[swanlefitte]

A son watched his mother cook her delicious lamb. He used the same ingredients and cut it in two and put it in two pans and made it like her. He in turn showed his daughter. When the grandma saw her cooking it she asked why she cut it in two. "But Grandmother, it's your recipe ". The grandmother replied, "I didn't have a pan big enough."

[Fogel70]

A son watched his mother cook her delicious lamb. He used the same ingredients and cut it in two and put it in two pans and made it like her. He in turn showed his daughter. When the grandma saw her cooking it she asked why she cut it in two. "But Grandmother, it's your recipe ". The grandmother replied, "I didn't have a pan big enough."

Is this an illustration of how crop factor works?
Like the equivalence between FF and MFT.

[swanlefitte]

It's a kinda relevant joke. Without the why it is just copying.

[Fogel70]

Yes! This ^^
And Alex, I’m certainly not ignoring your comprehensive responses, just appreciate that not everyone approaches the challenge as scientifically as you and want to look for a simple answer to the simple question of how to recreate an image in a different format. I must admit, I don’t personally find equivalence a pragmatic endeavour, because there is no question in my mind as to what FL is needed for the task ahead of me, no matter whether I pick up the K-1 or the K-5. But as an academic exercise, it should be considered less of a purist and more of an applicative consideration.

Yes. I think this has been repeated several times in this thread. Once you are familiar with the systems you use, you do not have to think of which focal length to choose for the FOV you need, or which aperture gives you the DOF you need. It comes automatically as you have know the equivalence between them by heart.

But if you would borrow a Nikon 1 system from a friend and you had never used it before, you would need to spend some more time on figuring out what you need to use. But once you have it figured out, it does not take much.

[swanlefitte]

I have been reading a lot of stuff related to this because of this thread. Just came across this as I am now thinking in cine terms.
Ozu's 50mm view celebrates realism despite it being stylized, whereas Anderson's wide-angle anamorphic view is stylized because he is critical of the artificial
Have not found anything yet where the why isn't first. Or there isn't a prime that size.
I think through cine because the assumptions change forcing me to also.

[Fogel70]

It's a kinda relevant joke. Without the why it is just copying.

What is wrong with copying? It is a well known process for learning.
We learn by copying - EntreGurus

[swanlefitte]

If primes don't exist are we having this conversation?

[swanlefitte]

The main point of that article is in bold." The trick is not just to copy the style but “the thinking behind the style."

[Kunzite]

But, with respect, you're not accepting - you're not respecting - what my goal was at the time; you're not taking my word, which means you think I'm misrepresenting things. I'm not.

This was a personal project, driven by me and for me alone. I wasn't listening to anyone except myself. Whatever Bill's targets may have been in reality doesn't come into it at all (that's just adding an unnecessary variable or twist, and I know you don't approve of that). Put simply, I had read for some time that he used a 35mm lens on his FM2, set at f/8, for the bulk of his work. I watched videos of him working (on that note, if you haven't watched the film "Bill Cunningam New York", I recommend it). I wanted to recreate those working conditions to put myself in the same shoes as Bill, with a hope that it would provide one element of the flavour of his work if used in the same way.

Please, at the very least, do me the courtesy of taking me at my word that this is what I wanted to achieve, that it was a genuine use case for me, that whatever Bill had in mind didn't matter to me. All I wanted to do was recreate (more-or-less) the field of view and depth of field characteristics that Bill usually worked with. Or... don't accept my word, if you insist, and consider it merely a hypothetical situation that I've constructed. Either way, given that very narrow and specific requirement, how would you propose I should have approached that as a better alternative to the approach I used?

I believe you were - and still are - completely honest; you indeed are relating things as you see them.

What I said stands. It's your choice how you do your photography projects, however IMO it's the subject, the composition and one's intent that leads to a choice of focal length and aperture. You started with the settings instead of determining them from what you want to get.

[Fogel70]

The main point of that article is in bold." The trick is not just to copy the style but “the thinking behind the style."

Yes of course, that is the next step if you not only want to copy the look from one image, but the whole style of an artist.
So you need to study many of the artists work, and research the artist.
But this probably belong in a separate thread, as it can be more complex (and probably open for more debate) than equivalency.

---------- Post added 30-01-19 at 09:30 ----------

If primes don't exist are we having this conversation?

I do not see any reason why this would change if primes did not exist.

[Ash]

I believe you were - and still are - completely honest; you indeed are relating things as you see them.



What I said stands. It's your choice how you do your photography projects, however IMO it's the subject, the composition and one's intent that leads to a choice of focal length and aperture. You started with the settings instead of determining them from what you want to get.

A fair point. I don’t believe there is a situation where a photographer has the aperture, shutter speed and depth of field in mind before considering what subject will be photographed. Invariably the thought process is the corollary. See an interesting subject, measure out the settings required to create the desired effect in the photo, then shoot. Equivalence doesn’t come into play unless another format is on hand with the right lens for the job.

[Dartmoor Dave]

All I wanted to do was recreate (more-or-less) the field of view and depth of field characteristics that Bill usually worked with. Or... don't accept my word, if you insist, and consider it merely a hypothetical situation that I've constructed. Either way, given that very narrow and specific requirement, how would you propose I should have approached that as a better alternative to the approach I used?

But Mike, I don't think anyone has ever disputed the fact that dividing the focal length by 1.5 and the aperture by 1.5 is a simple method you can use in that situation that will get you reasonably close to what you want. I'm perfectly happy to accept that I haven't got a better method that you can apply instantly without needing any prior knowledge.

I would suggest, though, that a rote method that can be used without any actual understanding is exactly what it is, and using rote methods without understanding often leads to confusion (as in swanlefitte's recipe for lamb above). I would also hope that somebody wanting to learn the craft of photography would desire a deeper understanding than just memorising rote procedures.

As usual, I want to be clear that the second paragraph is a general observation and not aimed at you personally.

[Kunzite]

Yes! This ^^
And Alex, I’m certainly not ignoring your comprehensive responses, just appreciate that not everyone approaches the challenge as scientifically as you and want to look for a simple answer to the simple question of how to recreate an image in a different format. I must admit, I don’t personally find equivalence a pragmatic endeavour, because there is no question in my mind as to what FL is needed for the task ahead of me, no matter whether I pick up the K-1 or the K-5. Even as an academic exercise, it should be less of a purist and more of an applicative consideration.

Thank you for saying it out loud - "equivalence" is pseudo-science (I would say religion, but some people might not be happy about that)

OTOH wasn't I offering simpler, clearer and more direct approaches all this thread?
For example, if you want to recreate an image's close up perspective, I would advise someone to move closer. What could be simpler than that?

---------- Post added 30-01-19 at 11:04 AM ----------

Is this an illustration of how crop factor works?
Like the equivalence between FF and MFT.

New rules of equivalence: you need two MFT cameras to make up for a FF one. Or is that four? Hmm... confusing as ever

---------- Post added 30-01-19 at 11:10 AM ----------

What is wrong with copying? It is a well known process for learning.
We learn by copying - EntreGurus

I'll tell you what is wrong with that kind of copying: you don't even need the image.

Indeed, Mike (sorry, Mike! I'll force fit your example just to prove a point) could've been told that Bill took most of his images with a certain focal length and aperture. That is all the information he needs to start photocopying.

[Ash]

Thank you for saying it out loud - "equivalence" is pseudo-science (I would say religion, but some people might not be happy about that)

In the current climate, we can wrap this thread up by calling equivalence “fake news”.

But as with all fake news, there is an element of truth mixed with embellishments and/or untruths that this topic seems to fit into much the same.

Nevertheless, there are practical examples where an almost-equivalent photo (because let’s be frank, in replicating an image it doesn’t have to be exactly the same) can be achieved with an alternate format using basic formulae to calculate the FL and aperture required on the new format compared to the “base” (comparator) format.

[BigMackCam]

Firstly... Why am I replicating Bill? - My answer to this is, because I want to. There need be no justification beyond that, or questioning / criticism of that goal, even if it appears strange, unnecessary or misguided to others.

so photocopying.

No, not photocopying... That's just copying images. I was replicating certain optical parameters of a photographer's approach.

Let's take a parallel, outside the world of photography:

I play guitar, and one of my favourite rock guitarists is Angus Young of AC/DC (partly because of his blues-influenced style). So, let's say I want to be able to get his signature sound. How to do that? Well, some folks just use an effects processor (plenty of people do - there are even AC/DC presets available ) and that might give them a very loose approximation of his sound, but I want to get closer still.

How?

I'd start off by using a guitar with humbucker pickups (single coil pickups will have the wrong sound). Next, I'd plug the guitar into a Marshall valve amplifier. Angus' favourite has often been the JTM45, but any vintage-style Marshall amp will give a close approximation of tone. Ideally I'd pair this with a couple of Marshall 4x12 speaker cabs, but even the built single 12" on a Marshall valve combo will sound good. Finally, I'd adjust the amplifier settings to get the same crunchy, creamy, overdriven (but not heavily distorted) tone.

What have I done here? I've approximated Angus Young's working parameters. If I now play the exact same solos in the exact same way, with the same playing skill, that would be copying Angus (akin to your suggestion of photocopying in my photography example). But that wasn't my purpose. I only set out to achieve Angus' signature sound. I'm going to play my own licks and solos which, like the photos I took in my photography project, will be unique to me.

Secondly... It's not that this would help me to be able to use my camera in a way I can't now. I knew I could use my camera that way given the parameters. I simply applied a method I'd learned about to approximate the necessary optical parameters.

so really not very useful.

You may think so. But using those settings achieved what I wanted - i.e. to approximately recreate Bill's working paramters... field of view, depth of field and - as a result of proximity to subject - the perspective distortion apparent in his photos. I found that useful