Why is so much nonsense talked about telephoto compression?

To me 50 mm felt way too narrow... so I got myself a 49.9 mm lens: 😂

Just kidding! But perhaps my Agfa Mikrogon 27.7 mm might do the trick? 😉

I don't know why, to me really wide angle images often look quite unnatural, even when they're very well corrected. They don't look bad, just strange, because they seem to differ too much from what I'm usually perceiving with my eyes. @davidwien shared some interesting observations about it in the thread he mentioned before and it made me think that I'll have to experiment a lot more with different focal lengths + tilting, which may help me get a look for landscapes/street photography etc. which I find more natural (that's probably just for me though).

I have the same feeling about telephoto images, at least beyond a certain focal length, but I find them less distracting, perhaps because there's often not as much going on. Still have to think about that as well...

But of course. And, that's one significant thing you get with a telephoto lens, magnification onto your sensor. Beats cropping a teeny part of an image with the reduced resolution. Both give the same perspective, one just looks crappy.

Now, this is just a bit of opportunistic example-ing, some photos I took back in 2015 that give the opportunity to see what magnification buys. I posted one of these earlier in the thread, here it is again so you don't have to pan up to find it:

200mm magnification, 35mm (FF) format.

Now, here's a wide-angle shot looking in the same direction, note that I'm not standing in the same place, a little further back:

Sorry I don't have a wide-angle shot of the first image, but I'm going to now post a crop from this one that tries to approximate the first one:

Crappy. About the same perspective, though.

[deleted]

Not sure about the answer to that question; but if it helps, when I look at the output of the rear view camera in my car, the car behind looks much closer. This may be the wide angle “big nose” effect.

David

One interesting thing that occurs to me is that although the background is painted as distant, it might just as well be a view painted on the wall one foot behind her.

David

That is very odd! When I look at the picture from the rear-view camera on my car, everything looks further away than it is. When I look in the rear-view mirror, things look about the right distance away.

Well, I guess we are used to the mirror. But actually, when the vehicle behind is some way away ( say 1 or 2 metres), you are correct: it does look distant. But the closer you get, the more it looks like it is breathing down your neck, when it isnt quite and there is still a safe gap. I havent quantified this, however. I suppose that it is better to be safe than sorry in this case.

David

Yes, I see what you mean. When backing the car, something behind changes very quickly from looking far away to looking too close.

Yes, a slight convexity does the trick. A wide view, but less than useless for gauging distances.

Not related, I used to rent a lot of cars. Got into one one time, set all the mirrors the way I wanted, shifted into reverse, looked to clear and they were all out of kilter. Fought with that for a day or so, lamenting that at a meeting where one of my cohorts said, "it's rotating the mirrors down so you can see the curb when you shift into reverse." Geesh; I miss my manual transmission... 😆

At first glance, the photos below look very similar. On further examination, the background shows they are quite different. However, if the cans were on a plain and featureless background, the two cans are about the same size and position and the photos would look very much the same.

In the first shot, the cans were 25cm and 50cm from the camera, while the second shot used double the focal length and the cans were 50cm and 100cm from the camera.

At a quick glance, particularly if the background was made plain and featureless, the observer would think that the distances of the cans from the camera was about the same in the two photos.

Of course, if we know the focal lengths used, or if we examine the pictures more closely, we can deduce that the distances must have been very different. Nevertheless, on first glance our immediate judgement is that the distances are about the same.

A shot at one focal length appears the same as a shot at double the focal length with all distances (from the camera) doubled.

The long lens not only "crops" a small part of the scene, but (as Bobn2 pointed out) it also enlarges that small crop to fill the whole image.

It is the magnification that is key.

This has been recognised for a very long time by those who have studied perspective in depth. It was recognised by Renaissance painters and mathematicians:

"Know that a painted thing can never appear truthful where there is not a definite distance for seeing it." --- Leon Battista Alberti (1425)

(Changing the viewing distance is effectively the same as changing the image magnification)

So often for things photographic, the discussion is about distance(s) when the basis should be angular.

I used to enjoy my Sigma DP2 compact models with their published 24.2 mm lens (41mm equiv.). Good for general purpose work.

That‘s a great focal length as well. Is it engraved on the lens or is it labeled 41 mm? The weirdest focal length of all my lenses is an Agfa prototype: 105.672 mm 😅

It‘s yet to be determined though if that‘s really its focal length or if there‘s some kind of internal code in there, providing information about other specs of the lens.

Back in (I think) 1969, i had a white Perspex (=Plexiglass) dome made, about a meter in diameter. I projected Fisheye photos on this from the outside, and viewed them from the inside. The perspective was very convincing.

Don

That‘s great! It‘s actually similar to what I mentioned to @davidwien in another thread as (potentially) feeling more natural to my eyes… viewing WA images on those big extremely curved monitors. But of course a one meter diameter dome is in another league! 👍

I agree, but I think many people are rather intimidated by trigonometric functions, so we very rarely mention degrees.

Perhaps you meant what it would be if he was using a lens and camera rather than brushes and a canvas. Of course, that would also depend on the format. Since many have a bias these days for 35mm format, then presuming that and if Leonardo Da Vinci was standing ten feet from her then that would mean approximately 60mm.

Going off-topic, I'm also interested in the aperture. Looking at the painting I see an interesting choice of blur, with more behind her face and less behind her body, so maybe a tilt lens at f/22. It's an interesting thought experiment that could have some practical applications for photographers today.