The golden ratio and angle of views on lens

[lngu81]

I just watched Secret of Pathernon on National Geographic and they talked about the Golden ratio of 1.6 in the design of the building to created an illusion of a "perfect" building, that makes me wonder about the angle of views on the lens in 35mm format.
On a 50mm (normal) len, the angle of view is approx around 46 degrees and its magnification is similar to that of a human eye. A 35mm has a 62 degrees, 28mm has a 74 degrees and 90mm has approx. 28 degrees of view.
Base on the Golden ratio, the 28mm and 90mm lens are 1:1.6 ratio to the 50mm lens, thus the "perfect" angle of view can be captured on these lens.
Is this meant that 28mm and 90mm have the best angle of views and create a more pleasant image to the viewers?

 

[Al Kaplan]

The 1:1.6 ratio refers to the relationship of the lengths of the two sides of a rectangle. The 35mm frame is 1:1.5 which is quite close to that, compared to 8 X 10. Standard 4 X 6 and 8 X 12 prints also are also 1:1.5 in ratio. This has nothing to do with the angular coverage of the lens.

As for the angular coverage of the human eye versus various focal lengths it varies with the individual. Using our two eyes together we can at least be aware of things over close to 180 degrees side to side at the same time. In that range we can detect motion and see color, but there's not much detail in most of that field unless we move our eyes. In real life our head is moving around and our eyes are also moving unless we're concentrating on a static subject.

When it comes to "seeing a picture" amidst the confusing jumble that is the real world most of us can mentally put that 1:1.5 frame around things of various sizes and at different distances with little problem. Then the question becomes what are you comfortable with? Some people like the view of a 90mm, some a 50, others a 35. I've never been able to "see 28mm" but have no trouble using lenses in the 21 to 15mm range.

I'm not talking about carefully composed photographs here. I mean when you're carrying a camera with a particular lens can you just instantly whip it up to your eye and there's the picture framed within the frame lines. Most of us find ourselves doing that most easily with one particular focal length. It's inate in our brains. It's the way we see the world. All the other lenses we have to learn, and it takes practice. The very worst thing you can use is a zoom. With a zoom you raise the camera to your eye and then have to fiddle with it. In the meantime people and things have moved, people might become aware that you're taking their picture, the moment has passed. Save the zoom for landscapes.

 

[payasam]

Given that so many pictures cannot be carefully composed and are eventually cropped to odd sizes, I'd say that for the photographer the golden mean is little more than theory, perhaps only an ideal to be struggled towards.

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

People who become fascinated by the golden ratio/Fibonacci series often fall into the trap of finding them everywhere, whether in the wing proportions of a 747 or the sonata form of Mozart. It's all rather silly.

 

[tvagi]

People who become fascinated by the golden ratio/Fibonacci series often fall into the trap of finding them everywhere, whether in the wing proportions of a 747 or the sonata form of Mozart. It's all rather silly.

but it is amazing how much time must someone spend in finding all these examples!

 

[lngu81]

The 1:1.6 ratio refers to the relationship of the lengths of the two sides of a rectangle. The 35mm frame is 1:1.5 which is quite close to that, compared to 8 X 10. Standard 4 X 6 and 8 X 12 prints also are also 1:1.5 in ratio. This has nothing to do with the angular coverage of the lens.

As for the angular coverage of the human eye versus various focal lengths it varies with the individual. Using our two eyes together we can at least be aware of things over close to 180 degrees side to side at the same time. In that range we can detect motion and see color, but there's not much detail in most of that field unless we move our eyes. In real life our head is moving around and our eyes are also moving unless we're concentrating on a static subject.

When it comes to "seeing a picture" amidst the confusing jumble that is the real world most of us can mentally put that 1:1.5 frame around things of various sizes and at different distances with little problem. Then the question becomes what are you comfortable with? Some people like the view of a 90mm, some a 50, others a 35. I've never been able to "see 28mm" but have no trouble using lenses in the 21 to 15mm range.

I'm not talking about carefully composed photographs here. I mean when you're carrying a camera with a particular lens can you just instantly whip it up to your eye and there's the picture framed within the frame lines. Most of us find ourselves doing that most easily with one particular focal length. It's inate in our brains. It's the way we see the world. All the other lenses we have to learn, and it takes practice. The very worst thing you can use is a zoom. With a zoom you raise the camera to your eye and then have to fiddle with it. In the meantime people and things have moved, people might become aware that you're taking their picture, the moment has passed. Save the zoom for landscapes.

Al, within the confinement of the actual print, disregard of the dimension of the prints. I always find uncomfortable to view the image taken with 24mm or lower, maybe the images stretched to much? Admittedly I never use a 28mm, only 35mm and 50mm, but there is always a wow factor when I look at images taken with 28mm len

 

[lngu81]

People who become fascinated by the golden ratio/Fibonacci series often fall into the trap of finding them everywhere, whether in the wing proportions of a 747 or the sonata form of Mozart. It's all rather silly.

i didn't even hear of Golden triangle until last night 🙂, being an art student/photographer, i couldn't resist but to ask a silly question. After all, photography is about visual manipulation

 

[Al Kaplan]

It's that forced perspective, the WOW factor as you put it, that intrigues me. Way back in 1968 when I first tried a 19mm Canon on my Leica, it was like a revelation, "WOW! That's how I see the world!" At the other extreme a 400mm lens also presents a forced perspective. Use what works for you for your personal work. If you're shooting for a client use whatever makes the client feel like writing checks.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I always find uncomfortable to view the image taken with 24mm or lower, maybe the images stretched to much?

Which brings up the question: Do we want to make the viewer comfortable? Or, uncomfortable?

Al Kaplan's photos are good example. They don't make you feel comfortable and want to doze off. Instead they wake up your senses so you get something out of them.

I'm with Al.

 

[antiquark]

I don't know about the golden ratio, but I've long thought that the 35mm focal length (~60 deg FOV) has something "usable" about it.

If you and two friends are standing evenly spaced, like in a triangle, then 35mm is the longest focal length that will let you photograph your two friends from where you're standing.

Or if you are in a square room, then you can get all your friends to stand against the opposite wall, and the 35mm FOV will let you fit them all in the frame.

Maybe that's why it's a common focal length on point-and-shoot cameras.

 

[Melvin]

People who become fascinated by the golden ratio/Fibonacci series often fall into the trap of finding them everywhere, whether in the wing proportions of a 747 or the sonata form of Mozart. It's all rather silly.

You should be careful what you say, you never know who might be listening .

But seriously, the Fibonacci sequence is just math. It's not subjective. A mathematician named Weyl wrote a good book about this subject called Symmetry, published by Princeton University.

 

[Merkin]

^ They weren't great photographers, either. 😉

They may not have had film or digital sensors, but Aristotle was one of the earliest discoverers of the principles behind photography, so they deserve a bit more credit than that. 😉

 

[noimmunity]

no quarter?

no quarter?

Of the two kits I use most often (see my signature), I find that I am preferring 18-35-75. Isn't that a progression where each lens gives one-quarter of the field of view of the next? i started with 75 cause i love portraits, and then moved down. unfortunately, that trio weighs about twice as much as my other kit (21-35-50), so I switch, even though I'd probably learn both faster if I just stuck with one kit.
hmmm, lately i've been toying with the idea of trying out a 21-40-85 kit, too. That would give me a quarter progression in a smaller package.

 

[eli griggs]

It can be said that the Greeks had great ideas, let's call them the R&D guys, but it was the Romans that brought those ideas, together with the ideas of others, to fruition and set the stage for the lyons share of two thousand plus years of Western Architecture. Greek experiments were grand but Roman works were and still are, staggering in their scale and scope.

Rebel against convention if you must, to find your own artist voice or make it heard above others, but at the end of the day, The Golden Mean will stand, for no better reason than the natural affinity most of us have for it's proportions, whither we know the reason or no.

If you want to try composing with this formula, 1:1.618, a piece of acetate with the proportion and it's divisions drawn on with Sharpie on the ground glass of a TLR or view camera is an easiest way to findout just how useful it can be. A matboard window for use in the field will also work, with notes for croping the print, and might just be an eye opener as well.

This sort of work really works well while shooting with Polaroids for proofing.

Merry Christmas to All

 

[tvagi]

the Romans where just copiers.
just look the Roman statues,they are all copies of earlier Greek statues (and they do not have the good static the Greek statues do).the Romans just reproduced in a bigger scale a few hundred years later.
and what about the fact that 5 out of 7 wonders of the ancient world made Greeks!

 

[eli griggs]

"the Romans where just copiers"

The Romans did far more than just copy, they greatly improved upon basic Greek designs and ideas, incorporated those works with the works and materials of others and raised the standard of architecture to heights the Greeks never dreamed of.

The practical incorporation of arches, domes, road building and concrete into Roman construction far outweigh the visual contribution of classic Greek columns and pediments and gave rise to modern architecture.

Whereas the Greeks refined a rather limited vocabulary of proportion and aesthetics, faltering in both vigor and innovation by narrow mindedly seeking a single standard of 'perfection' through experimentation, the Romans gave command to the wider world from which they also took and forced ongoing, progressive change in engineering and architecture that improved the lives of millions and the generations that followed.

It should also not be forgotten that much that the Greeks are credited with, was copied and built upon that which came out of Egypt and Crete before them, nor that many of the Roman copies of statues, were in fact made by Greeks, working for their Roman masters. The failure of those pieces are of a technical nature, not a lack of original thought on the part of the Romans.

Just as today, there are a limited number of van Gogh landscapes to be shared among a great number of admirers whom demand similar images for their own homes, the Romans also enjoyed Greek art and there as well, a market also arose. A market I will add, that included works from many cultures, including that of Egypt.

Gaze into the face of any Greek statue and you will see not a person, but an ideal that left little room for any truth beyond mathematics and, perhaps, the vanity of a civilization that would not or could not, live with the reality of who they were as a people, as human beings. That ideal and condition is only to be seen in the ruins of what were their great works of buildings and art from that ancient time.

Look into the face of a Roman bust or portrait prior to Constantine, and you'll see, warts and all, the living person, good or bad, very much secure in his/her place in the world which they held sway, a modern world that in many respects, still exists today, even in the buildings of Greece itself.

Eli

 

[noimmunity]

i'm disappointed to see this become a discussion about history rather than a discussion about proportions and lens kits in photography. guess that means that the perfect series is just always very personal.

 

[dave lackey]

"That sort of monumental, fussy decorative, temple architecture appealed to many, especially in government -- etc. I am hardly the first to reject it as far too pragmatic - and not containing any mystery."

Fred, that is one of the interesting things about RFF and post like yours. As an architect in a previous life, I never thought about the pragmatism of Greek architecture and its lack of mystery...now, that you have mentioned it, maybe that is the best kind of architecture for government....no mystery. Cool...😉

Back OT...I prefer to think less of "rules" and proportions as I get older...if the image works, if you can make the optics work for you, then I really don't care about the rules. But, I think the topic is certainly an interesting one worthy of further discussion.

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

"But seriously, the Fibonacci sequence is just math. It's not subjective. "

Well, actually is IS subjective when used as a formula to create art with, whether photography, music, or architecture. Also, people tend to latch on to anything that even comes close to the proportion, and then point to it as having mystical significance.

Personally I find 35mm proportion to be too long. I doubt it would be used again if cameras were reinvented.

 

[btgc]

That's why 1.6 crop factor!