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 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. 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.