Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I shoot quite a lot of 'actual pictures that I care about' for a variety of reasons, sometimes with ultrawides (14, 15 and 18mm on 35mm/M9, 35mm on 6x9cm, 110mm on 8x10). For crowded, old-fashioned shop interiors I especially like ultrawides for 'getting everything in'.
Indeed, read the original Zeiss publicity for the 53 Biogon on 6x9, or look at aircraft cockpit pictures shot with the 15/2.8, and you'll see that Zeiss designed these lenses to get more in when you are in a confined space. Trying to limit the use of a lens according to one photographer's preconceptions seems very odd to me.
Cheers,
R.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Roger, even in the case you describe -trying to get more things into- the 15mm exaggerates close volumes -and makes far ones look smaller and in the distance- more than the 21mm. It's that simple... Maybe we agree...
Cheers,
Juan
Sparrow
Veteran
Roger, even in the case you describe -trying to get more things into- the 15mm exaggerates close volumes -and makes far ones look smaller and in the distance- more than the 21mm. It's that simple... Maybe we agree...
Cheers,
Juan
I don’t think it does, If they are both shot from the same place the distortion is identical .. one just gets more of the world in with the wider one
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Oh, no... There is a difference.
For example, my 15 Heliar shows spaces in a different way than my 20 Nikkor, and in that same progression, than my Zeiss 50 2.8 in my Hassy...
It's not just about what gets in... It's a lot more about the way a lens sees around it and how it contrasts the relationship between near and far volumes... The difference between a 15 and a 21 is certainly smaller than that between a 15 and a 28, but it's still there.
Cheers,
Juan
Sparrow
Veteran
So how is it possible to shoot a scene like this? first with a CV 12mm and then superimpose one from an old 35mm Elmar from the same spot a minute or two later, apart from one of the boats drifting a little and the flags moving they look identical to me, no?
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Sparrow, as I wrote before, and you can check it with any good book or teacher or by yourself, the difference is more noticeable with volumes standing close to the lens: while tele lenses see in a narrow and distant, flat way, wide lenses see in a totally different way: they have a more round vision around them, giving even bigger size to what surrounds them...
Cheers,
Juan.
Cheers,
Juan.
Sparrow
Veteran
I did check it out, as you can see by the photographs above, and clearly it is not the Field of View but the distance from the subject that alters the spatial relationships in the image.
Do you not believe your eyes? or do you not believe me?
Do you not believe your eyes? or do you not believe me?
da_eltsch
Newbie
I know, Sparrow does not need it, but I second him on this. From the exact same spot "perfect" lenses of different focal lengths produce identical pictures of a scene other than the field of view they cover.
Regards,
Helge
I'm with Sparrow, quite right. If, with the wider lens, you move forward or back, then indeed you do change the spacial relationships, but perspective is all about subject distance / camera position.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry, Juan, Sparrow's right. Sure, the WA shots look different (not least because of true wide-angle distortion) but it's mainly because they're getting more in.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Well, we all can have our opinion...
Lenses do see in different ways, really... You can't have the same character and imaginery from a volumetrical point of view, with all lenses including teles and wides.
Of course one of the reasons for those changes, is position (subject distance), but apart from that, there are some images with close subjects shot with an ultrawide angle lens, that JUST CAN'T BE DONE WITH A TELE FROM ANY DISTANCE OR POSITION.
In the end, that's why -as I recommended in my previous posts- a series of architecturial / interiors shots, is richer when along an ultrawide, we use less dramatic lenses too... It's not just like “Well, I can crop the ultrawide wide vision shot and HAVE THE SAME VISION AND SENSE OF DISTANT PERCEPTION I WOULD GET WITA TELE...”
But it's not just for architecture... It happens in journalism too: why do photojournalists prefer wide angles instead of shooting from the distance with a tele to make the subject appear closer? Because very wide lenses emphasize closer volumes producing a deeper feeling of “being there”. Being there in the same place, with a tele, gives a flatter sensation.
But that's what forums are for, to hold different points of view, and not to try to make everyone think in the same way...
Cheers,
Juan
Lenses do see in different ways, really... You can't have the same character and imaginery from a volumetrical point of view, with all lenses including teles and wides.
Of course one of the reasons for those changes, is position (subject distance), but apart from that, there are some images with close subjects shot with an ultrawide angle lens, that JUST CAN'T BE DONE WITH A TELE FROM ANY DISTANCE OR POSITION.
In the end, that's why -as I recommended in my previous posts- a series of architecturial / interiors shots, is richer when along an ultrawide, we use less dramatic lenses too... It's not just like “Well, I can crop the ultrawide wide vision shot and HAVE THE SAME VISION AND SENSE OF DISTANT PERCEPTION I WOULD GET WITA TELE...”
But it's not just for architecture... It happens in journalism too: why do photojournalists prefer wide angles instead of shooting from the distance with a tele to make the subject appear closer? Because very wide lenses emphasize closer volumes producing a deeper feeling of “being there”. Being there in the same place, with a tele, gives a flatter sensation.
But that's what forums are for, to hold different points of view, and not to try to make everyone think in the same way...
Cheers,
Juan
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Juan,
This is indeed absolutely true, and reflects what others have said: that it's a question of literal, physical viewpoint: where you're standing. You can't stand in the same place and get it all in with a longer lens: you'd have to be standing further away to get it all in, which does indeed change the spatial relationships, but ONLY because you have changed your viewpoint.
Otherwise, sorry, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. As Sparrow has demonstrated.
Cheers,
R.
Finder
Veteran
So how is it possible to shoot a scene like this? first with a CV 12mm and then superimpose one from an old 35mm Elmar from the same spot a minute or two later, apart from one of the boats drifting a little and the flags moving they look identical to me, no?
if you keep viewing distance proportional to focal length, then the two images are as you illustrate them. However, if viewing distance is proportional to the display size, the wider lens will have greater perspective, even though the images were taken from same the location.
Don't believe me? The distortion you see with a wide-angle lens is not a distortion--which is why the proper term is wide-angle effect. If you view a wide-angle image in proportion to the focal length, the "distortion" will not be seen and you will see a normal perspective. This is why one of the posters above likes the large prints because as the viewing distance has decreased in proportion to smaller prints.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This is a question of angle subtended at the eye by (a) each element in the original scene and (b) the representation of each element in that scene in the picture, and (once again) is therefore dependent for a given print magnification on viewpoint: in the former case for shooting, in the latter, for looking at the print.
This is also why you sometimes get a 'magic window' in which the picture appears uniquely natural and three-dimensional: the angles subtended by (a) and (b) are identical, or close to it.
The 'stretching' effect (spheres 'pulled out of shape' into ellipses in the picture) is commonly, and I believe correctly, referred to as 'true wide-angle distortion'.
Cheers,
R.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I understand your words, Roger... Anyway -and I'm not trying to demonstrate it to anyone- I feel an ultrawide sees differently than a tele, and not just because of subject distance... Especially when being very close or in the middle of two near volumes... The feeling I get is the very wide ones see "around them"... But it's my perception, and I know I could use my time to show it visually here, as I told you, with real close volumes, but I did it many years ago for myself when I was a student... Maybe sparrow's example is done with lenses that have a smaller difference or with more distant subjects... I don't really care about reasons or demonstrations: for me lenses see differently, and for what matters, sometimes I feel I must use an ultrawide, and sometimes I know I should avoid it, and not because of subject distance limitations or to get more things into the scene, but because of character.
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Finder
Veteran
No, the correct term is "wide-angle effect" (although it is often referred to in books as a distortion) as the spheres at the edge of the image appear round if the image is viewed proportional to focal length--the same principle works for writing on roads which appear correct for drivers. A distortion is a incorrect projection like barrel distortion--there is no way to view the image where it would look like the original scene as the image is distorted, not just funny looking because of projection.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This is a matter of dispute. There are those (including you) who reserve the term 'distortion' for pincushion/barrel/moustache distortion, and those (including me) who believe that if it looks like distortion (and a soccer ball stretched into a rugger ball looks like distortion), it is distortion, and that to call 'effect' is false pedantry. You'll find plenty of books using either. Admittedly I wrote some of them, but far from all of them.
Cheers,
R.
Finder
Veteran
Roger, I really don't care what you call it (you can even stick the silly word "true" in front of it). My field is in technical photography and scientific imaging. I was taught by people who know more about this than you or I that an "effect" and "distortion" are not the same and, like in other scientific disciplines, using the correct term is more than just pedantry, it is clear communication.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
And I don't really care what you call it. I'm just not as pedantic or as utterly convinced that I am the only person who is right.
The 'silly word "true"' is used to distinguish it from barrel and pincushion distortion, which are not necessarily to do with the wideness of the angle. There is a clue in the fact that these are phrases, not single words: "pincushion distortion", "barrel distortion", "[true] wide angle distortion." "Distortion" is quite a versatile word, also used in such phrases as "distortion of the facts" and "distortion of the truth", not to mention mechanical senses.
It is a common mistake to thnk that our teachers are the only people who really know what they are talking about, when if we had had different teachers, we might believe something else entirely.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Well .. we were discussing photographing a house interior and I did say "from the same spot"
It really isn't a matter of belief it's simply a result of the linear transformation of the Planar projection, and yes I know why I like big prints and realise Antarctica isn't a great big oblong continent like they show on the maps.