Do primes force you to "think more" - also, how to focus on gear less?

[Forest_rain]

I often hear it said that primes "limit you" more and force you to think more. Is this true? The best thing I've ever done personally, is to use a fully manual camera. It's too tempting to use auto exposure, and I've just learned a lot more about exposure and how to take pictures using fully manual exposure/focus. However the similar thing could probably be achieved using an automatic camera/digital camera with an adapted manual focus lens.

Sometimes I think about gear too much. I think many photographers do this - we are sometimes concerned too much about sharpness, spot-on exposure, and creating the "perfect image". Especially in digital photography where we analyze lenses like a science experiment.

I was reading the "improvement" thread where a member came up with the wonderful suggestion of creating a "narrative" with a series of multiple images, with a particular goal or theory in mind. How can I develop "conceptual" photography like this? The obvious way is to tell a simple "story" with say, a series of 3 images. Are there other "aesthetic theories" that we can utilize as goals when creating images or a series? The other one that I can think of creating feelings like "nostalgia" and capitalizing on the "ethereal" quality of film.

Regarding prime lenses - I was thinking about forcing myself to use a manual camera and only a 50mm lens for 1 month. However I think I might be forced to add something like a weird focal length - say like a 200mm F/4 lens, which would be pretty challenging.

Are variable focal length zooms "too easy?" You can crop the image to any dimensions you want, but it doesn't force you to work with the focal length you've been given, or move around to frame your subject.

How can I "challenge" myself more, incorporate goals, and make myself "think" more?

Currently I'm using a Minolta Freedom tele, with only its 38mm 2.8 lens, and really enjoying it. It's compact, easy to carry, auto exposure and focus which allows me to lose myself in the image, but I'd like challenge myself a little bit more.

 

[Archlich]

I finally braved to use a zoom compact this month. A Pentax Espio 928, which has been awesome.

I found myself not "thinking less". I think more because now I have to figure out which kind of perspective (and its associated focal length) fits the subject (and the look I intended for the photo) best. Compared to the few focal lengths (mostly 28mm and 35mm) that became my comfort zone in the past decade, zooming is kinda like taking color photographs over B&W. More variables, more calculation, more challenges.

Figures that it's the awareness that matters most here. Be fully aware of everything you're doing - every decision have consequences.

 

[benlees]

I like primes because it is one less thing to think about.

Photography is actually designed to be easy. Those who enjoy the craft side of it have convinced themselves this isn't so!

You can challenge yourself by thinking. This is certainly a worthy goal, no? Photography is a rather large place where a little looking into its history will reveal itself as a place where rules matter little and most things have been done before. These are strengths.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I’d suggest that if anything, you should think less. That was a piece of advice that Alfred Eisenstaedt gave to me 30 years ago and, well, here I am 30 years later and I’m still trying to make good on his well-seasoned recommendation. I believe there’s a kind of ‘non-thinking’ that goes into photography, and perhaps the more thinking you do, the less you see and photograph. Bottom line (at least according to Eisenstaedt all those years ago), you think too much you’re liable to miss the shot 🙂

Actually, if you are ultimately looking for advice on how to be a better photographer, watch this. Maybe the best 2 minutes and 43 seconds you’ll waste: https://vimeo.com/116692462

 

[Dogman]

One of my favorite quotes from Elliott Erwitt: "Think? Photography is not about thinking. Photography is about seeing."

 

[Bob Michaels]

I often hear it said that primes "limit you" more and force you to think more. Is this true?

No, using one prime totally removes a decision point from the matrix. You instinctively use "foot zoom" for framing.

Sometimes I think about gear too much. I think many photographers do this -

No, worrying about gear seems to be a characteristic limited to photographers who spend a lot of time on the internet worrying about gear. It seldom impacts those who make their living with photography.

I was reading the "improvement" thread where a member came up with the wonderful suggestion of creating a "narrative" with a series of multiple images, with a particular goal or theory in mind. How can I develop "conceptual" photography like this? The obvious way is to tell a simple "story" with say, a series of 3 images. Are there other "aesthetic theories" that we can utilize as goals when creating images or a series?

Find something you want to say visually. Define it. Then work on saying it. It can be 3 images or a book representing 10 years of work. Focus on what you want to say and acknowledge that photography is simply your chosen vehicle for saying it.

Regarding prime lenses - I was thinking about forcing myself to use a manual camera and only a 50mm lens for 1 month.

Good but a year or more is better. You want everything to do with operating the camera to be reflexive so your attention can be on what you are trying to say photographically.

However I think I might be forced to add something like a weird focal length - say like a 200mm F/4 lens, which would be pretty challenging.

Why?

Are variable focal length zooms "too easy?" You can crop the image to any dimensions you want, but it doesn't force you to work with the focal length you've been given, or move around to frame your subject.

Use whatever equipment is easiest for you to convey what you want. That is a zoom for some, not others. But, you will learn that a lens focal length determines the field of view and perspective from a certain difference. You can change the field of view via foot zoom. But the perspective is the key. That is what determines is you photo has depth or looks like too much is in a flat plane.

How can I "challenge" myself more, incorporate goals, and make myself "think" more?

See previous comments about saying something. Define what you are trying to accomplish before you press the shutter. Later ask yourself, with brutal honesty, how did you do at accomplishing your objective.

Currently I'm using a ..........

Makes no difference so long as you have learned to use what you have.

 

[aizan]

I find the opposite is true more often. Using a prime means I can think less. No more choosing where to set the zoom for a shot.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

Test yourself about this by living and shooting for a year with a 28 or a 35 - after those twelve months, your pespective on photography won't be the same.

Then add one more lens of your choice, preferably at the other end - an 85 or a 105. Shoot for another while with only those two lenses.

Then and only then, add a third lens. My choice would be a 60 macro.

On the other hand, and to throw a small spanner in the works - it really doesn't matter what lens you use, or whether it's a prime or a zoom. My true freedom in digital photography came in 2012 when I acquired an old Nikon 28-85 for $100 and made it my one and only carry around lens for a year. It did almost everything I required in my photography, and eliminated the nuisance of having to carry an assortment of lenses, which at my age was an added blessing. But then as I well know, prime or zoom, I could really have done the same with either - for some reason the zoom just broke down my inbuilt formality when using my cameras, and freed me to explore, wander, and play.

To sum up the gist of all this, for me the discipline of shooting with less is the most important factor.

 

[oftheherd]

I’d suggest that if anything, you should think less. That was a piece of advice that Alfred Eisenstaedt gave to me 30 years ago and, well, here I am 30 years later and I’m still trying to make good on his well-seasoned recommendation. I believe there’s a kind of ‘non-thinking’ that goes into photography, and perhaps the more thinking you do, the less you see and photograph. Bottom line (at least according to Eisenstaedt all those years ago), you think too much you’re liable to miss the shot 🙂

Actually, if you are ultimately looking for advice on how to be a better photographer, watch this. Maybe the best 2 minutes and 43 seconds you’ll waste: https://vimeo.com/116692462

Thanks for that link. I think I may watch that a couple times more.

 

[oftheherd]

I started out with cameras with fixed focal lengths. It kind of never occurred to me photographs could or should be taken with other lenses, even after I got my first SLR. Then I realized I should get other focal lengths, because that was what the magazines of the time led me to believe. First it was other fixed focal lengths. Later I found there were good zooms I could afford which I should really have, again according to the magazines. It was OK. I was younger then and in good physical condition. I am no longer that way.

Some time back, as I have gotten older and less able to move around, zooms aren't so important to me. I still have them, but the only ones I tend use, if able to take photos, are some that are very lightweight, of course covering less focal lengths.

But even before that, I had begun to evaluate what I thought I would want to photograph and the lenses I thought I would want to use for that. It worked. If a photo opportunity presented itself that I would rather have used a lens I didn't bring, I used the closest to it. If I needed I changed position. If none of that worked, I just didn't get that photo. Thankfully not getting a desired photo has not yet ended my life.

Point being, don't stress on gear. It's nice to have a certain amount of lenses, but I often remember how I always seemed to get what I wanted when all I had was an camera with a 50mm lens.

 

[John Bragg]

I am convinced that zooms make your brain work harder. I started out with zooms nearly 40 years ago and then, when I changed systems from Canon to Olympus, I went over to mostly primes. I had a brief dalliance with a 35-70 F4 Zuicko and it was a great lens, but somewhat slow and I missed the dof scale on my primes. Fast forward to present day and once again I have recently bought a couple of vintage Vivitar tele zooms just because they are rediculously good value and add another dynamic to my toolbox. I now have a 75-205 f3.8 macro in Nikon F mount (I used to have it in Canon FD mount and it is superb) and a 70-150 f3.8 in OM mount. The 70-150 is one sweet little portrait lens and its close focusing allows me to get some shots of my 3 year old daughter doing little girl things without being in her face.The downside is that I have one more parameter to factor into my decision making and it has actually slowed me down. The benefits are that I now have the capability to concentrate solely on her eyes and tiny hands as she paints or draws or makes something. I have room for both systems in my workflow. My advice is to learn mainly how to use primes, especially their speed in low light, and keep a zoom or two in reserve for the odd shot. Relatively fast constant maximum aperture zoom lenses are available cheaply if you don't mind a quality lens from third party maker.

 

[jsrockit]

I often hear it said that primes "limit you" more and force you to think more. Is this true?

This is entirely personal...and people make great photos with everything. I prefer primes for my own reasons. When I use a zoom, I use it like a prime... meaning I choose the focal length before I make the photo not during making the photo.

The best thing I've ever done personally, is to use a fully manual camera. It's too tempting to use auto exposure, and I've just learned a lot more about exposure and how to take pictures using fully manual exposure/focus.

I learned this way too... now I never use fully manual. If you know how to use aperture priority right or shutter priority correctly... you are fully making your decisions as to what aperture and shutter speed are being used anyway.

Sometimes I think about gear too much.

Me too... but I also think about photography a lot.

I think many photographers do this - we are sometimes concerned too much about sharpness, spot-on exposure, and creating the "perfect image". Especially in digital photography where we analyze lenses like a science experiment.

Unfortunately...this is symptomatic of the internet. Way too much focus on the technical and not enough on art, composition, content, etc. The technical is generally easy... exposure isn't hard. Sharpness is overrated after a certain threshold. Perfect images are made through having great content and ideas with framing that works for the image. That is it.

 

[Richard G]

I usually stick with one lens on one camera for ages. Currently it’s a 28 on the M9 and a 35 on the Monochrom. Each bag has another lens or two but they’re light and usually I don’t take the bag on a walk anyway. Great quote from Erwitt. The thinking comes when exploring a new subject. Occasionally that will require a wider angle lens, but mostly it is about point of view framing etc etc. It works nearly always with whatever prime lens is on the camera. Some talk of changing focal length with their feet. That works.

 

[Guth]

There are plenty of people in the world who have mastered the technical side of photography who have “nothing interesting to say” with their photographs. Alternatively there are others whose technical photography skills leave a lot to be desired, yet whose images still manage to be mesmerizing with “plenty to say”. Ideally, I strive to reach the happy intersection between these two groups, but if I had to error on one side or the other I would much rather be a part of the second group of individuals.

A few years ago I began to rediscover my interest in photography. These days I often spend time here on the rangefinder forum simply to gain inspiration from the images of others. I’ve discovered a few photographers that participate here on a regular basis whose work really speaks to me on a regular basis (rhl-oregon, Helen Hill, and Eric Van Stratton immediately come to mind for me personally). Others here surely have their favorites as well. When I look at the work of those who I admire, once I’m done marveling at them, I try to break down in my mind what it is about their images that speak so much to me. (I now know for the most part, but that’s not important for the sake of this discussion.)

I would suggest that you try doing the same, either here on RFF or elsewhere on the web or in books, etc.. Figure out what moves you. Then try to determine why that is. From there try to determine how you might incorporate more of these elements into your own work — not to be confused with trying to make your images look just like theirs.

I’m sorry that I’m not answering any of your specific questions regarding lenses. I just wanted to give you another approach to consider, in this case one that has helped me. The benefit is that you’ll likely be able to use the gear you already own. Not that there is anything wrong with acquiring new gear, which is usually fun but can also be a further distraction. In my case, I personally don’t believe that the equipment has all that much to do with the photographs that I enjoy the most. It’s a totally different story when it comes to the person working with that equipment. They tend to make a world of difference. The proof is always in the images themselves. We all get lucky once in a while, but to me there is much to be gained by studying the work of those who you feel are able to produce worthwhile images on a consistent basis. Just some food for thought.

 

[Huss]

No, using one prime totally removes a decision point from the matrix. You instinctively use "foot zoom" for framing.

No, worrying about gear seems to be a characteristic limited to photographers who spend a lot of time on the internet worrying about gear. It seldom impacts those who make their living with photography.

Find something you want to say visually. Define it. Then work on saying it. It can be 3 images or a book representing 10 years of work. Focus on what you want to say and acknowledge that photography is simply your chosen vehicle for saying it.

Good but a year or more is better. You want everything to do with operating the camera to be reflexive so your attention can be on what you are trying to say photographically.

Why?

Use whatever equipment is easiest for you to convey what you want. That is a zoom for some, not others. But, you will learn that a lens focal length determines the field of view and perspective from a certain difference. You can change the field of view via foot zoom. But the perspective is the key. That is what determines is you photo has depth or looks like too much is in a flat plane.

See previous comments about saying something. Define what you are trying to accomplish before you press the shutter. Later ask yourself, with brutal honesty, how did you do at accomplishing your objective.

Makes no difference so long as you have learned to use what you have.

Excellent commentary Bob.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

When a person reads a story, they don't care what machine it was written with. If you want to play with gear that really affects the final product, get into typewriters. There you can feel the difference in how the machine types and directly see how it prints. Every single one is different. Anyway, the reader can see the difference between makes, models, and typefaces. Not so much with photographic tools, in fact it's almost impossible unless the image was made with something extremely unusual. All that said, get a camera you like, get a few bricks of film and shoot a lot. Enjoy that time and learn from it but don't let it separate you from experiencing life. If you want a fixed focal length, shoot that, if not grab a good zoom. Challenge yourself to shoot a series or a whole roll of just a theme, or at just one distance, or aperture, or shutter speed. If you want to pick a focal length to challenge you, get a wide, wider than 28mm and then get close. 21/20mm is great for very close images with plenty of the environment.
Find a few photographers whose work you like. Learn how they did it, not with what gear.
Phil Forrest

 

[farlymac]

First off, Forest, what are you doing currently in photography? Are you looking for a career in photography, or just an amateur getting more serious about it? I ask this because it is unclear where you are coming from with this scattered line of thinking.

The main thing is to determine where you are headed in photography, then build the knowledge that will take you there. Try a lot of things, but not just once then on to the next one. Some photographers spend years perfecting their craft and style, others pick up on doing their best right away. In other words, everyone is different, and no one approach will make you better or worse. I've known guys and gals who obsess over their gear to the point of distraction, and others that show up with a small kit, bang out the shots, and go home satisfied they have the images needed for the client.

The only thing I ever worried about with gear was do I have the right set-up for what I'm about to attempt. You don't want to bring a point and shoot to an architectural assignment, just as you don't want to shoot motocross with a 4x5 (well, maybe for a little fun). If what you are trying to capture only requires one prime lens, then bringing the whole kit with you is just overkill. However, a little back-up with a spare body and a couple of lenses wouldn't hurt.

Every style of photography has its own requirements to be able to faithfully record the images that will display what the story is behind them.

PF

 

[gavinlg]

I agree with the bulk of the (extremely wise) comments above. Using prime over a zoom reduces the amount one thinks, and 'thinking' tends to mean worse photographs. Some photograph trying to say something, some photograph without purpose and find later on that their photographs have been saying something and they, the photographer, were merely channeling it.

The best advice I was given was to shoot with a 28, a 35, or a 50 for a number of years. Focal length is generally a distraction and having multiple focal lengths available generally leads to decision paralysis. Without a doubt restriction begets creativity. Being 'in the moment' is more important than the specifics of gear.

 

[Archiver]

When I'm out with primes, I find myself switching them from time to time throughout the day because I'll see images that I want with different focal lengths. Zooms take care of that aspect. As much as I love the Leica M system and all the wonderful photography that can be made with it, zooms are just more versatile and allow you to create different compositions with far less effort. Even if I walk around with the 35L on a Canon body, I sometimes find myself wanting the 24-105L for the instant focal length changes.

If you want to shoot with just one focal length for a month, try a fixed lens camera, or shoot with your smartphone and don't zoom. Sticking with one prime forces you to adapt your shooting to that focal length, one way or another.

Another solution is to use a short zoom. I've been getting a lot of use from the Sigma 18-35 on my 13 year old Canon 30D because it is about 28mm at the wide end and 50 at the short, and I usually go out with a 28 and 50 with a rangefinder or mirrorless.

When I'm working, I move between primes and zooms because there are looks that fast primes give that most zooms can't, and there's immediate spontaneous flexibility with a zoom that primes can't give you. An exception for zooms are the Sigma 18-35 on aps-c and the 24-35 f2 on full frame. If you shoot a lot between those focal lengths and are okay with the weight, get a lens like that.

I want a Sigma 50mm f1.4 because I like the look that it will give me. A friend mentioned that it's not that popular because it's heavy for a 50, but I figure that it's about the same as a zoom, and they are fine by me, so the Sigma should be okay, too.

As for whether primes make you think more, I'd say they make you think of how to shoot within that focal length, and whether you can get the shot you want with it. It's an exercise in mental and visual flexibility, and a way to train yourself to see at that focal length, so you'll know what kind of images you'll get, and if it will give you what you want.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I agree with the bulk of the (extremely wise) Being 'in the moment' is more important than the specifics of gear.

Many of us worked with one prime lens because that's what we had. There was a time later on when i carried around a bag with 2 bodies and lenses from 20-200. Once i worked more with medium & large format i went back to simplicity. I most often go out or travel with one camera & one lens. I've spent weeks in Europe with a Rolleiflex, or a Fuji Texas Leica. There's a big difference between seeing something and raising the camera to your eye, compared to looking at the world through the lens. It's a little like music...you need to practice and play your instrument, until it can speak for you.