At 08:56 AM 1/18/99 -0800, you wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:26, Jan Steinman <jans@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Obligatory OM content: I've been having fun with a 35 shift doing nature
>>photography. Most people think of it as a "niche" lens for architecture,
>>but it does wonders for waterfalls, trees, or anything with straight lines
>>that aren't parallel to the film plane.
>
>This note is interesting to me. I was in NY during the New Years holidays
>and there were lots of opportunities to take pictures of tall buildings
>(Trump Tower, St. Patrick's Cathedral, Empire State Bldg, etc.) and I wish
>I had a shift lens to use.
>
>But I am most curious about Jan's last sentence: "straight lines that
>aren't parallel to the film plane". What does this mean? When I think
>of architecture photo, all the lines are parallel to the film plane --
>either horizontal or most likely vertical. But when Jan said that the
>shift lens "does wonders for ... lines that aren't parallel to the film
>plane", I think of lines that are perpendicular to (i.e., going away from)
>the photographer. So how does a shift lens help in this case? Or am I
>just not seeing it? If there are enough interesting uses for a shift
>lens, I may buy one to experiment with someday.
> -Dan
Jan will have to answer that last part, but about NYC...
Did you find you were able to take pix of those buildings with a plain
35mm? With the possible exception of St. Patty's, they won't fit. I live
here and found the 35 shift not much use on these kinds of structures--not
wide enough. You would need the 24.
Regards,
Denton Taylor
_______________________________
Photogallery at www.dentontaylor.com
Panoramic and 360deg Immersive Images at
www.threehundredsixty.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|