[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 32 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!




If it’s true that the 50mm focal length lens is the closest replication to what the human eye actually sees, why would you use anything else? Do you think you know better than God, anon?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height675
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4064396
It's actually 35mm, the 50 is tighter than what your eyes see.
>>
>>4064396
Because it's bullshit.
>>
>>4064396
I think it's closer to 40mm (on a 35mm format).
>>
>>4064401
35mm equivalent of a 43mm f/3.2 to f/3.5 lens.
>>
>>4064396
Human eye focal length explanations are way too simplified. Your eyes move constantly and have differing points of attention, so it's not one single constant. The total range of your eyesight (peripheral vision) is around 13mm, or near 180° towards your front. Your area of focus (area which your eyes can quickly focus to) is around 21mm. In this area you consciously consider objects, but you aren't "looking" at them. The area of active focus, upon which you pay conscious attention (the most common comparison for the human eye) is around 38mm. Due to all these perspectives, there isn't a single focal length that is going to mirror very well the characteristics of human perspective. I would say the best compromise would be the 28mm, as this is the widest distortion-free focal length. The eye can then move around the image and naturally mimic the phenomena of peripheral vision. There are, however, specialty lenses than can go wider with no distortion.
>>
>>4064399
>>4064400
>>4064401
>>4064402
It's literally not, though.
>>4064409
copied from reddit
>>
>>4064420
I wish it was, would have saved me the time typing it. You can go over there and repost it though. I know how much you redditors like your Karma points.
>>
When I go around taking pictures I have discovered that 38-43mm focal length exactly represents my natural instinct of how to frame stuff.
In fact when I see a scene I want to shoot I simply go "ok so when I take out the camera the image will go from here to here" and I'm almost always right
>>
>>4064516
This feels accurate. 50 always seems to crop it just so from what I'm viewing. Still my most used lens though.
>>
>>4064396
Because 35mm is closest to human memory.
>>
>>4064396
Not at all is it 50mm.

For me personally, with one eye close my vision is about 35mm, with both eyes open about 24-28mm.

It's not hard to test, look forward, recognise where the edges of your vision are without moving your eyes, match it on a zoom lens and look at the focal length.

50 was pushed as the "best" lens as they were by far the cheapest and easiest to produce in the SLR years. You fell for the corporate shill.
>>
>>4064396
>why would you use anything else?
cause I want to fit more or focus on less, same reason everyone else do the same
kys retard
>>
>>4064544
>SLR years
try earlier m8, the 50mm was the standard since the beginning of the Leica format
>>
>>4064396
No, it's 35
Human eye is variable but in most cases it's closer to 35
>>
>>4064401
This. It‘s somewhere between 38-40mm.
>>
>>4064399
>>4064401
>>4064420
>>4064563
This argument is dumb, but the normal focal length of any sensor is defined by the length of the diagonal of said sensor.
In the case of 24x36, about 43mm.

Then there's of course what lens do you think represents more your vision of the subject, and I'll tell you what, IT FUCKING DEPENDS, and is anywhere between 28 and 55, maybe even wider if you're proud of your horse-like fov
>>
>>4064569
I think it's implied that we're referring to 135 equivalent focal length, and to pretend that this wasn't obvious is more an exposé of your lack of critical thought rather than the gotcha you think it to be.
>>
>>4064575
A true artists sees the details in all things, and you need at least 135mm of focal lenght for that
But he also sees the scene in it's entirety, making a 12mm equivalent a must have lens
>>
>>4064396
Helps with framing.

Oh, I gotta get this shot at 50mm, time to walk backwards or forwards through traffic or a wall.
>>
>>4064579
Wtf are you talking about anon 135 format!=135mm equivalent lens

135 format is full frame.

Did you mean to look like an idiot again?
>>
>>4064544
What size sensor though?
>>
>>4064585
Unless otherwise stated, 135 equivalent is what everyone is going to be referring to, always has been, always will be.

Even way back when medium format film photography was the professionals choice, they used 35mm\135 format equivalence when discussing lenses and crops.
>>
>Trying to translate bifocal vision into a single focal length

Fucking peak retarded
>>
>>4064592
Spotted the dunning kruger everyone
>>
>>4064396
try to look at 27” monitor from 3 meter distance while forcing your eye not to scan sideways and you will notice that only screen is in focus and all the rest is just non sharp sidevision
>>
>>4064631
so only 5 degree (or even less) is sharp AOV
>>
>>4064396
50mm is for plebs, 43mm is where it’s at
>>
Also how about depth compression
I was reading somewhere that human vision depth compression is closest to 35mm lens.
also 50mm claim is for single eye and most of people has two eyes
>>
>>4064665
Then it should be 100mm, no?
>>
>>4064667
*35
>>
>>4064671
2*50=100 you retarded zoomer
>>
>>4064671
Why not 25? 25*2=50.
>>
>>4064527
Nah I find my memory is always cropped because I generally struggle with peripherals in my memory. So I’d honestly say that memory would probably be somewhere around 50mm, if I’m being honest.
>>
>>4064544
>You fell for the corporate shill.
Says the guy pushing the more expensive lenses…
Who fell for a bill
>>
>>4064592
>imagine being so retarded that you actually believe yourself to be the smartest person on the internet and every time you type a reply you lean back with a smug look on your face and imagine the others all awed by the genius of your reply only to actually produce something actually fucking retarded like what this anon just wrote
imagine it
>>
>>4064665
The lens mimics one eye though
>>
>>4065253
lol no
lens can not mimics eye
>>
>>4065253
human eye is only sharp dead center
>>
>>4065253
Focal length of human eye is approx 22mm
Eye retina is approx 1.2x FF camera sensor
>>
When I look at the moon what lens will give me the same size of the moon on the pic from what I see.
50mm lens shoot moon looks too small
even 137mm lens shoot moon looks too small
>>
>>4064396 >>4064399 >>4064400
>>4064401 >>4064402 >>4064409
>>4064420 >>4064505 >>4064516
>>4064518 >>4064527 >>4064544
>>4064550 >>4064552 >>4064563
>>4064575 >>4064585 >>4064590
>>4064656 >>4064665 >>4064667
>>4064671 >>4064769 >>4064907
>>4065247 >>4065249 >>4065250
>>4065253 >>4065268 >>4065269
>>4065271 >>4065273
Who said you have to mimic human vision in photography?
Photography is art, which means it's whatever the person making it wants it to be.
Why wasn't this question the first reply in this thread?
>>
>>4065273
About a 28mm.

The moon isn't very big in the sky, it's just very bright, and you're not bring objective with your observation of it when comparing it to a photo.
>>
>>4065286
You don’t have to be such a fag about it. Some of us are very serious about our art and these types of serious conversations are seriously important. Maybe if you took art a little more seriously, you would understand this.
>>
>>4065286
it's not art, it's documentation
>>
>>4064396
42mm , to be exact
>>
>>4065273
Shoot medium format and this isn’t an issue.
>>
>>4065286
>Who said you have to mimic human vision in photography?
It really depends on what you want to do, photography is defined in terms of tools rather than intent, and groups together many genres with distinct underlying intentions, from fine art to, may Allah forgive me for uttering this word, journalism.
One of the things you may want to do is to evoke in another observer an equivalent of experience captured by the camera. The light of the scene hits the eyes of observer and causes experience. Well, what happens after is a very hard mystery, but what if we cut in between and produce a similar kind of light? It would need to have somewhat same colors, about the right amount of the light, and the direction of the light rays should remain the same as in original scene.
However, the photograph is merely a flat image, projection of that light onto a single surface. Pre-VR and smart panoramas, best you can do with it is create a fake "window" into the scene by making a frame that has about the same angular size in the viewer's field of view as it was when image was captured by the camera. In situations where the observer is standing before a print on the wall, or even looking at a typical full screen, the image will occupy a field of view equivalent to that seen by a 35~50mm lens in front of 35mm sensor or a piece of film, or in general, it would look normal, not too wide not too tight, the diagonal of the medium is a good point to start if you are going after that kind of image.
Not to say other lenses are inferior in any way! But, if you take a picture with a wildly wide or tight lens, and then print it as normal, it will create a distorted view. No one can have a window into a 180 degree panorama, the brain will resist it. Similarly, close up images taken by telephoto lenses look flattened and pleasing, but they make a distinctly different look to what an observer would see if they were physically close.
>>
If you want a slightly more visual experience of the idea in >>4065401 take your camera, a standard lens, and look at any image through the viewfinder, in the way you typically look at photos. They should be able the same size as fov you see through viewfinder.
>>
File: DSC_0001.jpg (426 KB, 1600x1059)
426 KB
426 KB JPG
>>4064402
>>4064569
>>4064656
These anons get it
>>
File: irix_45.jpg (54 KB, 800x449)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>4065473
45 is fine too

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width800
Image Height449
Image Created2022:08:06 00:16:57
Image Width800
Image Height449
>>
i always find that i need really long focal lenghts to represent my eye framing.
like 135mm or something.
>>
>>4064396
>If it’s true that the 50mm focal length lens is the closest replication to what the human eye actually sees
As long as your lens is made of clear glass, it is replicating what your eye sees.
>>
>>4065334
this.
>>
Ah yes. I love how my 50mm lens with its 39 degree horizontal field of view perfectly replicates what my human eye sees with its literal 180 degree horizontal field of view.

You can always spot the midwits who espouse that dumb shit about how 50mm closely approximates what the eye sees.

Hey fuckwits, ALL LENSES SEE WHAT THE EYE SEES. "Normal" requires viewing distance.

50mm lenses were the standard because a double gauss formula is among the simplest and cheapest of all lenses to make, and making it close to the diagonal of the film is the simplest variety of double gauss to make.
>>
File: cave painting.jpg (582 KB, 1500x1000)
582 KB
582 KB JPG
>>4065286
>mimic human vision in photography
You really don't have to, but consider, photography is perceived with human vision. If you make human vision perceive that which mimics human vision, wouldn't it be fun?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6300
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating6400
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Brightness-1.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length30.00 mm
Image Width1500
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>4064396
Anyone have any recommendations for an affordable wider aperture EF-S lens for low light photography? Thanks in advance anons
>>
>>4064399
Agreed. Perhaps even 30mm. I consider peripheral vision to be part of the field of vision.
>>
>>4065536
So a 25mm is really all you need. If that gives us double the fov of a 50mm. 80 degrees fov seems reasonable as a replication of what the human sees without getting deep into the peripheral.
>>
>>4066183
It doesn't exactly work like that. 25mm is more like 70 degrees rather than 80.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.