-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
AA's books are good for the "technical" and related aspects of photography. In one of AA's books there is mention of using a viewing card. Simply a card with a cut-out in the ratio of your fit format of choice. By moving this card near-away from a single eye (one eye closed, one eye open) this allows a rough assessment of what a given focal length lens might produce on camera.
The far more refined and developed tool that does this is a director's viewfinder. These are what film and video directors use to determine lens focal length and camera position goals. Consider getting one of these as a viewing tool to aid in lens focal length selection and camera position set up. There might come a time when this tool is no longer needed once enough images are made and enough hard earned experiences gained.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/D...4/N/4028759376
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamD
That’s really funny comment about reading first, then ask questions....after re-reading the Ansel Adam’s series of books, at least this question came to me when he talked about building a kit. Then when I finally got to the point where I actually had two lenses to look through, it occurred to me to ask if I should expect the mid point between 90 and 150 would actually appear as the midpoint should I try it.
But I hear you....
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Maris Rusis
I used to carry a lot of lenses for the 4x5 format until I realised a well made 4x5 negative is very generous in maintaining image quality when cropped. I can crop a 90mm view out of what my 75mm lens takes in, 150mm view from the 135mm lens, 300mm view from the 210mm lens. The key thing is to put the camera in the right place for the composition required and then have a lens that at least "gets it all in".
People always think of focal lengths only in terms of getting something into the picture ... To achieve that, I can also move my butt and reposition myself with the camera. Or crop the image.
IMHO, the interesting thing about focal lengths is the change in perspective while keeping the scale of the main subject the same. If I shoot a cactus at 90 mm from a shorter distance, but at the same size as at 210 mm from further away, the volume of the cactus and the volume of the space around it will appear quite different.
Besides: with 210 mm, you can eliminate distracting things. With 90mm you get them into the picture and even enlarge them if they are too close.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Daniel Casper Lohenstein
People always think of focal lengths only in terms of getting something into the picture ... To achieve that, I can also move my butt and reposition myself with the camera. Or crop the image.
IMHO, the interesting thing about focal lengths is the change in perspective while keeping the scale of the main subject the same. If I shoot a cactus at 90 mm from a shorter distance, but at the same size as at 210 mm from further away, the volume of the cactus and the volume of the space around it will appear quite different.
Besides: with 210 mm, you can eliminate distracting things. With 90mm you get them into the picture and even enlarge them if they are too close.
You're right. This is why you have to be careful shooting wide to capture everything to crop afterward. Perspectives change with each lens. If you miss the right perspective in the camera with a wider lens, there may be no way to capture it by cropping later.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alan Klein
Perspectives change with each lens.
This is incorrect. Perspective is only changed by positioning of the camera. This misconception comes from the inherent moving of the camera when switching lenses to match framing/composition of the lens prior. If you compose a little loose with a wider lens and then crop later, you still have the same perspective regardless.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
But all things might not be equal when it comes to illumination falloff or image distortion, Corran. Longer lenses make sense for more reasons than just perspective.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
I have no idea why you are responding to my post regarding misconceptions about perspective vs. lens choice as if I said something about the use or usefulness of longer lenses. Nothing I wrote has anything to do with what you just said.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Just the notion of cropping from a wider image instead of framing with a longer focal length lens. Nice in theory or conservatively applied, but not always practical in terms of real-world composition. Of course, the more ridiculous comment that comes up is when someone tells you to just walk closer to the subject. Yeah, with a tree in the way, or a cliff a few steps ahead, or a 7000 ft deep canyon in between, or the angle of view totally changed from the preferred position. Just speaking in principle. Don 't take it personal. My posts aren't necessarily rebuttals.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Of course there are practical concerns, like cliffs or what have you. My impression from the previous discussion is cropping, say, a 90mm lens to a 115mm FoV. This is very little change. Of course, cropping from 90mm to a 210mm FoV is a much different situation and wasting a lot of film to boot. I can think of one user who said in the past that he carried something like 10 lenses, at 20-30mm increments. This is just silly, IMO. A couple steps forward or back and maybe a slight crop if needed is a much more reasonable approach, especially if you actually go somewhere with your gear.
For me, I generally do not bring anything between 90mm and 150mm. Usually 58-90-150-240. Anything in between those focal lengths I think is easily gotten with a bit of movement or cropping if needed, though admittedly I greatly prefer composing full-frame as that is the way I "see." If I know I am going somewhere that might need longer or shorter, I bring those as well or instead of the previously mentioned lenses.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
This is incorrect. Perspective is only changed by positioning of the camera. This misconception comes from the inherent moving of the camera when switching lenses to match framing/composition of the lens prior. If you compose a little loose with a wider lens and then crop later, you still have the same perspective regardless.
You're right.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
Of course there are practical concerns, like cliffs or what have you. My impression from the previous discussion is cropping, say, a 90mm lens to a 115mm FoV. This is very little change. Of course, cropping from 90mm to a 210mm FoV is a much different situation and wasting a lot of film to boot. I can think of one user who said in the past that he carried something like 10 lenses, at 20-30mm increments. This is just silly, IMO. A couple steps forward or back and maybe a slight crop if needed is a much more reasonable approach, especially if you actually go somewhere with your gear.
For me, I generally do not bring anything between 90mm and 150mm. Usually 58-90-150-240. Anything in between those focal lengths I think is easily gotten with a bit of movement or cropping if needed, though admittedly I greatly prefer composing full-frame as that is the way I "see." If I know I am going somewhere that might need longer or shorter, I bring those as well or instead of the previously mentioned lenses.
For example, there's only about 10 degrees difference horizontally between a 75mm and a 90mm in 4x5. (80 degrees vs 70 degrees).
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
This is incorrect. Perspective is only changed by positioning of the camera. This misconception comes from the inherent moving of the camera when switching lenses to match framing/composition of the lens prior. If you compose a little loose with a wider lens and then crop later, you still have the same perspective regardless.
This is a very special quibble that has been repeated over and over for many years, because it can be found in textbooks where the pipe-smoking authors set their cameras on tripods and make hypothetical considerations while drinking tea from a thermos.
What Corran is describing is only one single and very rare special case of perspective representation, namely the modification of the focal length and thus of the image section while the point of view next to the car remains the same. Of course Corran is right, but this special case is completely irrelevant for serious pictorial photography, where you have to use your feet to find an adequate perspective.
Every photographer who screws on a short focal length lens instead of a normal lens will confirm the experience that, in order to achieve a constant object size, he or she moves closer to the object. This changes the visual penetration of the space, and thus the view from the eye of the objects distributed in the space changes. "Perspective" comes from "perspicere", and that means: "look closely, take a closer look, examine, sample", not only "look inside". There is always an object included that is looked at more closely. Albrecht Dürer already recognized this, cf. http://public.media.smithsonianmag.c...rspective1.jpg
Thus, lateral objects are no longer seen frontally from the front, but more from the side, which emphasizes the depth-space extension, compared to objects seen frontally. Take some cacti in in a landscape with mountain on the horizon: if you want them to stay the same size, you have to get closer with a short focal length, which is why you see them more from below, perhaps, making them appear larger relative to the mountains in the background. While a long focal length emphasizes a more real ratio between cacti and mountains, cf. Andreas Feininger.
Perspective is unthinkable without perspective origo, and the chosen perspective origo is the essential characteristic of the photographic author's point of view. The way he sees things, he valorizes or devalues them, relates them. And a short focal length thereby emphasizes the difference between front and back, while a long focal length creates pure frontality.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
If you want to compose the exact picture on the ground glass and never ever crop the negative, the use of close up lenses may be interesting.
You can carry three lenses and 1 or 2 good achromatic lenses. For example: 90mm, 150mm and 300mm with 2 diopter close up give you (aprox.) 75mm, 115mm and 190mm.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Daniel Casper Lohenstein
Of course Corran is right
That's all that needed said. A good number of photographers think perspective is a property of the lens, and one can see the abuse of wide-angle lenses frequently online by hobbyist photographers everywhere. The (correct) distinction between focal length and "perspective" as a property of camera location (get closer) should not be dismissed as mere textbook knowledge.
PS: When I started photography I also thought "wide-angle = wider perspective" or whatever too, and shot an awful lot of mediocre images with a 14mm lens on my digital camera. It wasn't until I started to understand that I needed to get closer and pay attention to the real perspective as presented by my location (and camera) and not rely on focal length that I began making good wide-angle images.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
A lot depends on the objective. With a personal landscape shot, I'm apt to compose it with whatever best-fit lens I happen to have along, from whatever spot simply feels the best. With a commercial architectural shot, the client might very well dictate what belongs in the confines of the image frame; and the amount of working space available behind it will determine the lens choice. I always scouted out architectural jobs in advance with respect to lighting and lens requirements. Studio work is different still because things can be arranged.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
This is incorrect. Perspective is only changed by positioning of the camera. This misconception comes from the inherent moving of the camera when switching lenses to match framing/composition of the lens prior. If you compose a little loose with a wider lens and then crop later, you still have the same perspective regardless.
I think that it's important to treat framing independently from perspective, the latter being camera position. In approaching a composition, I like to explore different camera positions without considering framing. One for the relationships of different elements in the composition to each other, and those relationships change as camera position changes.
Once I've decided on camera position, only then do I use a cut-out card to determine the strongest framing. One reason I like multiple lenses, is that once I've decided on framing, I can select the lens that best fills the format, yet which retains all the elements within the frame.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
All you’re doing here is confirming the facts, I think, and in my opinion they constitute more than a “quibble”. They are pretty fundamental and every beginning photographer should be aware of them to avoid aimlessly moving around and changing lenses without an understanding of how these things alter the picture either individually or in combination. Of course there are rendering subtleties, the imperfections of lenses etc. But I think it is good for people to understand at least directionally what is going on. That is:
Moving the camera changes perspective. Changing the focal length of the lens is a crop factor.
The photographer is free to use these two properties together to control near-far relationships, perspective, relative sizes of objects etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Daniel Casper Lohenstein
This is a very special quibble that has been repeated over and over for many years, because it can be found in textbooks where the pipe-smoking authors set their cameras on tripods and make hypothetical considerations while drinking tea from a thermos.
What Corran is describing is only one single and very rare special case of perspective representation, namely the modification of the focal length and thus of the image section while the point of view next to the car remains the same. Of course Corran is right, but this special case is completely irrelevant for serious pictorial photography, where you have to use your feet to find an adequate perspective.
Every photographer who screws on a short focal length lens instead of a normal lens will confirm the experience that, in order to achieve a constant object size, he or she moves closer to the object. This changes the visual penetration of the space, and thus the view from the eye of the objects distributed in the space changes. "Perspective" comes from "perspicere", and that means: "look closely, take a closer look, examine, sample", not only "look inside". There is always an object included that is looked at more closely. Albrecht Dürer already recognized this, cf.
http://public.media.smithsonianmag.c...rspective1.jpg
Thus, lateral objects are no longer seen frontally from the front, but more from the side, which emphasizes the depth-space extension, compared to objects seen frontally. Take some cacti in in a landscape with mountain on the horizon: if you want them to stay the same size, you have to get closer with a short focal length, which is why you see them more from below, perhaps, making them appear larger relative to the mountains in the background. While a long focal length emphasizes a more real ratio between cacti and mountains, cf. Andreas Feininger.
Perspective is unthinkable without perspective origo, and the chosen perspective origo is the essential characteristic of the photographic author's point of view. The way he sees things, he valorizes or devalues them, relates them. And a short focal length thereby emphasizes the difference between front and back, while a long focal length creates pure frontality.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
I've never used a cutout card in my life.
-
2 Attachment(s)
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
Just the notion of cropping from a wider image instead of framing with a longer focal length lens. Nice in theory or conservatively applied, but not always practical in terms of real-world composition. Of course, the more ridiculous comment that comes up is when someone tells you to just walk closer to the subject. Yeah, with a tree in the way, or a cliff a few steps ahead, or a 7000 ft deep canyon in between, or the angle of view totally changed from the preferred position. Just speaking in principle. Don 't take it personal. My posts aren't necessarily rebuttals.
As a follow-up to your comment, in the scene below there is water (over 6' deep) on the other side of this concrete buttress. There was no moving the tripod to get closer to the next buttress without going for a swim. The only option I had was to change lenses until I found the focal length that helped me achieve the composition I had envisioned. While I could not get it 100% perfect, it is very close. In my opinion, a much better result than if I'd gone wide and cropped it tighter in the darkroom. My father, a commercial photographer, taught me to get my desired composition as close as possible "in camera". It is a practice I try to follow. Zooming with my feet rarely works well for me. Maybe this is nothing more than a creative mental block my father placed long ago ;)
Attachment 211706
Attachment 211707
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
I've never used a cutout card in my life.
It can be a pretty useful tool, especially given it costs virtually nothing, so a lot of bang for your buck. And it isn’t just useful for “beginners” or as a teaching tool. I know of a few highly accomplished artists who use them. They are useful not only for getting a sense of focal length per se, but also for general composition and framing, what to include/exclude etc. This can be handy for dealing with complex compositions and/or dense/cluttered subject matter, or even for preliminary worth it/not worth decisions before setting up a camera.
Of course I’m not suggesting YOU need one, but generalizing.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
YES.
However, I would like to mention a particular aspect that becomes effective during cropping or amplification.
Suppose I see a landscape at 300mm for 4x5. Then I see things rather frontally. If I now look at the same landscape with a 90mm on the same camera position, without performing even a shift, tilt, rise, swing, then I will see more things in the picture. These things are on all four sides of the original 300mm image. Of course, the center frame of the picture with the 90mm lens is the same as that of the 300mm lens. But there are a few more objects on the sides, on the ground, and in the sky.
The perspective remains the same, but I don't see these objects from the front, but from above or below or from the side, because they aren't in the center of the image, where the vanishing point of the perspective construction normally lies. And by seeing them from the side, I see them differently than the objects in the center of the image, which I see from the front, as with the 300mm. Harvey Shaman describes this very clearly in "The View Camera. Operations and Techniques". Thats why we create an impression of spatial depth by lowering the front standard or rising the back standard ...
This is a very interesting discussion here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Michael R
All you’re doing here is confirming the facts, I think, and in my opinion they constitute more than a “quibble”. They are pretty fundamental and every beginning photographer should be aware of them to avoid aimlessly moving around and changing lenses without an understanding of how these things alter the picture either individually or in combination. Of course there are rendering subtleties, the imperfections of lenses etc. But I think it is good for people to understand at least directionally what is going on. That is:
Moving the camera changes perspective. Changing the focal length of the lens is a crop factor.
The photographer is free to use these two properties together to control near-far relationships, perspective, relative sizes of objects etc.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
I don’t even remember what the original post was about! This conversation has clearly moved on. I love it.
I think I agree that there’s definitely no need to carry any lens between 90mm and 150mm. BUT, there still may be a need for a lens in the middle to carry by itself.
As for getting closer and perspective and composition and all that, no lens is going to help me overcome my failures on that front. BUT more lenses will just give me more opportunities to screw it up!!
I love this shit!
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
LOL... more lenses will likely lead to more missed shots.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BrianShaw
LOL... more lenses will likely lead to more missed shots.
Just as less lenses will lead to less shots taken.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Havoc
Just as less lenses will lead to less shots taken.
Only if the number of lenses goes below "1".
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Michael R
It can be a pretty useful tool, especially given it costs virtually nothing, so a lot of bang for your buck. And it isn’t just useful for “beginners” or as a teaching tool. I know of a few highly accomplished artists who use them. They are useful not only for getting a sense of focal length per se, but also for general composition and framing, what to include/exclude etc. This can be handy for dealing with complex compositions and/or dense/cluttered subject matter, or even for preliminary worth it/not worth decisions before setting up a camera.
Of course I’m not suggesting YOU need one, but generalizing.
It seems Stephen Speilberg still uses viewfinders at 72.
Attachment 211766
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
More lenses means just more stuff my heirs have to figure out how to get rid of. Even one more lens means me getting kicked out of the house and sleeping on the front porch with the cat.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
More lenses means just more stuff my heirs have to figure out how to get rid of. Even one more lens means me getting kicked out of the house and sleeping on the front porch with the cat.
Who cares about what his/her heirs have to figure out. Maybe time they start using their brains instead of tapping away on their smartphones. And if you have to sleep on the porch because of an extra lens, then that cat is a better compagnon. At least they give love without second thoughts.
Sorry if this offends, had a bad couple of days. But I take a cat any day.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
More lenses means just more stuff my heirs have to figure out how to get rid of. Even one more lens means me getting kicked out of the house and sleeping on the front porch with the cat.
Why is the cat sleeping inside!!!!!
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Cat hair ain't so good for camera gear. And fleas ain't so good for me. All outside are basically kittens; even the mom and pop are less than two years old. But the indoor cats are now all old. A little old lady brown cat maybe 19, but still playful. A pair of flametip 17 yr twins - a male who now limps a bit, and his sister, a 3-legged amputee due to cancer. That means I have only one male ally in the house, and three females always bossing us around - one with two legs, one with three legs, and one with four ! But I love em all.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
Of course there are practical concerns, like cliffs or what have you.
.
I find bulls in the pasture to be a practical concern.
Rather too thrilling, in fact!
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
Gosh. I can remember being out on Wilbur Plaugher's ranch with his older son over a mile or two from the nearest fence, with the ground fog starting to lift, and one of his numerous ornery-bred rodeo Brahma bulls squinting our direction, getting down low on the ground and crawling toward the slightest dip or ravine in the field. Then over in Mrs. McKenzies's meadow below what is now the Table Mtn preserve, there was a furious black bull serving as watchdog in that meadow. I'd tempt it to charge my direction, then quickly scramble up a tree while my cousin on the other side of the meadow would make a little progress through it. Then it was his turn to tempt it while I ran up the meadow further. Back n' forth we'd go.
Directly across the road from our property was a former sheepherder pasture of about 500 acres, with a single stunted scrub oak in the middle of it. The Fresno sky diving club liked to land in there, but without permission. So the owner put his meanest bull in there. I came home one day after some rock scrambling uphill to see seven skydivers all hanging onto that one little tree! The rancher just left them there until evening. Then he came in with two Jeeps. As the bull charged one of them, he'd ferry out a few guys at a time from that little tree with the other Jeep. That sure taught them a lesson, and they never returned.
-
Re: Is it a linear progression between 90mm and 150mm?
B----A
|
|
C----D
I use to have to get from A to D... I could go A->B->C->D or take the direct A->D through the bull paddock... I'm sure the bull's name was Harry... "are ya feeling lucky.. punk".
During part of the year, B->C was also fraught with danger... dive bombing territorial Magpies!
The joys of living outside 'town'.