As threatened, I return to my street scene (with a different cast) to compare the RF35mm with the RF16mm. (You need to look at the larger versions to get the effect I am seeking to demonstrate.)
This is the 35mm view (my preferred "standard lens", over the 50mm):
With a rearrangement of the dramatis personae -- why wont tourists stay in one spot?) the 16mm view is much more like what I see with my own eyes in real life:
This lens actually gives 15mm, if I fiddle with the settings in PhotoLab. To me, this looks even more realistic.
This is not 100% scientific, as the scaling of the individual elements is different between the pictures; but the best I can do, without show boring test cards...
Hi everyone,
Sorry I haven't shared anything for quite a while. I've been quite busy since I got back from Cornwall, and not until now have I had a real chance to get processing.
As a note, I've decided that my workflow, for now at least, is properly a JPG-only workflow. Before it was only temporary, but I've decided to stick with JPGs for now. I'm still shooting RAW+JPEG, but I'm not currently doing anything with the RAW file other than storing it.
These were taken before my trip to Cornwall, but I figure I may as well show photos in the order of date they were taken.
Ox-eye daisies, 16/06/23. I'm quite pleased with these.
Thanks. Some of the kids went crazy to get more candy. Years ago, a child leg's was run over by a vehicle at that 4th of July parade because she wanted to get the candy. She was OK, but it did give the parents a scare.
That's what I do also...just take out-of-the-camera JPEGs since this is only a hobby for me. For paid work, I could see where someone would want to take them as RAW+JPGs. I also try to take the best photo possible at the time, so my post processing is minimized.
You may be right, but I dont experience it as you do. When I look at the 35mm version, I feel closed in -- which is not the experience of being there. As I have said before, the lens is fixed in space, whereas when we look at the scene, we move our eyes and bodies and take more in than just a fixed position pair of eyes -- all without being conscious of the process.
You should try the experiment yourself in your town!
The lanterns have a fixed little platform that coated slightly in wax.
No. You would not want to set those off in a dry environment.
Where I live, it has been storming heavily for the last week or so, so everything is pretty wet.
There's probably areas of the country where they have forbidden fireworks altogether.
I think I get what you‘re saying, because (if memory serves me right) our FOV is significantly wider than what’s considered a "normal" lens. Even a 35 mm won‘t do it justice. But a lot of it is "peripheral sight" so vastly out of focus/blurred/distorted.
The thing about wider lenses, is that everything is somewhat in focus which is extremely unnatural for our eyes/the part of our brain responsible for sight (at least I perceive it that way). I think a WA tilt lens or some old petzval projection lens with a big image circle might actually get closer to what we experience in the scene. I doubt that‘s what you (or most people for that matter) would find pleasing to look at, but that‘s my assumption anyway.
Yes! Absolutely correct. When I look at the centre of the 16 or 15mm photo from the appropriate distance to make me feel „there“, the edges are out of focus, as in real life, but as soon as I move my eyes to the edges, I can focus on them. So, although all the photo is technically in focus, I dont expect to take it all in at once, and I can choose what to look at at any moment. I guess it‘s a bit like IMAX, or a stitched together panorama view. But I like that it can be done in one single photo.
IMAX is an interesting comparison, because if I understand it correctly it's made in a way which covers almost our whole field of view (including the peripheral sight), so in an IMAX cinema it's working in the intended way, because you can only 'fully' focus on part of the image and ideally you follow with your eyes what the director wants you to see. It helps with immersion. But that's usually not the case at all when looking at still images, unless they're
a.) printed out REALLY big and you're standing right in front of them or
b.) you're viewing them on one of those giant curved monitors and again, you're very close.
If you do that, I actually agree - you'll get a similar experience to what you had in the very moment you took the photograph. I'd actually love to try that to see if it really improves immersion significantly. But looking at a wide angle image on a regular screen at the typical viewing distance leaves me with a feeling of unnaturalness/disconnect. That's why I think something in between (perhaps 24-28 mm with very good distortion correction) is probably what I would go for as a maximum, if I wanted to attempt capturing what you're going after.
But to be honest, that's all just a bunch of assumptions anyway. What do I know about street photography, landscapes or architecture? (the answer is: nothing! 😅)
Here's a quick illustration though of what I would think of as 'natural human view':
As expected it won't be interesting to most people. However I'm very curious to try that....
