>>4065286>Who said you have to mimic human vision in photography?It really depends on what you want to do, photography is defined in terms of tools rather than intent, and groups together many genres with distinct underlying intentions, from fine art to, may Allah forgive me for uttering this word, journalism.
One of the things you may want to do is to evoke in another observer an equivalent of experience captured by the camera. The light of the scene hits the eyes of observer and causes experience. Well, what happens after is a very hard mystery, but what if we cut in between and produce a similar kind of light? It would need to have somewhat same colors, about the right amount of the light, and the direction of the light rays should remain the same as in original scene.
However, the photograph is merely a flat image, projection of that light onto a single surface. Pre-VR and smart panoramas, best you can do with it is create a fake "window" into the scene by making a frame that has about the same angular size in the viewer's field of view as it was when image was captured by the camera. In situations where the observer is standing before a print on the wall, or even looking at a typical full screen, the image will occupy a field of view equivalent to that seen by a 35~50mm lens in front of 35mm sensor or a piece of film, or in general, it would look normal, not too wide not too tight, the diagonal of the medium is a good point to start if you are going after that kind of image.
Not to say other lenses are inferior in any way! But, if you take a picture with a wildly wide or tight lens, and then print it as normal, it will create a distorted view. No one can have a window into a 180 degree panorama, the brain will resist it. Similarly, close up images taken by telephoto lenses look flattened and pleasing, but they make a distinctly different look to what an observer would see if they were physically close.
