourself have now the answer to your original question at your fingertip. Just answer to yourself - am I now more pleased with the new perspective or not?

[Ken Lee]

"...you yourself have now the answer to your original question at your fingertip"

Yes, thanks. I like the slight sense of compression. Like James Bond: "shaken, not stirred" :cool:

I can see why 210mm is so popular for 4x5.

Here's one made with a 300mm lens on 5x7 (cropped to 11x14 ratio), which amounts to the same thing as 200mm on 4x5 similarly cropped. I made this before taking up the question.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/BuckFactory.jpg

[GPS]

...
Yes, thanks. I like the slight sense of compression. Like James Bond: "shaken, not stirred" :cool:

I can see why 210mm is so popular for 4x5.
...


Sure. In fact, the perspective in itself is not a content of a picture. It's just like a style. And one style in itself is hardly any more pleasing than the other, it all depends on the content. A poem or a novel is not in itself more pleasing than the other, it's all in what you put into them. Stay cool.:cool:

[Ken Lee]

"perspective in itself is not a content of a picture."

You may be right, but one can also see that perspective, just like aspect ratio, tonality, composition, chiaroscuro, etc. is an element of a photo. If it's there, it's an element of the photograph.

Perspective may be a less important element to some people, but that is a matter of personal preference. Hence the basic question entertained in this thread.

[GPS]

"perspective in itself is not a content of a picture."

You may be right, but one can also see that perspective, just like aspect ratio, tonality, composition, chiaroscuro, etc. is an element of a photo. If it's there, it's an element of the photograph.

Perspective may be a less important element to some people, but that is a matter of personal preference. Hence the basic question entertained in this thread.

Is a novel more pleasing than a poem? Matters of personal preference are not objectively comparable because they are just that - personal preference. "Is an apple more pleasing than a pear" is a different question than - "does an apple please me more than a pear?"

[Ken Lee]

You are right. Thank you very much for your insight. This thread is now closed.