MSA O/N September, 2025 - "Wide Angle Perspective"

[wiltw]

Yes and perhaps I,m being picky again, but when you use a focal length not similar to the viewing angle of the human eye, do you take into accont the correct viewing distance for the magnification of your print size? Or does this not matter?

Not sure what you are asking. In my example photo,

• my left hand remains less than half the size of my right hand, no matter if I view a 4x6" print or a 40x60" print.
  but I can recreate that visually only if I hold one hand very very close to my face while the other is outstretched ('lens' position vs closest hand)
• the 'proper viewing distance' to achieve the perspective seen with the short FL lens does change, depending upon print size...but most viewers never try to recreate the 'perspective of the taking lens' in part because most of the time we have no idea what lens was used for the shot, so we cannot distance ourselves at the proper distance from the print.
  I have a 60" wide wall priint, so I can position myself at [magnificaiton of print * FL of lens] to recreate the perspective of what the lens was seeing and recreate the 'depth' of the scene.

 

[Don_ih]

Old - 2015 - Lomo Fisheye (bought for $2 at a thrift store)

 

[cliveh]

The human eye has a horizontal viewing angle of about 200 degrees and a vertical of about 130 degrees. No lens, other than perhaps some sort of specialty fish eye comes even close. See:

https://developer.tobii.com/xr/learn/eye-behavior/visual-angles/

What is the maximum human field of vision?

The maximum human field of vision (FOV) is approximately 200 degrees horizontally and 135 degrees vertically. This range

milvus.io

Viewing distance as a function of print size, has to do with the perception of sharpness and what is required to achieve this. That's why an 8x10 hanging on the wall and a billboard on the side of the road both look "sharp" even the though at around 2 lp/mm the billboard has far less resolution. However - assuming quality lenses - the focal length used to produce the said image won't really as regards to sharpness. Wider lenses do have other issues that have to be considered like field curvature.

You are talking about periferal vision, which is different to the point I am trying to get accross.

 

[chuckroast]

You are talking about periferal vision, which is different to the point I am trying to get accross.

Well, I guess I am unclear on what it is exactly you are trying to say.

If I may summarize my understanding of these matters:

• The choice of focal length, in and of itself, does not change perspective.
  
  
• Camera-to-subject positioning does change perspective.
  
  
• The choice of focal length, in and of itself does not change sharpness assuming the lenses in question are all comparably well designed.
  
  
• Perceptual sharpness is a consequence of the entire reproduction chain - lens, film, enlargement, display method, display size, and viewing distance. It can also be affected by image contrast, and the presence- or absence of visible grain. Thornton's "Edge Of Darkness" does good justice to this, as do some of Ctein's writings.
  
  
• The choice of a wider (shorter) focal length may introduce creative possibilities because of field curvature, greater depth-of-field for a given distance/ f/stop combination as compared to longer lenses, floating front element corrections, and so forth.
  
  
• No lens has the angle of view of a human being. Any lens we use will be selecting a square or rectangle out of our field of vision that is both larger and circular in humans. This goes well beyond just dismissing peripheral vision. The photographer is - by definition - transforming a circular view into a rectangular/square view.
  
  
• The idea that there was a lens that was "normal" for human vision was flogged by manufacturers who claimed - rather arbitrarily - that on, say, a 35mm format, 50mm was that view. In actual fact, a 35mm or 20mm lens is far closer to what we actually see, noting the rectangular editing being done by our picture making. 50mm is more more akin to using a low magnification pair of binoculars to see a subject - i.e., It is a moderately long lens as compared to our vision.
  
  
• What all this must also consider is the considerable role our brains plain in processing the image as captured by our eyes into the image we actually "see".

 

[cliveh]

• The idea that there was a lens that was "normal" for human vision was flogged by manufacturers who claimed - rather arbitrarily - that on, say, a 35mm format, 50mm was that view. In actual fact, a 35mm or 20mm lens is far closer to what we actually see, noting the rectangular editing being done by our picture making. 50mm is more more akin to using a low magnification pair of binoculars to see a subject - i.e., It is a moderately long lens as compared to our vision.

I don't agree. The 50mm is not perfect, but close.

 

[chuckroast]

• The idea that there was a lens that was "normal" for human vision was flogged by manufacturers who claimed - rather arbitrarily - that on, say, a 35mm format, 50mm was that view. In actual fact, a 35mm or 20mm lens is far closer to what we actually see, noting the rectangular editing being done by our picture making. 50mm is more more akin to using a low magnification pair of binoculars to see a subject - i.e., It is a moderately long lens as compared to our vision.

I don't agree. The 50mm is not perfect, but close.

Close to what? It doesn't mimic the human angle of view closely at all:

• A 50mm lens has roughly a 40 degree angle of view horizontally
  
  
• Neglecting peripheral vision (which you said didn't count in this context), the human horizontal angle of view is 120+ degrees . See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view

So while we may love shooting our 50mm Nikkors, Elmars, Summicrons, and their ilk, we're not replicating what we actually see. We are using the lens to edit reality to suit us. Nothing wrong with that.

IOW, a 50 mm simply an arbitrary standard called "normal" for lots of historical reasons (mostly because it very nearly is the diagonal of a 35mm negative).

75% of what I shoot on 35mm is either with 20/21mm or 35mm lenses because I find they suit my compositional intent better most of the time. I treat a 50mm as a moderate long lens for portraiture or isolation of subject. That's me, that's my way of working and it is certainly not some law of nature. But none of those lenses come close to the aforementioned 120 degree horizontal field of view. The widest lens I have for 35mm shooting is a 20mm f/2.8 Nikkor AIS and it clocks in a a respectable 94 degrees. Wide? Yes, but not eyesight wide.

 

[cliveh]

A 50mm lens has roughly a 40 degree angle of view horizontally

It is closer to 46 degrees. Nearly 50

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Gentlemen, as interesting as this discussion is, this is not the place for it. I recommend starting a new thread. Thank you for your attention to this matter...

 

[chuckroast]

Gentlemen, as interesting as this discussion is, this is not the place for it. I recommend starting a new thread. Thank you for your attention to this matter...

Noted. Sorry. I am out anyway at this point - not the MSA, of course.

 

[dourbalistar]

NEW category, taken September 2025. Clement Street, Inner Richmond, San Francisco.

Nikon N8008s, AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D, Ultrafine eXtreme 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.


2025.09.01 Roll #382-09145-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[russljames]

September 30 has arrived where I live, and it is the last day to submit your entries for this MSA.

Cheers!

Russ

 

[gbroadbridge]

Old, Harbour on Sydney northern beaches. ETRS/40mm

 

[BAC1967]

Old one from about a year ago. Leica IIIc with a 15mm Voigtlander Heliar. Kodak Tri-X 400 Developed in Rodinal 1:50.

Pair of International D2 Trucks by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[russljames]

Thanks to everyone who submitted entries for this MSA. I really enjoyed your contributions. And it was quite challenging to determine a single “favorite” as I had many.

In the old category, OAPOLi’s “spooked cow” just put a smile on my face every time I looked at it. And I could almost feel what it must have been like to be looking at her through the finder as she was (or you were) getting closer and closer with the 40mm lens before choosing this moment for the image.

And in the new submissions, Don_ih creates a wonderful visual atmosphere for me as I look from a distance at a beautiful house and yard landscape. I love the different shades of grey that you were able to get. And what to my eye appears to be very, very, slight distortion to the trees on the left edge of the image is a characteristic of very wide-angle lenses, and one that I have grown to enjoy about them.

Congrats to Don_ih, this month’s MSA winner!

Russ

 

[chuckroast]

Thanks to everyone who submitted entries for this MSA. I really enjoyed your contributions. And it was quite challenging to determine a single “favorite” as I had many.

In the old category, OAPOLi’s “spooked cow” just put a smile on my face every time I looked at it. And I could almost feel what it must have been like to be looking at her through the finder as she was (or you were) getting closer and closer with the 40mm lens before choosing this moment for the image.

And in the new submissions, Don_ih creates a wonderful visual atmosphere for me as I look from a distance at a beautiful house and yard landscape. I love the different shades of grey that you were able to get. And what to my eye appears to be very, very, slight distortion to the trees on the left edge of the image is a characteristic of very wide-angle lenses, and one that I have grown to enjoy about them.

Congrats to Don_ih, this month’s MSA winner!

Russ

Congrats to @Don_ih and @OAPOli on well done images.

Let the new games begin. What shall it be?

 

[What About Bob]

Way to go @Don_ih and @OAPOli!!

 

[Don_ih]

Thanks you, everyone. I'm truly surprised. It may take me a day or so to think of something.

 

[MattKing]

Well done everyone, and kudos to @OAPOli and, in particular, @Don_ih .
And as for Don asking for a day or so, and in consideration of his stellar efforts respecting the "Let's All Print One Negative" exchange, I can only say one thing:
If you want something done, give the task to a busy (wo)man.
Reach out if I can help Don.

 

[loccdor]

Congrats! Thanks for the fun.