What Focal Length?

viewfromthenorth said:
I'd say something much wider than that, a 300mm will compress the perspective somewhat, thus making the fires look closer than they are. Given that the foreground looks quite close, I reckon 50mm or less.
Click to expand...

The heat from flames that big would be seriously intense. I doubt those soldiers are within 50m of them. The photo makes it look like they're just in front, hence why I reckon the perspective is compressed. Maybe the long end of a 70-200mm as a compromise ;)

EDIT - not sure we're seeing the same pic - is it the one with soldiers fairly large in the frame, walking in front of huge fires... or is it the one that I see for a split second, which is lots of smaller fires in the distance?
 
Last edited:
50mm? If it's 35mm film, it's been cropped.
 
Sorry all. I'm referring to image 31. The one with the long tire tracks and the flames on the very horizon.
 
londonsnapper said:
Sorry all. I'm referring to image 31. The one with the long tire tracks and the flames on the very horizon.
Click to expand...

I put 31 and 37 onto different tabs in my browser and flicked from one to the other - can't tell any difference - look like the same picture to me.

I thought long as well - but I think Richard has got something in respect of the image being cropped from a shorter focal length.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top