Learned something new about focal lengths today

I'm about to show off how little I know about photo composition. This is probably something that's taught in every introductory photography course, but being entirely self-taught--largely out of necessity until now--it's something I'd missed.

Recently I've been looking at buying a nice fast prime lens for my E-P1 to make up for some deficiencies in the kit zoom, so I thought I'd go out today and take a few pictures at the focal length (50mm) of my chosen lens to see what the results would be. (I've converted all the focal lengths to 35mm equivalents for convenience's sake.)

I'd read a great deal about the natural looking perspective that a 50mm lens gives, but it didn't really hit home for me until I took some of my own pictures with a specific focal length in mind.

In the past, I'd looked at zooms more in terms of what's strictly necessary to get the stuff into the frame that I want. If I could get close enough to the subject to use it at its widest angle, then that's what I'd do; it never crossed my mind to take a few steps back and zoom in slightly to get a different effect.

The picture below is one that normally I would have taken with the lens at full wide angle (28mm) simply because there was nothing in my way preventing me from getting as close as I wanted. It initially felt kind of strange to be standing so far away from the subject, but when I came home and saw the results I understood immediately. This is the picture that I would have taken a dozen shots of in the past but never come up with one that looks "right". It took me one try to get this one, and it's exactly how I'd pictured it in my head.

I realize this picture is nothing terribly Earth-shattering as far as subject or composition goes, but I thought it looked kind of nice, and easily far more professional than any similar shots I've taken previously.





--

• Kevin

Dansk said:

I'd read a great deal about the natural looking perspective that a 50mm lens gives

Click to expand...

Focal length doesn't determine perspective (unless you're talking about the extreme distortion of a fisheye lens). Camera-to-subject distance does.

Changing the focal length just encourages you to "move forward" or "step back" to keep the frame filled. And when you do that, that's when the perspective changes.

Tom_N said:

Focal length doesn't determine perspective (unless you're talking about the extreme distortion of a fisheye lens). Camera-to-subject distance does.

Changing the focal length just encourages you to "move forward" or "step back" to keep the frame filled. And when you do that, that's when the perspective changes.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know, I thought a great deal about the choice of that word, but that's essentially what it is that I'm talking about. I could have gotten exactly the same picture by standing in the same place and taking a wide angle shot and then cropping it down to the field of view in my 50mm picture. It's not the zoom that's important, it's where I'm standing, hence perspective. It was the narrowed field of view that forced me to change my perspective for the first time, which is what I was trying to convey.
--

• Kevin

Dansk said:

Tom_N said:

Focal length doesn't determine perspective (unless you're talking about the extreme distortion of a fisheye lens).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Err.. actually...

If you look at a fish-eye image from the very centre with one eye only, and from close enough, which is very close indeed.... (sufficient that the edges of the shot extend out of your field of vision...)

... then even a fish-eye shot looks perfectly straight and undistorted.

Dansk said:

Dansk said:

Changing the focal length just encourages you to "move forward" or "step back" to keep the frame filled. And when you do that, that's when the perspective changes.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dansk said:

Yes, I know, I thought a great deal about the choice of that word, but that's essentially what it is that I'm talking about. I could have gotten exactly the same picture by standing in the same place and taking a wide angle shot and then cropping it down to the field of view in my 50mm picture. It's not the zoom that's important, it's where I'm standing, hence perspective. It was the narrowed field of view that forced me to change my perspective for the first time, which is what I was trying to convey.

Click to expand...

Ahhh... that's what you are saying now.... ;-)

However, when the novelty wears off, I'm betting you'll go back to using your original wide angle strategy whenever you can. Oh yes, indeedy

Once you have learned how to use it to advantage , the close working of the wide angle is notable for creating dynamic images out of the "blandness" that comes from standing back with a "normal" lens...

... and also from the "crowded confinement" that comes with long-lens shooting at a distance.

Trust me on this; it always happens. And the more experienced you get, the wider you'll like 'em. Indeed, I am very VERY old (!) and have worked my way out to shooting everything at 18mm equivelant.... (OK. I exaggerate, but not a lot!)
--
Regards,
Baz

Well, I'll see your Cher, and your Streisand... and I'll raise you an Alice Babs!

Tom_N said:

Focal length doesn't determine perspective

Click to expand...

Novice here does not understand. Consider a car near the street entrance of a driveway. A house sits at the other end of the driveway. Two lenses of different focal length have different angles of vision. If the photographer positions herself so that the house occupies the width of the frame, her location will depend on the focal length of the lens - and the car will occupy a different fraction of the frame width with different lenses. Shots with two lenses will be quite different; is it wrong to say this difference involves a difference of perspective?

Yes, camera-to-subject distance varies here as you noted. My point is that this variation is bound up with the focal length of the lenses that the photographer has with her on the scene.

Incidentally, in this example the photographer probably needs to watch carefully that traffic does not run over her.

Charles2 said:

Tom_N said:

Focal length doesn't determine perspective

Click to expand...

Novice here does not understand. Consider a car near the street entrance of a driveway. A house sits at the other end of the driveway. Two lenses of different focal length have different angles of vision. If the photographer positions herself so that the house occupies the width of the frame, her location will depend on the focal length of the lens - and the car will occupy a different fraction of the frame width with different lenses. Shots with two lenses will be quite different; is it wrong to say this difference involves a difference of perspective?

Yes, camera-to-subject distance varies here as you noted. My point is that this variation is bound up with the focal length of the lenses that the photographer has with her on the scene.

Incidentally, in this example the photographer probably needs to watch carefully that traffic does not run over her.

Click to expand...

If she stands in that same spot and uses her zoom, the focal length changes, but the relationship of the car to the house (perspective) remains the same. Only the way the scene is cropped changes. To change the perspective, she needs to change her position.

--
David
Dallas, TX

DSHarned said:

If she stands in that same spot and uses her zoom, the focal length changes, but the relationship of the car to the house (perspective) remains the same. Only the way the scene is cropped changes. To change the perspective, she needs to change her position.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Changing the crop changes the composition. So to capture a desired composition with a desired perspective - and isn't that the first artistic decision of the photographer? - she must have a lens of appropriate focal length or shorter. If appropriate, she uses the full area of the sensor or film frame. If shorter, she should stand in the spot determined by artistic decision and crop in post processing.

In these terms the OP reports in his subsequent post that he was standing too close for his desired artistic effect, and fixing the focal length at 50mm made him realize it.

I'm repeating points already made. We novices find one or another way of stating a proposition easier to get the point.

Barrie Davis said:

Ahhh... that's what you are saying now.... ;-)

However, when the novelty wears off, I'm betting you'll go back to using your original wide angle strategy whenever you can. Oh yes, indeedy

Once you have learned how to use it to advantage , the close working of the wide angle is notable for creating dynamic images out of the "blandness" that comes from standing back with a "normal" lens...

... and also from the "crowded confinement" that comes with long-lens shooting at a distance.

Trust me on this; it always happens. And the more experienced you get, the wider you'll like 'em. Indeed, I am very VERY old (!) and have worked my way out to shooting everything at 18mm equivelant.... (OK. I exaggerate, but not a lot!)
--
Regards,
Baz

Click to expand...

I find that very interesting. I don't have nearly enough experience to say which way my shooting preferences will go in the future, but I don't imagine myself drifting towards wider angles over the years. Not right now, anyways. Who knows what the future will bring!
--

• Kevin

Dansk said:

Barrie Davis said:

Ahhh... that's what you are saying now.... ;-)

However, when the novelty wears off, I'm betting you'll go back to using your original wide angle strategy whenever you can. Oh yes, indeedy

Once you have learned how to use it to advantage , the close working of the wide angle is notable for creating dynamic images out of the "blandness" that comes from standing back with a "normal" lens...

... and also from the "crowded confinement" that comes with long-lens shooting at a distance.

Trust me on this; it always happens. And the more experienced you get, the wider you'll like 'em. Indeed, I am very VERY old (!) and have worked my way out to shooting everything at 18mm equivelant.... (OK. I exaggerate, but not a lot!)
--
Regards,
Baz

Click to expand...

I find that very interesting. I don't have nearly enough experience to say which way my shooting preferences will go in the future, but I don't imagine myself drifting towards wider angles over the years. Not right now, anyways. Who knows what the future will bring!

Click to expand...

So true. FWIW, shooting at longer focal lengths and increased distance had become a large part of my personal style and that came about with my 'discovery' of perspective changes with different distances/focal length with the same framing. Some scenes really do beg for a wider angle shot but I find plenty that require much longer focal lengths and increased distance to get the result I am looking for. I do respect Barrie's personal realization and choices but do not really share his view. That's OK as I did state that my prefernce was part of my personal style and that's something that was not easily discovered and is always evolving.

I am seriously quite happy for you that you discovered this element of composition.

Barrie Davis said:

Once you have learned how to use it to advantage , the close working of the wide angle is notable for creating dynamic images out of the "blandness" that comes from standing back with a "normal" lens...

... and also from the "crowded confinement" that comes with long-lens shooting at a distance.

Trust me on this; it always happens. And the more experienced you get, the wider you'll like 'em.

Click to expand...

I agree that WA is indeed notable as a technique to work around the blandness you mention, but...

It is also perhaps the most simplistic and least sophisticated of many techniques that accomplish the same. It is most certainly a useful technique, and many photographers learn it well.

But, while good composition with a "normal" lens may be more difficult, the results are at least as pleasing; and that is equally true for longer focal lengths. Learning to use, at the right time, any and all of these techniques opens up a much broader, and more wonderful, world of photography. It would be a shame for any photographer, young or old, to box their talents into just one technique simply because it is easy to do.

Note that there indeed may be other reasons to put emphasis on one specific technique, or to avoid it too. For example most street photographers like some specific focal length, and won't use anything else. Those who want to be interactive, and a significant part of the subject's environment, tend to like wider focal lengths; while those who wish the opposite effect use longer focal lengths (and the range of photographers covers every focal length).

I would suggest that a novice make a concerted effort to learn how and why to work with each range of focal lengths, because the experience will allow them to know when to use each.