rule distance 3ddistance

[Cristallo]

the speech gets complicated if you have a reflex, with various goals

Well... you're trying to teach a little bit of photography to film photographers, and who owns and uses various reflexes.
said this I repeat the concept, which is precisely of the photographic composition. the target used is only according to the effect you want to convey.
It is not that you photograph a palace with the 150 and a room with the 18.
the speech is everything (and exclusively) in comparison that the human brain does with the images it sees in a continuous way, those of the eye.
Since (as mentioned) the eye sees a field angle about 50mm on 24x36, use an 18 or a 24 to photograph a room will let you enter 3 walls, but will suggest to the observer that that room is larger, because to see 3 walls with a 50 mm (standard performance of each human brain) the room must be larger (point of view of the brain).
try to photograph the same room (render) using a 100 and move back with the room to always enter 3 walls (of course one does not have to be). the room will look much smaller.

so be careful how to use the focal points, because they suggest things not explicitly said to the brain.

for the matter depth of field is the discriminating between a photo and a render.
the goal cannot focus (or in the sharp area as you suggest correctly) everything.
but the same also does the eye, which ramment is always the unique reference of the brain since birth.
we humans focus a very small central area, the rest is a mixture of colored shadows. so the "naturality", the "normality" of an image is a central focus subject with a faded contour.
so much it is a blur to deviate the attention of those who look at the image to the area that is on fire.
a photo with everything on fire or sharp loses strength and interest, because the eye seeks something to dwell on, but finds nothing specific.

 

[GP.]

"a photo with everything on fire or sharp loses strength and interest, because the eye seeks something to dwell on, but finds nothing specific"

the sunti sun

 

[Tristus]

Well... you're trying to teach a little bit of photography to film photographers, and who owns and uses various reflexes.

I am just a fan of photography, and in this field you never end up learning. I am pleased to talk to others who share this passion and are prepared, and who, like you, have also experienced in the field.
It is clear that when it comes to rendering in the architectural field, it is not that we can get rid of it more than once with the perspective effects. The goal of the prince is to return a representation as realistic as possible even from the prospective point of view, so, in the end, we are saying the same thing about the firmness that it is necessary to lend in the use of the focal points, especially in the interior, because rightly as you say, the risk of giving a non-truth representation. Maybe a "act" representation but that does not return the real dimension of the scene, a bit like those paratroopers who place on the helmet an 8 mm and in the video you see the ground below curved to that point to make it seem that almost all the sphere of the planet is under their feet. often in these videos it is difficult also to perceive the height they are at.

said this I repeat the concept, which is precisely of the photographic composition. the target used is only according to the effect you want to convey.

exactly, which would also be the same problem facing a photographer in reality, put the case of a real estate agent who should photograph an interior of an apartment to propose for sale. He will pay a lot of attention to the frame by also choosing the appropriate lens that will most help him for this purpose. by experience will know which lenses to place in the case, before going to photograph. I talked about 18 / 24 mm (for interior)... Also 35mm big way, then depends on the cases. In short, a focal range that allows you to take home the shot. In any case the range is there, you can't just go with 50mm and not even with 8mm.

we humans focus a very small central area, the rest is a mixture of colored shadows. so the "naturality", the "normality" of an image is a central focus subject with a faded contour.
so much it is a blur to deviate the attention of those who look at the image to the area that is on fire.
a photo with everything on fire or sharp loses strength and interest, because the eye seeks something to dwell on, but finds nothing specific.

This is absolutely true, especially in portraiture (always in the photographic field) in which the photographer needs to attract the attention of the observer on the main subject of the scene, going to nurture the background through a very limited depth of field that will only include the head of the subject framed. my 85mm samyang 1.4, or even the fifty f1.8 of the nikkor give me good satisfaction in this field, always for pleasure, nothing professional.
In the architectural field you don't have all these needs, but I can tell you that I saw some interior renderings with that hint of depth of field that didn't spoil at all. He had an extra touch.
then of course depends on what you want to represent and what purpose. renderings are not limited to the architectural field alone.

I want to make an observation about the human eye. as for us this bone organ appear "approximate" there is no digital sensor of the last generation able to equal it even of a billionth. tell me what that camera or camera is capable of showing you a starry night sky in real time without you being forced to pose long times to capture the fleble light that emits the stars. It does not exist and I think it will not hesitate for a long time. If our eye is so "approximate" it's also because if it showed us all sharp at the same time the workload for our brain would be so huge that it would be forced to devote less work to vital organs. or try to sprinkle, with one shot, what sees the human eye when he looks in the backlight. there is no reflex able to equal it.

 

[Tristus]

a photo with everything on fire or sharp loses strength and interest, because the eye seeks something to dwell on, but finds nothing specific.

It's true in portraiture. in the landscape photos everything must be clear, from the tree a few meters from the room to the peaks of the mountains in the distance. (and here it is good to know the hyperfocal distance)