[GUB]

I don't think that follows. The photographer moved between photos, the model appears to be in the same spot. If he swapped focal length from 35 to 85, the distance he'd have to move to keep a similar composition on the model would be negligible compared to the distance to the mountains, and hence the mountains would be drastically different sizes relative to the frame. They're not that far off, enough that a minor difference in crop, same focal length, and walking a few feet (which would change the model's size relative to the frame far greater than the mountain's relative size) could account for the difference.

I think the mountains would become 85/35x the size of the original. And they are not far from that when you measure them in terms of her head.Yes he would have stepped back from maybe 3.5 metres to 8.5 metres to maintain the same magnification on the girl. I always felt there was too many layers of foreground grass in the original for that ,say, 3.5 metres of the 35mm. And another thing note the originals models eyes are at the horizon and the ---3897 they are up in the sky - another classic example of what happens with 2 focal lengths.

[Topsy]

At this point I'm considering simply asking him.

[BrianR]

I think the mountains would become 85/35x the size of the original. And they are not far from that when you measure them in terms of her head.

Yes to the first part, but relative to the size of the uncropped frame, not her head (unless you happen to render her head exactly the same size in each image). Ignore the model for a minute and just consider the mountains. If one is taken at 35mm and the other 85mm, the mountains should be over twice the size (relative to the frame) in one of the images. This is implying a massive crop took place. Possible, but less likely than he just walked a few feet.

edit - what parts are you measuring? I'm not seeing anything close to the change you are?

And another thing note the originals models eyes are at the horizon and the ---3897 they are up in the sky - another classic example of what happens with 2 focal lengths.

Same thing happens when you walk downhill from your model (i.e. to the left which definitely happened given the background shifting laterally relative to the model).

[GUB]

At this point I'm considering simply asking him.

That is cheating

[GUB]

Yes to the first part, but relative to the size of the uncropped frame, not her head (unless you happen to render her head exactly the same size in each image). Ignore the model for a minute and just consider the mountains. If one is taken at 35mm and the other 85mm, the mountains should be over twice the size (relative to the frame) in one of the images. This is implying a massive crop took place. Possible, but less likely than he just walked a few feet.

edit - what parts are you measuring? I'm not seeing anything close to the change you are?



Same thing happens when you walk downhill from your model (i.e. to the left which definitely happened given the background shifting laterally relative to the model).

By using her head to measure the sky line we are measuring the effect of perspective change. In the --3897 he has cropped a lot but that doesn't change the perspective.

[BrianR]

The mountains are pretty much identical widths and identically rendered in these images (except brightness). That would be a big coincidence of a crop!

[Na Horuk]

considering we just had 5 pages on this guy, maybe someone can just message him and ask?

also, it has to feel kind of cool to have a thread on some forum for another camera brand with people deconstructing your photos. ah well, maybe some day

---

Last edited by Na Horuk; 09-11-2017 at 03:57 PM.

[GUB]

I think the mountains would become 85/35x the size of the original.

Been thinking about this and the perspective change won't be lineal - ie doubling the FL won't necessarily change the head to background ratio by 2 but it will change.

[BrianR]

Been thinking about this and the perspective change won't be lineal - ie doubling the FL won't necessarily change the head to background ratio by 2 but it will change.

If you double the focal length then move to keep her the same size in the frame, yes it would double. This is assuming a background that's "far away". It will be an approximation, but a good enough one that will easily be overshadowed by measurement error from counting pixels of websized images. The big problem is you can change this ratio when using the same focal length by just walking a few feet forward or backwards (so a change in this ratio does not guarantee a change in focal length).

For what it's worth, I found the ratio of her head to a pair of peaks changed by less than 40% between images.

[stevebrot]

To address the original post...

There is no reason to believe that 24x36mm or larger format was required to make the linked photo.

FWIW, I applaud the "seeing" that went into creating the photo. The guy's got talent.


Steve

[GUB]

If you double the focal length then move to keep her the same size in the frame, yes it would double. This is assuming a background that's "far away". It will be an approximation, but a good enough one that will easily be overshadowed by measurement error from counting pixels of websized images. The big problem is you can change this ratio when using the same focal length by just walking a few feet forward or backwards (so a change in this ratio does not guarantee a change in focal length).

For what it's worth, I found the ratio of her head to a pair of peaks changed by less than 40% between images.

Yes but if the two shots were done by the same lens the cropped one has to be the one with the least horizon (and the one that he has stepped back with). And this should be the one to have the smaller head to horizon ratio which it isn't.

[GUB]

If you double the focal length then move to keep her the same size in the frame, yes it would double

I don't think so. An analogy I use to think this out is visualizing a pair of chopsticks held between thumb and forefinger. Insert another finger at the other end and draw it towards your other fingers.The base is the lens, the tips of the sticks represent the horizon and your finger is her head - this is pretty well how perspective works and you can soon see it is not a lineal relationship.

[BrianR]

I don't think so. An analogy I use to think this out is visualizing a pair of chopsticks held between thumb and forefinger. Insert another finger at the other end and draw it towards your other fingers.The base is the lens, the tips of the sticks are points on the horizon and your finger is her head - this is pretty well how perspective works and you can soon see it is not a lineal relationship.

Basic formula:

object size on sensor = (focal length) * (object size) / (object distance)

For the mountains in the background, lets say 1000 metres away. Change the focal length from 35 to 70mm and readjust your position to keep the model the same size. You've now changed (object distance) of the mountains from 1000 m to 1003 m. Moving a few feet to keep the model the same size does essentially nothing to your distance to the mountains, but you've doubled the focal length so you've doubled their size on the sensor (or very very nearly doubled the size).

This won't be close to a nice linear relationship if the background and subject are close to the same distance from you.

---------- Post added 09-11-17 at 09:18 PM ----------

Yes but if the two shots were done by the same lens the cropped one has to be the one with the least horizon (and the one that he has stepped back with). And this should be the one to have the smaller head to horizon ratio which it isn't..

The second part doesn't follow. This head to horizon ratio is independent of any cropping, and (assuming the same focal length) is solely on the photographer's position relative to the girl.

Assuming the same lens-

1) Model is slightly smaller in the OP's image, so the photographer is back a bit compared to "3897".
2) The background covers more of the horizon in the OP's image... he cropped 3897 slightly more horizontally. The difference here is very small.
3) The absolute blur on the background of 3897 is a little bit greater... it should be as he's closer to the model and hence focusing closer so the background gets blurrier. Possibly having stopped down a bit in the first image would also contribute.
4) The ratio of the models head size to a pair of mountain peaks is higher for image 3897.

I see nothing inconsistent with the above.

[Gedeon]

It's like a Leica touch. Creamy, sweet rendering. Nothing like a summilux lens result, simply like that.

[biz-engineer]

Full frame is not a must for that kind of shots, but it helps a lot. Same for medium format. There is no hard limit with regards to what larger formats can achieve relative to smaller format, the larger the better, the limit is the size and price, not the image. Full frame is not required, it's better. Separation of concerns is the key, money concern put aside, full frame renders better.
I see it with a Samyang 85 1.4 on the K1, it renders 3D like (in a positive way) I could never ever achieve with the DA*55 1.4 on the K3.