Scrambler
Well-known
That seems highly unlikely. How it varies, though, has not been addressed in this thread other than as theory
Well, that's just optics
If you wish to define a normal lens with reference to viewing distance and print enlargement, be my guest. It's how Roger Hicks defines it (although he uses the word "standard" rather than "normal") and how Wikipedia defines it. I have no personal axe to grind, other than that isn't how it was defined by camera manufacturers in times past.
The way I personally look at photos is to get the two diagonals as equal as possible.
Look, I get that the whole "diagonal" thing gets up your nose.
If it makes you feel any better, camera manufacturers used 1.44 x the average of the height and width of the format to define their "standard" lens.
Ignore the "diagonal" thing. Ignore the word "normal."
Were the manufacturers correct? Who could say? They made the rules.
Now if, on the other hand, you want to define a lens based on the magic distance, angle of view etc, some additional data is required. So far it has been said is that people should look at images at the magic distance. Do they? It has been said the people view images from a distance equal to the image diagonal - but the evidence I can find online says it is more like twice the diagonal. What do real people looking at real images do?
And this mob reference this document to say that images representing the visual impact of adding wind turbines should be taken with a 75mm lens and printed not less than 390mm on the long side and 260mm on the short - and viewed at 300-500mm. What is remarkable is that this, unlike the 43mm or other proposed lengths, is based on science - here is a newspaper report on this. I'm still looking for the original research.
PS - I know that the 75mm/390mm/500mm thing doesn't work out - the viewing point is well inside the "magic distance." But that's science for you - sometimes the experiment doesn't turn up what your theory predicts.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
The problem here is that the article is talking about a slightly different issue, that of getting the objects in the photograph to appear "life sized" -
To get the image to appear as big as life requires the viewer to stand closer than a person normally would when viewing an image:
And if the image is big enough, standing so close actually causes the perspective to be distorted - and the correction for this is to curve the print.
But if you want people to view a flat print and you want the perspective, rather than the size to be realistic, they're going to have stand back a bit. About as far back from the image as the distance from one corn of the image to the other. :angel:
Scrambler
Well-known
I'm not sure it's even that. It is aiming for things to have the same visual impact and I think it's actually going to be larger than "life sized."
But my point is that this is based on testing real people looking at actual prints (and real life) under research conditions.
What I would really like to know is how far people stand from photographs (or paintings) in a large art gallery. It would be also interesting to know if this changed in a smaller space. And of course how it altered with the size of the artwork, and the size of the frame.
Reflecting on gallery exhibitions I have been to, I would say it's about 600-700mm for me, only larger if I cannot comfortably see the corners of the artwork, and never less unless looking closely at the technique rather than the image. But I am sure someone will have researched it - it would be required for designers of exhibitions if no-one else.
Scrambler
Well-known
Nice. But rather than curving the print (you did see that bit in the reference did you?) you can use software to distort it so that it appears correct at a nominated closer viewing distance (and wrong everywhere else).
Actually, the distance they would have to stand with a 75mm would be more like twice the length of the longer side, assuming it has been printed without cropping.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Just curious; how far away from your screen are you and what's its diagonal?
And how far away from the keyboard and what's its diagonal?
Regards, David
Just curious; how far away from your screen are you and what's its diagonal?
And how far away from the keyboard and what's its diagonal?
Regards, David
Scrambler
Well-known
a general question or for me?
I'm using an iPhone 5 at the moment, at about 12-14 inches. Usually I use a small laptop, 12 inch screen at about 20 inches. Keyboard slightly closer but the same size.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
No, not specially, just anyone.
The point is I sometimes lean forwards and look from about 8 or 9 inches away and sometime lay back and look from about 3 or 4 or more feet away. As it varies a lot I wondered about all the other fixed distances being quoted.
Regards, David
pete hogan
Well-known
Always an iPad, viewed about 15 inches from the screen. Largest picture display is 9 inches diagonally. Keyboard on the screen is 8 inches diagonally. Wear glasses, of course.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1: Same as non-professionals.
Highlight 2: Depends on the size of the pic and the size of the gallery. Just look at people in galleries for confirmation of this. I do this a LOT in Arles.
Highlight 3: Substantially true but also depends on the size of the pic and the subject matter.
In other words, attempts at generalizations are for the most part worthless. All that we are left with are (a) the artist's intention and (b) the viewers.
Cheers,
R.
williams473
Well-known
I've never thought of focal length in terms of the proximity to the subject as much as maintaining a concern about the exaggeration of objects closest to the lens. I'll never forget a critique I received from a fella with a good eye of an image I made of a guy on a bench, his feet stretched out in front while I was kneeling and making the picture. I thought it was pretty good at the time but this guy just smiled and said "nice feet." I immediately saw what he meant... one of the best critiques I ever received! After that I became very aware of trying not to rely on foreground exaggeration as a crutch to otherwise weak composition.
I shot wide (28 and 35) for years as I was emulating the photojournalistic style and got used to seeing that way. But I find these days that I enjoy the "flatness" of normal lenses mostly - 50 in 35mm and an 80 in 120." I find it's a much more interesting way to compose that compliments my increasing desire to get more at what the picture is about and to hope the image itself is more about the what it's about and less about how it was made.
I shot wide (28 and 35) for years as I was emulating the photojournalistic style and got used to seeing that way. But I find these days that I enjoy the "flatness" of normal lenses mostly - 50 in 35mm and an 80 in 120." I find it's a much more interesting way to compose that compliments my increasing desire to get more at what the picture is about and to hope the image itself is more about the what it's about and less about how it was made.
NickTrop
Veteran
I have no 35mm lenses for film or digital DSLRs. (I only use fixed lens rangefinders.) Let me correct that. I have a 35mm lens for my DSLR -- but that's really my digital 50. I prefer 50mm on (D)SLRs because they are typically faster lenses. You can also shoot faces/quasi-portraits without distortion. I find you can cover as much ground as a 35mm using the ole "two steps back method". Where I do use the 35mm focal length, they are bolted on to the camera in the form of fixed lens point and shoot cameras -- in the case of the Oly XA, a rangefinder. I find I have a growing appreciation for "walking around" compact point-n-shoot film cameras. (This is a truly legitimate advantage of still using film, until you can get a full frame camera the size of an Olympus XA. Only such cameras can lay claim to "full frame in your pocket".) My criteria for these cameras are (1) a clamshell design, (2) an f2.8 max ap (no f3.5's) (3) manual film advance (or "silent mode" where the film advances after letting go of the shutter release). My "lens" collection consists of the Yashica T3, the Oly XA (yes, I know, it's a rangefinder), and a Pentax PC35af. To me, 50mm (and crop factor equivalent) is the (D)SLR realm and 35mm is the point-n-shoot realm.
One thing that should be considered. If you're shooting with fixed lenses, you can put a small 35mm camera in your bag and shoot with it much more quickly and with less fuss than actually changing lenses on a rangefinder or SLR. They are often smaller and lighter than many 35mm lenses (Oly XA, MjuII, there are many), they are typically less expensive, and give very competent results. Film point and shoot cameras with fixed 35/2.8 lenses have rendered that focal length "personally obsolete" for interchangable lens systems. Frankly, you can "keep all of them" -- Nikkors, Zeiss, Leica, whatever, in this focal length as far as I'm concerned. Again, you can grab a small camera and shoot much faster and less "cumbersomely"(?), than fumbling to change lenses. Any Oly XA is far more stealth (along with several select point-n-shooters) for certain types of photography than any other camera type ever devised, including all other rangefinders regardless of price. This trumps "sharpness" and resolution stats (unless shooting lens tests is your thing. Seems to be "the thing" of many on the internet...).
One of the things I do like about the 35mm lenses in my "lens" collection, is they're usually tessar designs (though some manufacturers made these cameras with a sonnar here and there). They render differently than the typical planar lenses of the 50mm world. I like tessar lenses, even if they don't win the worldwide lens sharpness battle royale. These "ancient" simple designs have "a certain special something" to them I can't put my finger on.
My $0.02
One thing that should be considered. If you're shooting with fixed lenses, you can put a small 35mm camera in your bag and shoot with it much more quickly and with less fuss than actually changing lenses on a rangefinder or SLR. They are often smaller and lighter than many 35mm lenses (Oly XA, MjuII, there are many), they are typically less expensive, and give very competent results. Film point and shoot cameras with fixed 35/2.8 lenses have rendered that focal length "personally obsolete" for interchangable lens systems. Frankly, you can "keep all of them" -- Nikkors, Zeiss, Leica, whatever, in this focal length as far as I'm concerned. Again, you can grab a small camera and shoot much faster and less "cumbersomely"(?), than fumbling to change lenses. Any Oly XA is far more stealth (along with several select point-n-shooters) for certain types of photography than any other camera type ever devised, including all other rangefinders regardless of price. This trumps "sharpness" and resolution stats (unless shooting lens tests is your thing. Seems to be "the thing" of many on the internet...).
One of the things I do like about the 35mm lenses in my "lens" collection, is they're usually tessar designs (though some manufacturers made these cameras with a sonnar here and there). They render differently than the typical planar lenses of the 50mm world. I like tessar lenses, even if they don't win the worldwide lens sharpness battle royale. These "ancient" simple designs have "a certain special something" to them I can't put my finger on.
My $0.02
Richard G
Veteran
After years of a 50 I bought a 35. My subjects were swimming in all that space, and I could not make proper use of it. Finally a shot of my daughter marked my progress: she sat on a beach towel on a deck trying on some sunglasses oblivious to all around and on that towel she floated there in the generous space around her like in a fifteenth century painting. I know from experience how different a 35 is from a 50. But sometimes it's just the field of view and you need the 35 to contain the elements you've chosen with your back already on the opposite wall. I used to think of 50 as normal, and I understand why some say it's the 28 that's normal, but for me now maybe it is the 35 that's normal. One member here once said that a 35 was good on holiday to pack in all the wonders he sees, but around home there aren't that many wonders and he sticks with the 50. That's probably close to my position too.
Rikard
Established
Given enough time and dedication with either I think you will be able to get great shots. With a 35 you'll be able to get closer and the viewer will feel like he's "right in the middle of it". With the 50 it's easier to get more clean and "minimalistic" shots with less distracting elements. If you already know which kind of images you prefer you could make your decision based on that.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
What an interesting discussion... and very few of the posts here have discussed why you'd employ either a 50mm or 35mm on a 135-sized frame. There's been little of the discussion about composition, subject isolation, or subject size relative to frame size.
If you're talking about a walk-around lens for grab-shots, given the choice of a 50mm or a 35mm in the same scene with the same subject, the 35mm will get you more real-estate to work with for cropping later. On the other hand, the 50mm will generally give better subject isolation through larger apertures and allow you to emphasize a single subject in the frame more easily without being too concerned about perspective control... particularly in portraiture, and more especially in head-shots on the street.
They're different tools for different jobs... although they're both pretty good general performers... you just have to think differently about your approach with each lens. Frankly, that goes for just about any focal length. My travel bag has a 28, 35, 50, and 90 in it... each has a purpose. The 35 is the f/1.2 for really low light; the rest are f/2. That covers most of what I shoot and I change lenses as appropriate to shoot what I want the way I want it to be seen. If, for some reason I'm limited to what I can carry, I carry the 35mm f/1.2 on the camera. There isn't much it isn't "good enough" at.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I find a 50 harder to work with than a 35, simply becuse of its thinner depth of field and the more careful focusing it requires.
Both lenses represent the two families of lenses IMO, and both are necessary, but with any of them most photography can be done.
When I use one lens only, I like to use a 50 or a 35, but when I carry two, I prefer a 50 and a 28...
Cheers,
Juan
Both lenses represent the two families of lenses IMO, and both are necessary, but with any of them most photography can be done.
When I use one lens only, I like to use a 50 or a 35, but when I carry two, I prefer a 50 and a 28...
Cheers,
Juan
cosmonaut
Well-known
I prefer a 35mm. I guess I just grew up using cameras around that focal length. I have tried to love a 50mm but they always wind up being wallflowers.
robbeiflex
Well-known
The following helps me in picking the lens I want to use. Maybe it will help others too ?
Cheers,
Roland.
Thanks Roland, that is a simple and therefore memorable set of diagrams.
pete hogan
Well-known
^^Useful diagrams. The top-left diagram allows using a 50mm VF with a 35mm lens, e.g. on my IIf. Just turn the camera vertical to check the image height.
gb hill
Veteran
It is for me if I'm shooting street photography. Unless I'm at an event or among a festive crowd I tend to go with a 50 because I'm timid. Shooting non-people subjects I prefer wider. I think the reason I still carry my Canonet so much is that the 40mm feels like a comfortable medium for me.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I wonder if I dare make the comment that I decide what lens to use just by looking whilst the camera is in my pocket or its case and then double checking once the camera's VF is in use?
One of the advantages of 35mm lenses is that you don't have to be that accurate with focusing, even at f/2.8 although that is a bit extreme*. You soon realise this after using (say) a Yashica 35-ME, Olympus Trip 35 or XA1/2/3/4. It makes you appreciate the stroke of genius Yashihisa Maitani applied to the design of the XA2, 3 and 4.
Regards, David
* At f/2.8 showing 3 m on the scale you get from about 2.5m to 3.8m in focus, more than enough in a hurry for a grab shot.
I wonder if I dare make the comment that I decide what lens to use just by looking whilst the camera is in my pocket or its case and then double checking once the camera's VF is in use?
One of the advantages of 35mm lenses is that you don't have to be that accurate with focusing, even at f/2.8 although that is a bit extreme*. You soon realise this after using (say) a Yashica 35-ME, Olympus Trip 35 or XA1/2/3/4. It makes you appreciate the stroke of genius Yashihisa Maitani applied to the design of the XA2, 3 and 4.
Regards, David
* At f/2.8 showing 3 m on the scale you get from about 2.5m to 3.8m in focus, more than enough in a hurry for a grab shot.