Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: New photo on flickr....
Next: Indy Car
From: George Kerby on 26 Jul 2010 09:43 On 7/25/10 9:45 PM, in article i2isri$c4f$1(a)news.albasani.net, "Me" <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: > RichA wrote: >> Ultrawide angle shots don't need >> compositional thought in order to have an impact. > That's an hilariously ignorant statement. > Consider the source.
From: David Ruether on 26 Jul 2010 09:48 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5k2r46pe2t2t7tsjn802pa3o5v7lla946f(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether" > <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: >>"Ryan McGinnis" <digicana(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:4c4d0899$0$24965$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of >>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo. >>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and >>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes >>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose >>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less >>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary >>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to >>> compose a shot in ultrawide. >>> - -- >>> - -Ryan McGinnis >>I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word >>"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging >>characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-) >>There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the >>perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does >>not help. > It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's > focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its > relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is > irrelevant. Correct, and a good point. Also, associating "WA distortion" etc. with specific FLs can result in odd results, as in a rectangular-perspective 10mm can be a super-wide on some formats (with the associated "distortions" ;-), and it can also be a "distortionless" long FL on other formats. 'Course, a rotating-slit camera or a stitched digital panorama with their altered effective sensor shapes can also affect the perspective type of the system (in this case, the perspective type is "cylindrical"). Understanding perspective can be fun! 8^) --DR
From: Shiva Das on 26 Jul 2010 09:54 In article <5k2r46pe2t2t7tsjn802pa3o5v7lla946f(a)4ax.com>, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether" > <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > >"Ryan McGinnis" <digicana(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:4c4d0899$0$24965$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > >> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of > >> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo. > >> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and > >> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes > >> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose > >> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less > >> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary > >> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to > >> compose a shot in ultrawide. > >> - -- > >> - -Ryan McGinnis > >> The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com > >> Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com > >> Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan+McGinnis > > > >I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word > >"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging > >characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-) > >There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the > >perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does > >not help. > > > It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's > focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its > relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is > irrelevant. In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each image. It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect perspective
From: Bruce on 26 Jul 2010 11:32 On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:54:10 -0400, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote: >In article <5k2r46pe2t2t7tsjn802pa3o5v7lla946f(a)4ax.com>, > Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's >> focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its >> relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is >> irrelevant. > >In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics, >Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using >progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm >to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format). > >The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same >spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady >on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each >image. > >It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect >perspective. Yes, that is the classic method of demonstrating that perspective is independent of focal length. It is to be found in many books on photography, yet people still keep making the same mistake over and over again, thinking that perspective is dependent on focal length.
From: Doug McDonald on 26 Jul 2010 11:38
On 7/25/2010 8:50 PM, RichA wrote: > Years ago, the average amateur couldn't afford ultra wide angle > lenses. They cost far more than most could justify. However, as wide > zooms have appeared (and are relatively cheap) more and more amateurs > are using these lenses. But once you've seen one ultrawide angle > shot, of a beach or train station, it starts to get old, fast. > Ultrawide angle allows most scenes to achieve a kind of dynamic look, > but that's the problem. Ultrawide angle shots don't need > compositional thought in order to have an impact. If you will, they > are an easy out for people who would rather not invest the time and > thought into working a good composition out of a scene. I bought an ultrawide just for my recent trip down the Grand Canyon. I'm glad I did. One still needs thought for the composition. I looked at a histogram of focal lengths I used, and while there were peaks at the 10 and the 22 mm ends, there were plenty of shots in the middle. Also I looked carefully at the 10mm ones and studied them to see if cropping would help ... that is, that I took an "easy out" when composing and didn't think enough. What I found, after the fact, was that there were a very few shots that should have been made at narrower angles. But not many. Many of the shots were "documentary" in nature, and could have even better been round fisheye. Others really did use the ultra-wide as a good compositional tool. Trite, perhaps, but there are instances in such places as slot canyons that really do call for an ultrawide to get the "proper" effect. Doug McDonald |