Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Patrick Ward - shooting wide  (Read 6569 times)

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Patrick Ward - shooting wide
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2015, 10:51:05 am »

Quote
Are we having a slow day, today ?

No, Manoli, we are not. Despite what others think, I genuinely do not understand Kirk's comment:

Quote from: Kirk
A wider lens will lead sooner to the realization that one is photographing rectangles, not objects...

I may, however, now understand. An alternative way of stating Kirk's comment is:

The frame will tend to fully enclose object(s) being photographed, instead of only a part of them, when a wider-angle lens is used.

Is this what was meant?

Quote
I can't be certain, but my gut instinct tells me that you already knew that...

[/all-in-levity-mode] notwithstanding, be certain that on this occasion your instinct failed you.

Quote
No, it wouldn't - only by 'angular' deduction and your alternative definition does not preclude the possibility of one parallel side being shorter than the other.[/i]

That would be an open-rectangle. A rectangle is by definition a closed shape.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2015, 09:49:56 am by Rob B. »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Patrick Ward - shooting wide
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2015, 11:24:01 am »

IMO, this thread is turning into semantic nonsense.

Wide, medium or long, it's whatever is suited to the job in hand. It's not to do with random choices but requirements.

Any 'novice' picking up on this thread is going to end up more confused than ever before. If you have but a single lens, just use it to the best of your ability, and frame your shots so that they please you. Period. It's partly the reason for the great disciplinary advantage, regardless of how many bits of glass you own, of going out of the house with a fixed lens/camera combination and just using it. There's nothing much more can be said that adds a great deal of value.

Rob C

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: Patrick Ward - shooting wide
« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2015, 03:55:51 am »

Rob do you understand the meaning of obtuse?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obtuse

I think that the members will be thinking that it applies to you unless you are being provocative, which you deny.

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Patrick Ward - shooting wide
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2015, 06:03:26 am »

stamper,

Quote
...do you understand the meaning of obtuse?

Yes thanks.

Quote
I think that the members will be thinking that it applies to you unless you are being provocative, which you deny.

"It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile.", Sting: Englishman in New York.

:)
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: Patrick Ward - shooting wide
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2015, 06:34:55 am »

Quote Rob B Reply#21

No, Manoli, we are not. Despite what others think, I genuinely do not understand Kirk's comment:

Did it ever cross your mind to PM Kirk? Or did you prefer to dismiss all the advice that the members offered to help you in your lack of understanding?

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Patrick Ward - shooting wide
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2015, 06:54:27 am »

Rob,

Quote
There's nothing much more can be said that adds a great deal of value.

Quite.
Logged

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: Patrick Ward - shooting wide
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2015, 05:14:52 pm »

I was so taken with Patrick Ward's work that I ordered his, "Being English."  Just received it yesterday.  What a joy to look through.  His eye is just superb!

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: Patrick Ward - shooting wide
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2015, 05:50:48 am »

Insofar as the issue is how should a beginner start out, IMO the case is strong for wide.   Longer focal lengths suggest to the beginner that he or she look for 'things' – faces, mountains, flowers – that will monopolize the frame.  A wider lens will lead sooner to the realization that one is photographing rectangles, not objects, and that it's important to see everything that fills the frame.

Kirk

Kirk - I think you have summarised an important insight very well.

Jim
Logged

Lightsmith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
Re: Patrick Ward - shooting wide
« Reply #28 on: November 20, 2015, 07:49:28 pm »

I went from a 4x5 sheet film camera to a 6x7 film to a 35mm and with each progression it became easier to get the perspective for candid photography of people. With the first SLR camera my first lens was a 105mm f2.8 lens. I bought the camera and lens separately and did not own a 50mm lens until I started shooting weddings in very low light and needed f1.4. For people their is a favorable perspective distortion with lenses longer than normal and the opposite effect with shorter than normal focal lengths. I see too many photos where the person has enlarged hands or feet or facial features from the use of a 35mm or shorter focal length lens at close distances.

There is also concept that is being overlooked of working distance. Different people and different cultures have different feelings about personal space with regard to strangers. Get too close and people will tense up and it shows in the pictures.

A longer focal length lens also makes it easier to have the background out of focus when that will make for a stronger picture. The shorter the lens the more the DOF can work against the photographer.

Working distance is also important when using any kind of light modifiers whether it is electronic flash or a reflector. It affects the degree of difficulty in positioning such devices for the best effect with a subject.

I disagree completely that the field of view of a 35mm lens on a full frame DSLR is what people see. What needs to be measured is not simply the angle of view that can be seen without moving ones head but also the field of attention. So often a beginner includes things in the frame that they did not "see" and which detract from the image. It may be a piece of trash in the foreground or some odd item in the background or a tree or light post that looks like it is emerging from a person's head. The advice to get closer to get stronger photographs reflects this in part as getting closer inevitably reduces what is in the frame for any given scene. You can get closer by moving forward or by using a longer focal length lens on the camera.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up