This thread reminds me of Ansel Adams' "visualization" concept.
Wish I had several Kodachromes scanned as it is a classic demo of the same
subject kept the same size in the frame and shot with different focal
lengths. The first one was a WA, (24mm?), the second a 50mm, and the last
two were the 135mm and 200mm. Wanted to use the 300mm but couldn't back up
any farther. The difference in background for the first and last image is
dramatic. Each has its own character.
Visualizing for the standard 50mm is generally easier than for a w.a. or
tele. What I think is important is whether the photograph has achieved the
photographer's "visualization" of the subject. If it does that, it is
"perfect" and demonstrates at least some technical mastery.
Take ten photographers to a specific location, give them a specific
subject, and each will "visualize" the same subject from the same general
vantage point differently. It would be a very dull, drab and boring
existence if it were otherwise. We would then only need *one* photographer
for the entire world.
John's advice: Don't worry too much about how others might have done your
subject material differently. Yes, their critiques can generate ideas for
you and give pointers about how to master the technical aspects. In that
they have value. Ask instead whether the image achieves _your_
"visualization" of the subject (i.e., is the resulting image what you
wanted and intended it to be)?
[token Oly content]
Thank goodness the OM is an expansive, flexible system, albeit some parts
of it are now out of production. Such a system provides the tools for
achieving the photographer's "visualization" of the subject.
-- John
At 01:23 6/28/00 , numerous list members wrote:
>Peter A. Klein wrote:
>
>>So all you folks that think 28mm is already a medium telephoto,
>>why do you like your super-wides so much?
>
>
>Alasdair replied:
>
>>Because the field of view of the human eye doesn't necessarily map very
>>well onto the field of view of a camera lens.
>
>
>And Doris Fang wrote (not necessarily replying to Alasdair):
>
>>The 50mm focal length's strongest advantage, in my humble opinion,
>>is that it "looks normal", therefore very 'believable' in the sense
>>that Walker Evans meant by his use of the word 'documentary'.
>
>
>Vaughan's contribtion:
>
>I agree with you all. (I'm feeling very conciliatory this morning!)
>
>Firstly I don't believe there is anything sacred about the 50mm lens. It
>only has a casual relationshp to the diagonal of the format (the 40mm
>lens is more appropriate) and it has been argued that the 28mm lens
>better approximates the human eye's field of vision; however the 50mm is
>usually the sharpest and fastest lens in a camera system but that is
>probably due more to the geometry and mechanical equirements of back
>focus distance than anything else.
>
>Secondly I believe the perspective effect of an image has more to do
>with camera-subject distance than lens focal length. Super-wides can be
>used to give the "wide angle" feel, they can also create images that
>play down this effect. The same wide-effect can be wrought from longer
>focal length lenses too, but it gets harder as they get longer. I can
>make a "wide angle" photo with a 50mm, for instance...
>
>I personally like wides because you are a part of the subject, an active
>participant not just a detatched observer. It's like a front-row seat at
>the concert. BAD ultra-wide photos are those taken from the second row
>and behind -- na, you gotta be in their faces with a 21mm. News media
>like wides because if there is room, some @#$% will always squeeze in
>front of your camera! (*see note below)
>
>Now some show and tell: OK, tell me which lenses created these images:
>at the time I had Zuiko 16mm fisheye, 21mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm and
>200mm. Bonus points for those who can pick those done with the OM1n from
>the OM2n! ;-)
>
>http://www.ozemail.com.au/~vaughanb/images/syd02-350.jpg
>
>http://www.ozemail.com.au/~vaughanb/i
>
>
>< 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 >
>
< 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 >
|
