Your Canon Photos No. 9: 2nd to 8th July 2023

Dig,

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.

Steve Thomas

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.

Will have to try that in the future…

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....

Absolutely get that... beautiful captures! I like these two in particular and I'm a big fan of daisies.

Here's one of my flower shots from today:

Freedom to grow. Freedom to express yourself. by simple.joy, on Flickr

I just love how unruly some of those are.

very abstract mate , i like it.

from one extreme to another dof.

David,

I have used 15mm FL with my mirrorless lens. If the buildings and subject matter are close, then there will be that wide angle distortion. It's OK...afterall...it's our art. What I try to do is keep the center part of the picture straight and then to each side you can see things leaning to the left or to the right.

Here's an example.

Model - Canon EOS M50m2
ExposureTime - 1/320 seconds
FNumber - 11
ISOSpeedRatings - 1250
ExposureBiasValue - 0
FocalLength - 15 mm
Lens Model - EF-M15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM

Simplejoy and David,

Doesn't the FOV also depend on whether a person wears glasses or not? 😀 I read that it does change quite a bit.

Simplejoy,

Your flower picture is very pleasing. I enjoyed seeing it.

Donald,

I like how you showed photos with DOF from one extreme to another. I usually only show flowers with a large (deep) depth of field. I think it's just my personality to want to keep things in focus, with no softness. I only like color too. I don't know...we are all different. 😀

No, these weren't in a field, they were in a wildflower bank - basically a long mound covered with grass and wilflowers.

David,

I can't see the EXIF data any longer, so I don't know what photo was taken at 16mm FL. I was making a general comment; I didn't analyze them. I think what you are doing is fine. I see wide angle distortion all of the time in my photos, but then I look for it. It's more evident for example if there's many vertical poles or posts in the photo. Look at the doors and windows and see if they are perfectly straight on either side. If they are straight, then you don't have wide angle distortion.

I also see telephoto compression often in my photos too. So I know that pictures can distort reality. But that's OK...as one famous photographer said, taking pictures is creating instant paintings. He was a painter too, so he appreciated that we could create art with a push of a button. I also look at photos as art.

A little edit: Even though I can't see the EXIF data (it comes and goes on DPRevived for me), I believe from what you wrote the second picture was taken at 16mm FL. Again, look at the doors and windows on either side. The "leaning" is very slight. When we are closer to the subject matter the wide angle distortion is a lot more. By the way, I really like your photos taken from that camera. I suppose I should get one of those full frame cameras. What do you think of the Canon R? The price is not too expensive. I would just start with a kit lens.

[Deleted - duplicate post]