Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: New photo on flickr....
Next: Indy Car
From: RichA on 25 Jul 2010 21:50 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.
From: Me on 25 Jul 2010 22:45 RichA wrote: > Ultrawide angle shots don't need > compositional thought in order to have an impact. That's an hilariously ignorant statement.
From: whisky-dave on 26 Jul 2010 08:49 "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e8dfff51-6a46-444c-94ab-bc9270618ad8(a)q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > 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. yep I agree, most P&Ss have around 24 to 28mm lens (35mm equiv). But do we need a wider angle for anythig more than a speacial effect i.e distortion . Most cameras also have a stitch facility now, that is meant for peole that want to get the whole wedding party in rather than a distorted effect. > 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. In 35mm film days stitching wasnt; an option but it is now but not used as much as I would have expected.
From: David Ruether on 26 Jul 2010 09:10 "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. --DR
From: Bruce on 26 Jul 2010 09:18
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. |