What 35mm equivalent lens focal length could maintain this perspective?

[ts1000]

Hello,
I would like to emulate (as close as possible) this picture's perspective

(taken with Rollei 6x6)

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/553146dae4b046e70a56aab1/1704394571208-2B839Z3C9W8K2RWG7JNM/old+rollei+photos+2005+2006+%284+of+9%29.jpg?format=2500w

Would a 45mm equivalent 35mm lens at, say, f11 be able to adequately maintain this perspective (without compressing distances within the picture) ?

(the original article with the picture is at: https://www.texasgirlphotography.com/blog/2024/1/4/happy-new-year-heres-to-new-projects )

I have minolta 45mm f2 and Konica 40mm f1.8.
What I like about the picture, is that everything seems like I would see with my own eyes.

When I try to emulate similar look with 50mm I usually get a bit more compression, may be bit less detail and exposure range.

So I would like to try Ilford HP5 and Minolta 45mm at f11 to replicate / emulate the above.
Am I too far off ? and it is not going to be possible with the 35mm?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello,
I would like to emulate (as close as possible) this picture's perspective

(taken with Rollei 6x6)

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/553146dae4b046e70a56aab1/1704394571208-2B839Z3C9W8K2RWG7JNM/old+rollei+photos+2005+2006+%284+of+9%29.jpg?format=2500w

Would a 45mm equivalent 35mm lens at, say, f11 be able to adequately maintain this perspective (without compressing distances within the picture) ?

(the original article with the picture is at: https://www.texasgirlphotography.com/blog/2024/1/4/happy-new-year-heres-to-new-projects )

I have minolta 45mm f2 and Konica 40mm f1.8.
What I like about the picture, is that everything seems like I would see with my own eyes.

When I try to emulate similar look with 50mm I usually get a bit more compression, may be bit less detail and exposure range.

So I would like to try Ilford HP5 and Minolta 45mm at f11 to replicate / emulate the above.
Am I too far off ? and it is not going to be possible with the 35mm?

a format's normal view is considered to be close to what the eye sees and usually close to the format's diagonal. For 35mm that is mathematically speaking 43mm but 50mm is typically chosen as being close enough. Your 40mm lens is probably a closer approximation. Try to stop down to f/8 or f/11 to simulate the same depth-of-field and good luck. But remember, focal length changes the angle of view, not the perspective. Only a change of the photographer's position can change the perspective.

 

[Chan Tran]

I would say using the 33.9 (the 35mm is close enough) then crop to a square. That is instead of a 56mm x 56mm format with the 80mm lens you use a 24mm x 24mm and the 34mm lens.

 

[MattKing]

It isn't the lens that creates the perspective, it is the camera to subject distance.
The lens then controls how the field of view is cropped.
If the example photo, from a square negative is mostly full frame, cropped slightly to a bit of rectangle rather than a square, than a 40 - 45mm lens on 135 film, cropped a bit more aggressively (but not too much) to that aspect, will probably give you something like that framing from that camera to subject distance. But I would suggest that it would be more important to worry about where it is safe to stand to get that photo - not in the middle of the street!

 

[wiltw]

It isn't the lens that creates the perspective, it is the camera to subject distance.
The lens then controls how the field of view is cropped.
If the example photo, from a square negative is mostly full frame, cropped slightly to a bit of rectangle rather than a square, than a 40 - 45mm lens on 135 film, cropped a bit more aggressively (but not too much) to that aspect, will probably give you something like that framing from that camera to subject distance. But I would suggest that it would be more important to worry about where it is safe to stand to get that photo - not in the middle of the street!

THIS (boldface text)!!!

This photo likely taken with the camera LEVEL to avoid converging lines, and then cropped in printing to trim off the excess (distracting) street content. One can see the top of the light post, and I guess it is 40' above street level, from maybe a 60' distance (assuming camera position is on the opposite sidewalk)...so to maintain a level camera (and avoid converging lines) the camera would have had to see 80' view at a distance of 60', or a vertical spanning about 46 degrees...on the 135 format in Portrait orientation that takes a 42-44mm FL.

 

[ts1000]

Thanks for the replies. May be cropping is what I was missing.
I usually do not crop, do not alter angles/etc (after scanning my negatives).

But typically I felt that on 35mm -- a 28mm lens or a 50mm did not maintain true ratios between subjects on the picture (28mm makes front and back elements look like they are further apart, and 50mm makes them look too close).

Looking at that 6x6 picture the ratios between subjects (and therefore perceived distances) -- felt more natural to my eye.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the replies. May be cropping is what I was missing.
I usually do not crop, do not alter angles/etc (after scanning my negatives).

But typically I felt that on 35mm -- a 28mm lens or a 50mm did not maintain true ratios between subjects on the picture (28mm makes front and back elements look like they are further apart, and 50mm makes them look too close).

Looking at that 6x6 picture the ratios between subjects (and therefore perceived distances) -- felt more natural to my eye.

My suggestion - don't start with the lens, or even the camera.
Position yourself the distance away from the subject that results in the perspective you are seeking - the relationship you want between the subject elements in your photo.
Then, and only then, bring the camera up to your eye. The view through the finder will tell you whether the frame of the image is too large - too much extraneous detail around the outside - or too narrow - the scene is cropped too tightly in the finder, cutting out important elements at the outside of the image.
Then choose the lens that gives you the framing you need.

 

[reddesert]

But typically I felt that on 35mm -- a 28mm lens or a 50mm did not maintain true ratios between subjects on the picture (28mm makes front and back elements look like they are further apart, and 50mm makes them look too close).

This is a common feeling among photographers, but it's not what actually happens. The reason is that the wide lens tempts you to move forward and fill the frame with the subject, which makes near objects larger relative to the background, while a longer lens allows you to stand back, compressing the foreground and background. If you keep your feet planted, the different lenses all give the same relative sizes of foreground and background; only the amount of angle of view changes.

If you think about it, it has to be that way; the lens can only render the same relative sizes of objects as you can see from your viewpoint. It can't reach out and grab the foreground to magnify it differently from the background.

 

[Mr Bill]

Hi, I think (?) your question has been well answered, but... if you'd like a more complete explanation of things, including what was once known as "proper viewing distance," there is a book preview that covers this. It's Rudolph Kingslake's "Optics in Photography." If you look it up in Google books a preview is available, including the first chapter, on perspective.

Ps, the focal length given by Chan Tran is the correct one to duplicate field-of-view of the Rollei (w/80mm FL lens). OR... you could use a slightly wider (shorter fl) and crop slightly.

 

[xkaes]

As Matt says, find the spot where the picture was taken -- that includes the distance AND height above ground.

Then use a lens that takes ALL of the scene in. The exact focal length does not matter. Just make it wide enough to get everything in -- and a little more.

Then crop it.

If you can't crop it correctly to replicate the photo, you placed the camera in the wrong spot!!! So try it again.

 

[Besk]

Based on reading the article mentioned in the original post, I would guess that the photo was taken with Rolleiflex
shown in the article - which has a 80mm lens. This gives you a horizontal field of view equivalent to a 52mm lens on a 35mm camera.

As Matt says: If you stand at the position where the original photo was taken and use a 50mm lens, point it up slightly as in the original photo you can reproduce the original photo's perspective but with the top cut off. The 45mm lens that you have would be close.

 

[ts1000]

really appreciate all the follow ups and the advise.
it is starting to make sense.

I am going to admit, I lack the ability to imagine how the final result will look, so the framing is really difficult for me to do right.

Even though I have been taking pictures for so long.

Cropping was not part of my 'tool box' (beyond trivial stuff).

I am going to work on this.

 

[xkaes]

Cropping is as easy as slicing bread. Because the original was obviously cropped, you will have to do the same thing. Instead of trying to get the exact same focal length, get one that is obviously wider -- and crop it to size. E-Z-P-Z.

 

[wiltw]

This is a common feeling among photographers, but it's not what actually happens. The reason is that the wide lens tempts you to move forward and fill the frame with the subject, which makes near objects larger relative to the background, while a longer lens allows you to stand back, compressing the foreground and background. If you keep your feet planted, the different lenses all give the same relative sizes of foreground and background; only the amount of angle of view changes.

If you think about it, it has to be that way; the lens can only render the same relative sizes of objects as you can see from your viewpoint. It can't reach out and grab the foreground to magnify it differently from the background.

TRUTH! Move yourself to the position which gives you the relative sizing of foreground vs. background that you are after, and then mount the FL that gives you the FOV (frame edges) that you want to capture (or crop during postprocessing!)

 

[grain elevator]

Rolleiflex
shown in the article - which has a 80mm lens. This gives you a horizontal field of view equivalent to a 52mm lens on a 35mm camera.

But you need the vertical coverage of a ~35mm lens on to equal the Rolleiflex 80mm square image, as has been stated above; I just feel it needs to be reiterated as the 50mm talk keeps popping up.

 

[wiltw]

But you need the vertical coverage of a ~35mm lens on to equal the Rolleiflex 80mm square image, as has been stated above; I just feel it needs to be reiterated as the 50mm talk keeps popping up.

Indeed. On the Rolleiflex, the 80mm lens captures the right framing onto a 56mm (approx) dimension of the film...about 1.42x multiple.

• Applying the same multiple to 24mm frame edge (if 135 shot in Landscape orientation), if you mount 34mm FL (24 * 1.42) it would capture the same height along the short dimension of the frame.
• If you rotated the camera to Portrait orientation, you could capture the same height with only a 51mm FL (36 * 1.42) along the long dimension of the frame.

 

[Hassasin]

If you don't have one, get viewfinder app and use it for visualising perspectives/camera position. It allows for lens change and negative size, so it all is on screen as you move in and out to find the right perspective along with how it is captured within chosen frame.

 

[ts1000]

Thank you. Will check the viewfinder app and the recommended above book.

I think using portrait mode with a 45mm lens at f11 on the 35 mm format -- will get me close. I will experiment!
Thanks again for all the replies!


and I enjoyed reading this thread https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/square-format.196953/page-2#post-2641635.

 

[cliveh]

To re-enforce what has already been mentioned, here is a good example where HCB has positioned himself with the subject, so the line on the wall is similar to the angle of the cart:-

 

[Mr Bill]

Thank you. Will check the viewfinder app and the recommended above book.

I think using portrait mode with a 45mm lens at f11 on the 35 mm format -- will get me close. I will experiment!
Thanks again for all the replies!


and I enjoyed reading this thread https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/square-format.196953/page-2#post-2641635.

Hi, I was thinking that perhaps it would be easier if you just made a little viewfinder out of lightweight cardboard. But then it occurred to me, your blog, per your link, sorta implies that you actually DO have a Rolleiflex. If so, this would probably be the most straightforward way to duplicate the original perspective of the scene. (Which is essentially to find the original camera position.)

If you wanted to make a cardboard viewfinder, one way to duplicate the Rollei field-of-view would be: cut a square opening the same size as the Rollei negative (about 2 1/4 inch or 56mm square). Then you would arrange a peephole to be one focal length (80mm) away. When you look through the peephole the square cutout will closely mimic the Rollei's field-of-view. (OR you can scale this to any size you want... double the width of the cutout, double the peephole distance, etc.)

Now an observation about this cardboard viewfinder... if you were to reverse it, meaning peephole towards the subject, you might notice that this would be the same basic geometry as a pinhole camera. It doesn't take a great leap of intuition (well, maybe it does?) to realize that viewing a same-size pinhole camera image from the original pinhole distance will actually duplicate the viewing perspective of the original scene. Which, since it was real, should also appear real. This is the whole gist of the idea of the "correct viewing distance" for a photograph and Kingslake's comment (p. 7) "The gain in realism... is quite marked and often astonishing." (From "Optics in Photography")

 

[ic-racer]

Just to emphasize what others have been stating, if you stand in the same place to take the picture with any lens or format, the perspective will be the same. The only way to change relationships between the subjects is to move the camera. Or, for view camera users, to alter the position of the front standard.

 

[wiltw]

Just to emphasize what others have been stating, if you stand in the same place to take the picture with any lens or format, the perspective will be the same. The only way to change relationships between the subjects is to move the camera. Or, for view camera users, to alter the position of the front standard.

To be clear, with the large format camera, altering the position of the front standard will NOT alter the 'relationship of one object to its surronding objects', or the 'perspecitve', because the film itself has not changed its position!

• Altering the front standard position up/down or left/right only alters the portion of the image circle captured by the film, and
• altering the angle of the front standard will only alter the plane of best focus within the 3D cube of the photo.

ONLY 'camera position' wil alter 'perspective', the 'relationship of one object to its surronding objects';
and in the large format camera, altering the rear standard in its position (within the limits of the camera itself) will modify the 'perspective' only subtlely.
(But we digress too far in discussing the large format camera.)

 

[wiltw]

To prove that it is NOT the lens that alters 'perpective'...a series of shots all taken at same tripod position, and then cropped in postprocessing to frame the same area....

 

[ic-racer]

Someone needs to brush up on view camera movements

 

[eli griggs]

I'll suggest you try making some viewing windows, similar to what Defender Photographic sells, there is an offer for receiving a free one in the "Free" classified ads at this moment.

I believe with a viewfinder that offers the same format window as the original image, you'll more quickly be able to find the angles you want, even if you use a different format viewer, with cropping always an option.