Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

collectorsweekly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 184 posts

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#171

Post by nbzso »

prox wrote: post #150
nbzso wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May be I cannot express my thoughts clearly. Sorry, my English is not fluent and I don't always have enough time to polish my expose. For me "Technographers" are not people who are on the technical side of photography. Real technical side is important from craftsmanship perspective, but only as a tool with photography goal. "Tecnographers" are people who care only for cameras and photographic gear in general. They fo…

Ah I think I know the type and what you mean! Doubling down on the sharpness of a pixel in a lens/sensor and having endless debates about it if you don’t buy the right brand.

Exactly:)

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#172

Post by throwaway2037 »

nicbou wrote: post #151
throwaway2037 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same is true for hiking and camping!

Whoever told me camping saves you money was lying.

Where I live, you can buy a very cheap tent with a rain cover for 25 USD (made in China). And I don't carry any cooking gear, so I keep things very cheap. But, yes, there are people who go crazy with "kit"!

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#173

Post by totetsu »

I recently started making photographic images with pinhole lenses exposing directly to photo paper. It certainly changed what I pursued as 'good' photograph. To even think about composition, texture, tone, subject you first have to get past the difficulty, and ease of making mistakes in the technical process. It certainly gave me great respect for people who make art photography in the pre-digital era. A large part of my motivation for trying this was looking at all everyone (myself included) snapping away all day every day making photos .. for what? .. It was hard to not just see them as habitual Trojan metadata carriers.

( here is one of the earlier works I actually scanned and inverted. https://mega.nz/file/1RhWwRTZ#q7jD9rbC2kph5VmX9q1Zv0ju-035HB... )

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#174

Post by falcrist »

psychomugs wrote: post #169
falcrist wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm arguing that wide angles are only more representative if you use fisheye distortion and project the image onto a curved media. If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision. > the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at. This is always true at every focal length. Your choice of composition informs the viewer whe…

> If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision. Below ~12mm, yes. 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability; even with a 21mm, I have to be right in front of someone for them to fill the frame, because I would have to do the same if I were looking at them with my own eyes. > This is always true at every focal leng…

> 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability

Which is what I'm saying. It's a compromise, rather than trying to match human vision.

> "Lately I’ve been struck with how I really love what you can’t see in a photograph." - Diane Arbus.

There is no focal length that doesn't involve a choice about what the viewer can see.

There's always composition. You're always making a choice.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#175

Post by psychomugs »

falcrist wrote: post #174
psychomugs wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision. Below ~12mm, yes. 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability; even with a 21mm, I have to be right in front of someone for them to fill the frame, because I would have to do the same if I were looking at them with my own eyes. > This is always true at every focal leng…

> 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability Which is what I'm saying. It's a compromise, rather than trying to match human vision. > "Lately I’ve been struck with how I really love what you can’t see in a photograph." - Diane Arbus. There is no focal length that doesn't involve a choice about what the viewer can see. There's always composition. You're always making a choice.

And yet, as I've argued with objective statements re: field of view and subjective experience from others and myself, we use these wide angles because they are objectively and subjectively closer to matching our human vision.

Once you get to a certain level, you can begin to make choices that invites the viewer to make a choice, and realize that your choices are only ever second to theirs. Wider lenses are more effective at this specifically because they gather more elements in the frame, inducing more ambiguity and opportunity for alternative interpretations, just like how we always have to decide where our cone of attention points.

Stopping short of advising you to touch grass, I'd invite you to shoot exclusively with wides and fisheyes for a while, and practice soft focus for peripheral awareness [1]. Apart from that, no argumentation on photography through the limited medium of text is going to reconcile our perspectives.

[1] https://www.victoriastellatoskeet.com/blog/at-home-eye-exerc...

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#176

Post by falcrist »

psychomugs wrote: post #175
falcrist wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability Which is what I'm saying. It's a compromise, rather than trying to match human vision. > "Lately I’ve been struck with how I really love what you can’t see in a photograph." - Diane Arbus. There is no focal length that doesn't involve a choice about what the viewer can see. There's always composition. You're always making a choice.

And yet, as I've argued with objective statements re: field of view and subjective experience from others and myself, we use these wide angles because they are objectively and subjectively closer to matching our human vision. Once you get to a certain level, you can begin to make choices that invites the viewer to make a choice, and realize that your choices are only ever second to theirs. Wider lenses are more effec…

Except due to distortions and perspective differences, shorter focal lengths are objectively further from matching human vision.

Subjects regularly look much further from the camera than they actually are. Objects at the edge of the frame are weirdly stretched. Whatever is closest to the camera will appear disproportionately large in your final image. Objects in the background are disproportionately small.

Not to mention barrel distortions tend to be much more prominent as focal length is shortened.

Normal focal lengths are the closest to human vision. Wide angle fisheye lenses could be ok with curved media, but otherwise they're just warped.

Considering the area of focus of human vision, along with the fact that we don't see in rectilinear terms, trying to reduce all the aspects of human vision to one factor: field of view... seems foolish at best.

If we viewed photos in some kind of spherical VR space or on curved media, then wider field of view with a fisheye lens could be argued to be more similar to human vision. However, we almost exclusively view pictures as flat sheets of paper or flat rectangular screens.

For those reasons and others, 35-50mm is far more similar to actual human vision.

https://petapixel.com/2012/11/17/the-camera-versus-the-human...

Composition (and thus the number of elements in frame) is a choice that gets made by the photographer, and can be achieved by altering the scene, changing distance, or changing focal length. Having more or fewer elements in frame has nothing to do with mimicking human vision, and whatever focal length you've chosen is a decision you're making for the viewer. If you make a 360° photo, that's still a composition decision you're making on behalf of the viewer, and it directly effects how they consume your work.

Now, if you want your image to be a wider angle, that's fine. That is a legitimate compositional choice... but it is a choice that you the photographer are making. It's not better or worse. Nor is trying to be "closer to human vision" inherently better or worse than any other choice. Knock yourself out with whatever focal lengths suit you.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#177

Post by [deleted] »

falcrist wrote: post #176
psychomugs wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, as I've argued with objective statements re: field of view and subjective experience from others and myself, we use these wide angles because they are objectively and subjectively closer to matching our human vision. Once you get to a certain level, you can begin to make choices that invites the viewer to make a choice, and realize that your choices are only ever second to theirs. Wider lenses are more effec…

Except due to distortions and perspective differences, shorter focal lengths are objectively further from matching human vision. Subjects regularly look much further from the camera than they actually are. Objects at the edge of the frame are weirdly stretched. Whatever is closest to the camera will appear disproportionately large in your final image. Objects in the background are disproportionately small. Not to men…

[deleted]

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#178

Post by [deleted] »

falcrist wrote: post #174
psychomugs wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision. Below ~12mm, yes. 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability; even with a 21mm, I have to be right in front of someone for them to fill the frame, because I would have to do the same if I were looking at them with my own eyes. > This is always true at every focal leng…

> 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability Which is what I'm saying. It's a compromise, rather than trying to match human vision. > "Lately I’ve been struck with how I really love what you can’t see in a photograph." - Diane Arbus. There is no focal length that doesn't involve a choice about what the viewer can see. There's always composition. You're always making a choice.

[deleted]

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#179

Post by psychomugs »

falcrist wrote: post #176
psychomugs wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, as I've argued with objective statements re: field of view and subjective experience from others and myself, we use these wide angles because they are objectively and subjectively closer to matching our human vision. Once you get to a certain level, you can begin to make choices that invites the viewer to make a choice, and realize that your choices are only ever second to theirs. Wider lenses are more effec…

Except due to distortions and perspective differences, shorter focal lengths are objectively further from matching human vision. Subjects regularly look much further from the camera than they actually are. Objects at the edge of the frame are weirdly stretched. Whatever is closest to the camera will appear disproportionately large in your final image. Objects in the background are disproportionately small. Not to men…

>Not to mention barrel distortions tend to be much more prominent as focal length is shortened. >Considering the area of focus of human vision, along with the fact that we don't see in rectilinear terms, trying to reduce all the aspects of human vision to one factor: field of view... seems foolish at best.

If you can cherrypick to distortion, I can cherry pick to compositional element-gathering ability, of which a wide field of view is objectively better at, and which is actually more important to documentation-oriented photographers. To revisit the impetus for this conversation:

>Some photographers feel the shorter focal lengths feel "more authentic" somehow.

>Considering the area of focus of human vision, along with the fact that we don't see in rectilinear terms, trying to reduce all the aspects of human vision to one factor: field of view... seems foolish at best.

The wideness is precisely why practiced documentary photographers/photojournalists choose 28-35mm for their more authentic representation; it is a better representation of the messiness of the world that takes a trained eye to organize. Empirically and experientially, experienced portrait photographers will use normals and telephotos for pleasing-yet-detached proportions, and experienced street/snapshot photographers will continue using wides for the authentic drop-the-viewer-in-the-world effect. To say that they should actually be using 50mm is... foolish at best. When someone pays me for portraits, I will use a 50-75mm, but when I want to remember what it was like to be somewhere doing something and living, I and many others will use a 28mm or 35mm.

I will now go photograph grass with a 28mm and you should too.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#180

Post by falcrist »

psychomugs wrote: post #179
falcrist wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except due to distortions and perspective differences, shorter focal lengths are objectively further from matching human vision. Subjects regularly look much further from the camera than they actually are. Objects at the edge of the frame are weirdly stretched. Whatever is closest to the camera will appear disproportionately large in your final image. Objects in the background are disproportionately small. Not to men…

>Not to mention barrel distortions tend to be much more prominent as focal length is shortened. >Considering the area of focus of human vision, along with the fact that we don't see in rectilinear terms, trying to reduce all the aspects of human vision to one factor: field of view... seems foolish at best. If you can cherrypick to distortion, I can cherry pick to compositional element-gathering ability, of which a wi…

> If you can cherrypick to distortion

I'm cherrypicking to perspective. Distortion is an additional argument, alongside field of view of the area of focus, etc.

> documentary photographers/photojournalists choose 28-35mm for their more authentic representation

I dispute the idea that there is anything like a uniformity of choices, and I dispute the idea that documentary photographers choose a focal length for authenticity purposes. If you're doing a documentary and especially if you're doing photojournalism, you're choosing focal lengths that properly frame your subject at whatever distance you need to stand at... because often you won't be able to choose your distance to the subject.

This fstoppers article suggests that the two most useful photojournalism lenses are a 24-70mm zoom, and an 85mm portrait lens.

https://fstoppers.com/originals/two-most-useful-lenses-photo...

Other articles seem to suggest that photojournalists should carry zoom lenses covering a range from 12 or 16mm to 200mm, which makes perfect sense.

I see no indication that 28-35mm is preferred.

> To say that they should actually be using 50mm is... foolish at best.

Then don't say that. What does this statement have to do with this conversation?

> When someone pays me for portraits, I will use a 50-75mm, but when I want to remember what it was like to be somewhere doing something and living, I and many others will use a 28mm or 35mm.

And that's fine. You can use whatever focal lengths you want to evoke different emotions. That's one of the reasons we don't just use one lens or one focal length all the time.

This isn't really relevant to the assertion that short focal lengths are somehow closer to human vision.

Post reply on HN