Taking a picture as your eye sees it.

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous Equipment' started by Ektagraphic, Jul 1, 2009.

  1. Ektagraphic

    Ektagraphic Member

    Messages:
    2,914
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    Location:
    Southeastern
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Hello-
    My dad has longed to see a picture "exactly as the eye sees it". What lens would do this. Is it possable to have a lens that is just the same mm as the eye? Thanks
     
  2. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,143
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Peoples eyes vary, just like lenses. Some of us have extremely good peripheral vision, mine's like the widest possible fish eye but rather panoramic so very good left right but not top bottom. For me I guess 17mm (cropped top/bottom), good crisp vision but with extreme fisheye at the periphery.

    Others have a smaller angle of vision more like a 28mm, and of course those with tunnel vision have a very small angle of vision more like 80-135mm

    Ian
     
  3. archphoto

    archphoto Member

    Messages:
    1,066
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Location:
    Holland and
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    The best way to try that out is to use a zoomlens in the range of, say 21-50mm and test.
    As any biological component all eye's are diferent.

    And don't forget that we see in stereo, so wider than with a single eye.
    Taking that into account you might be better off with an even wider zoom just to be safe.

    I came out with a view of a 21mm.... pretty wide I think.

    Peter
     
  4. Pinholemaster

    Pinholemaster Member

    Messages:
    1,504
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Westminster,
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    One eye or two?
     
  5. Ektagraphic

    Ektagraphic Member

    Messages:
    2,914
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    Location:
    Southeastern
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    One eye, I guess.
     
  6. Nicholas Lindan

    Nicholas Lindan Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    2,386
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    Cleveland, O
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The focal length of the lens does not matter.

    What does matter is that you hold the print at such a distance that the angular dimension of an object in the print is the same as the object viewed in real life. If you use a wide angle lens then you need to hold the print close, if a telephoto lens then the print should be far away.

    In general:

    For a 4x6" print, and a 50mm taking lens, the correct viewing distance is 8 inches; for an 8x10" print the viewing distance is 15". If you use a 28mm lens then the correct viewing distances are 5" and 8". The numbers may vary an inch or two depending on how you fill an 8x10 print with a 2:3 negative.
     
  7. fschifano

    fschifano Member

    Messages:
    3,216
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Valley Strea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    One eye, you guess? Well, that's not how people see. If you really want to approximate what the way humans and other higher primates see, you'd probably need to go to a stereo camera and viewer. Then there is the question of what exactly you want to see. Sure, we as humans, have a fairly wide peripheral vision, but almost everything outside a rather narrow angle of view directly ahead is perceived more as motion than as a sharply focused image. Think about it. You see something move out on the periphery of your vision and you automatically turn your head towards that perceived movement to bring it into sharp focus.
     
  8. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,143
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That has no bearing on the question Nicholas :smile:
     
  9. bsdunek

    bsdunek Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,361
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Location:
    Michigan
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Actually, I think Nicholas is on the right track. It's like walking right up to a wall mural and saying it doesn't look right, or holding a 3X5 at arm's length. I would suggest that the viewing angle has to be normal and then it will look like it does to the eye. The only problem is, the viewing angle may vary somewhat with the presons eye, but I'll bet this is a minor difference. Just IMHO.
     
  10. Ektagraphic

    Ektagraphic Member

    Messages:
    2,914
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    Location:
    Southeastern
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I agree with all of this. I was reallly unsure of what would happen walking into this question.
     
  11. Jim_in_Kyiv

    Jim_in_Kyiv Member

    Messages:
    231
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Ukraine
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    First, define what you mean by 'exactly as the eye sees it'. Do you mean how a person looks at things/focuses/pays attention, or do you mean a 1:1 apparent size relationship between the print and the object in the photo?

    If it is the first, then Ian's spot on. I tend to stare at a screen all day, and my vision - what I tend to look at has narrowed up over the years. It used to be that an 85mm lens equalled what I 'saw'. Now, 105mm - sometimes 135mm (yeah, I ought to get out more often).

    But if you want the objects in the print in your hand to have the same apparent size as a landscape, Nicholas' comments would be your key.
     
  12. jp80874

    jp80874 Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,494
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Location:
    Bath, OH 442
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format

    Is it possible that he means more than mm, for instance Ansel Adams' "visualization", seeing the final print in all its detail, magnification, tone, dodge & burn, light and shadow, contrast, texture, dof, etc?

    John Powers
     
  13. Bruce Watson

    Bruce Watson Member

    Messages:
    443
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Location:
    Central NC
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    An interesting idea, but not even remotely possible. A camera lens and the human eye/brain visual system are quite different animals. The camera takes in the entire scene at once, with a fixed focus, a fixed aperture, and a fixed "white point".

    The human eye scans the scene, varies focus as required, and varies aperture more or less continuously, again as required. Resolution varies markedly across the visual field, from amazingly sharp at the fovea to a dull blur at the periphery -- which is why the eye scans the scene continuously -- unlike a camera it can't take in the whole scene at once but instead has to build a "map" by tracing out the interesting bits.

    The effect is that much of the scene isn't looked at closely with the human visual system -- just the high points (whatever the brain decides them to be and that's highly subjective from person to person). The stuff deemed of less import is often just a blur.

    When it comes to color processing, again the human visual system has tricks that film / digital capture lack. For example, the human visual system has a rapidly movable white balance point. When film looks at snow in a shadow under an open sky, it sees a bluish tint. The human visual system shifts it's white balance for the shadows and sees the snow as white, or perhaps a light gray.

    I could go on (do we even need to discuss stereo vision?), but I think I've made my point. Cameras and human eye/brain systems see the world very differently. No photograph can look "exactly as the eye sees it".
     
  14. Lee L

    Lee L Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Add variable human color sensitivity and acuity. Some see no color. Some are blue/yellow colorblind, some are red/green colorblind. For others color makes or breaks a photograph.

    You can match some parameters of "how the eye sees", but can't duplicate the eye/brain perception entirely, as Bruce points out.

    I think the best photographers are often those who have some intuitive or developed sense of how the photographic materials they use respond.

    Others, are like Garry Winogrand; "I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs."

    Lee
     
  15. eddym

    eddym Member

    Messages:
    1,927
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I would agree with everything Bruce said and only add, "...and it's a good thing!" The point of photography is not to merely record the world as our eyes see it (even if it could), but to provide a creative interpretation of it, using the tools of the photographic perspective and the imagination of the photographer. Would you want a painting to look "exactly as the eye sees it"? No artist would want to be limited in that way.
     
  16. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,070
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Not sure I'd want to do that; with my nose, I guess my result would be something like Ernst Mach's...

    [​IMG]
     
  17. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,514
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    To match the depth of field of the human eye, you not only have to take into account the aperture size (which is easily duplicated with just about any lens in any format) you have to account for the relative distance your subject is from the film in film-format-diagonals. So, you can stop a 300mm lens on an 8x10 camera down to 4.5mm but, for objects closer than 10 feet or so, you will have somewhat less depth of field with the 8x10 camera at 4.5mm aperture than your eye at 4.5mm aperture. (http://www.bobwheeler.com/photo/ViewCam.pdf section 9.6 covers this indirectly)

    Also remember the eye functions kind of like a 'scan back' in that there is one narrow-angle-of-view (fovea) that scans around the scene, giving the impression of a large field of view.
     
  18. Maris

    Maris Member

    Messages:
    896
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Location:
    Noosa, Australia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    We see with our brains not with our eyes.

    The mind constructs a picture of the world from various sources. The contribution of the eye is a tiny, shifting, blurry, scanning, optical input that the brain integrates and stitches into a "world view". The brain also adds bits of what we remember and what what we "know" is there. On top of that the brain mixes bright and dark images acquired at different moments to generate a "high dynamic range" picture of what seems to be "out there".

    Until photography was invented the only pictures available were transcriptions of mental images. The realist painter is the traditional epitome of getting the "picture in the mind" in front of an audience as a "picture on canvas".

    It is one of the greatest attractions of digital picture making that it again offers the possibility of getting a private "mind picture", assembled from several sources, scanned, stitched, edited, tweaked, and HDR'ed, into someone else's consciousness. And all of this without having to learn how to paint.

    Photography is different. It offers a chance of making pictures of the way things look independent of how the eye/mind/brain system chooses to confect reality.
     
  19. Christopher Walrath

    Christopher Walrath Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,129
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Location:
    Two inches to the left
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

    There. Maris has got it. No matter what we see our brains try to associate memories with visual input. You can live in Jackson Hole and look at AA's 'overlook' and say "I have a dozen like that at home.". On further inspection you may find that the perspective is different, undoubtedly that the sky isn't as threatening, there may b only caps or the Snake River is a comparable trickle in comparison.

    Our brains take visual input and attempt to make its meaning pertinent, try and make us fit in with our surroundings. This is why one viewer will see 'Pepper #32' and admire it greatly and another will think KPepper, great' and move on.
     
  20. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,070
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ektagraphic, was your question about field of view, or was it about the theory of seeing?? :wink:
     
  21. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    20,246
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    you would need a stereo camera and a stereo opticon ( viewer ) and a wide lens.