12mm in Iceland

all are good work, but #4 stands out to me: love the dark-light split, which is heightened by the difference in textures (foliage - water) too. good job!
 
Beautiful, moody shots that perfectly capture the moody magic of Iceland.

If there's a more astonishingly beautiful country in the world I haven't found it: I try and visit at least once a year (panning a December trip to see the Northern Lights)...
 
Great shots. Makes me want to go out and use my 12mm more often, and no I don't believe that using the lens can be called a "cheap trick" - horses for courses, it all depends upon the kind of final result that you are after.
 
The pictures are wonderful and you use the lens very well. My personal favorite is nr. 11 with the figure at the base of the waterfall. Great work! :)
 
First, thanks for your comments everyone !

bobbyrab said:
So you go somewhere with outstanding beauty, can't get a normal lens to properly convey what you see, so you slap on an ultra wide lens to add drama, to me it's like those filters the fade from orange to give the sky dramatic colour, a bit of a cheap trick.
Click to expand...

And about this... Is 15mm cheap ? 18mm ? 21mm ? 24mm ? At what focal length does it become a cheap trick ? Or is it only the 12mm that is cheap ! Anyway, I agree that I could have gotten similar on better pictures with a 35 or 50mm lens, but I only had the 12mm for economical reasons. But truly, after 24 rolls of 12mm, I think I could try something else. :)
 
bobbyrab said:
So you go somewhere with outstanding beauty, can't get a normal lens to properly convey what you see, so you slap on an ultra wide lens to add drama, to me it's like those filters the fade from orange to give the sky dramatic colour, a bit of a cheap trick.
Click to expand...

Talk is cheap. Go shoot. Maybe you'll find one day you can handle an ultrawide, or a normal, or compose properly, or post properly.
 
Firstly let me apologies for my post last night, although not drunk, I'd had a couple of pints, and looking again today my words do seem overly harsh, so sorry about that, i don't normally post at all if I'm going to be negative. I do however find that lenses wider than about 24, impose themselves onto an image where I become aware of the FOV that then, for me, dilutes the image, I recently bought a 21 zeiss which I'm enjoying as it doesn't distort too badly. It would seem with all the other very positive comments that it's me that's out of kilter, so please take my criticism with a pinch of salt.
 
These are really interesting to me, having just discovered RF photography, and being particularly interested in WA potential in landscape work.
I particularly like 1, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 15, and am intrigued by 3 and 8 - did you do any cropping on these? If not, they certainly dispel the myth that WA lenses squash big hills into little pimples on the horizon!
Inspirational photographs!
 
Really enjoyed this set. Great job with a difficult lens.

The idea that any focal length is trickery seems silly to me. A focal length is a POV, nothing more nothing less. It's what you do with it that counts. Without getting into an annoying conversation about what is "truth" in photography, let's just accept the reality that beauty in art (photography) is in the eye of the beholder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom