Roger Hicks
Veteran
raid
Dad Photographer
Roger, it is "the season" to forgive 
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Raid,Roger, it is "the season" to forgive
If I could understand more of what he says, I probably wouldn't need to forgive it. But it is increasingly incomprehensible.
Cheers,
E.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Indeed, Mr. Hicks. It is a conflation. There was a post here some years ago that wrapped up a similar topic (I can't find it nor can I remember the handle of the person who wrote it) but they basically pointed out that collocation is not correlation nor is it causation, or words to that effect.
Bestest,
Mme. O.
michaelwj
----------------
Regarding choosing focal lengths, I choose a maximum of 2 (typically just 1) depending on my mood and the anticipated subject.
Sometimes I'm in the mood for getting really close to my subjects for instance, but sometimes I don't think my subjects will react well to that proximity. In this case I'd choose a moderate wide, in my case a 35mm. Different subjects and mood will lead me to either a 21 or 35 as my main kit. On the other hand, when travelling light I'll just take 1 lens - I took just a 21mm to Long Island for a week, and the next fortnight took only a 35mm to Italy. In both cases I shot what worked for what I had - my mood was somewhat governed by the lens I had on I suppose.
The exception for me is longer focal lengths - I'd never go out with only a 90mm for example. For me, these are subject and circumstance driven lenses, and I only use them in a secondary way when I can't get close enough for the framing I want. I rarely use them to compress perspective which I find interesting as I really like to expand perspective with wides. I also rarely use a longer focal length unless it has its own body - I'm not likely to change to it in the field so to speak. This makes me think that I'm either not comfortable or don't know how to use longer focal lengths.
Sometimes I'm in the mood for getting really close to my subjects for instance, but sometimes I don't think my subjects will react well to that proximity. In this case I'd choose a moderate wide, in my case a 35mm. Different subjects and mood will lead me to either a 21 or 35 as my main kit. On the other hand, when travelling light I'll just take 1 lens - I took just a 21mm to Long Island for a week, and the next fortnight took only a 35mm to Italy. In both cases I shot what worked for what I had - my mood was somewhat governed by the lens I had on I suppose.
The exception for me is longer focal lengths - I'd never go out with only a 90mm for example. For me, these are subject and circumstance driven lenses, and I only use them in a secondary way when I can't get close enough for the framing I want. I rarely use them to compress perspective which I find interesting as I really like to expand perspective with wides. I also rarely use a longer focal length unless it has its own body - I'm not likely to change to it in the field so to speak. This makes me think that I'm either not comfortable or don't know how to use longer focal lengths.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
How about shoot the thing, explore it photographically, from a number of angles, distances, and focal lengths and then see which PHOTOGRAPH YOU LIKE BEST and after doing it that way for several years you might be able to attempt some conclusions?
JChrome
Street Worker
If you cease photographing then photography loses your photographs. I would argue, whether or not you think your photographs significant is irrelevant. The significance of them does not alter their mode of existing.
Of course, it depends on your definition of "Photography".
Happy holidays to all!
jazzwave
Well-known
For Rangefinder streetphoto, my choose 35mm or 50mm.Simple and lite.
For portrait, prefer to use >50mm, wide open to get shallow DoF.
In DSLR 85mm and 135mm are very nice focal length for model shots..
~ron~
For portrait, prefer to use >50mm, wide open to get shallow DoF.
In DSLR 85mm and 135mm are very nice focal length for model shots..
~ron~
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hmmm, I've changed my mind about my post (No 120) which referred to post 108; I now think it's a comment on the thread.
Regards, David
Regards, David
David Hughes
David Hughes
Roger, it is "the season" to forgive
Hmmm, trying not to offend anyone and to please them all instead is what did away with Christmas and so on and gave us that watered down moronic 'Happy Holiday' mindset. An awful warning to us all.
Also, I think you have to understand to forgive and that's getting quite difficult at present.
Regards, David
mawilliams
Member
I think it's important to know when we are making people aware of the process involved in making the image, so for me if the lens and everything else involved in making the picture recedes, so much the better. Some lenses produce such distinctive viewpoints (such as a fisheye) that it is impossible to not realize that the image is a photograph, and it gets me actively thinking about how it was made in the same moment I am seeing the image for the first time. For me, an image usually fails to reach me in this scenario. In cinema they call it "suspension of disbelief." I don't want to be in the theater thinking "I wonder what lens they used to get this shot" or anything else about the process of the filmmaker. When experiencing the work I'd rather be able to well up with emotion and just "live" the experience without engaging my logical mind. Same thing in the gallery. I want to be moved when looking at art. I suppose the technical questions might arise later, but my first concern is connecting with the work. If that doesn't happen I tend to move on.
mdarnton
Well-known
I suspect that a lot of that is cultural, learned, and can be unlearned. Large format people are irritated by photos with converging verticals. Isolated tribes would be amazed by the whole idea of photography. One can grow past that if one wishes to. When people complain about the view of wide angle lenses, I always wonder if they look at the world through tubing, and in the same vein, I've noticed that people who have strong glasses often relate differently to their environment than others. Being narrow-minded isn't a positive feature, in my mind.
Hsg
who dares wins
Commitment implies an attachment to an idealistic or materialistic cause in spite of obstacles and hurdles. But photography is not a cause, its a medium of visual communication... One can build museums in one's commitment to photography but that does not make one a good photographer.
This is what I meant by saying that the photographer needs photography in order to communicate while photography has no shortage of photographers working in its influence.
Because its too good to be true.
The most glaring fact about photography is that even the best of the best does not have more than ten photos that are considered great... So the happy and productive photographer who fills a 64gig sd card on a single day with a 1000 RAW photos is not creative, his simply productive. And productivity comes about with working from experience, not sailing in uncharted territory and leaving one's comfort zone.
Hsg
who dares wins
Not money. I imagine the best reward for a photographer is recognition by the photographers whom he admires.
Joining Magnum photos is a good measure of success for a photographer.
Hsg
who dares wins
Its difficult to emotionally distance oneself from one's photographs, I agree, but how else one can improve if one's under an illusion that photography needs my photographs.
Photography is a medium of visual communication. You either succeed in finding your voice through its structure or not, there is no comfortable middle ground, unfortunately.
Hsg
who dares wins
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
You are no doubt familiar with the French saying, "Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner": "to understand everything is to forgive everything".
The trouble is that "understanding" is now operating at two removes. I don't understand what Hsg is saying, and I am less than convinced that he does.
EDIT: Having just read his last replies to me (post 151), I am even less convinced.
Cheers,
R.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I've made the intended purpose of this thread known in several posts quite clearly. I even suggested that you start your own thread for your ideas, and you've ignored that. Yes, Hsg, you've hijacked the thread quite thoroughly. If you want to discuss the process of how you select lenses for your work, please contribute. If you want to continue to voice your angst, please go do that in another thread. Is that clear enough?
And belongs in another thread. THIS thread is NOT about existentialism... it's about photography and how each of us chooses which lenses to shoot with.
Samouraï
Well-known
I enjoy environmental portraits with the 50 and a little distance. Doing the same with 35 is more convenient, but I prefer the look of the 50.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Interesting thought.
I did an environmental portrait with my son, daugher, and granddaughter yesterday... with the 35mm f/1.2 I like it a lot. I wouldn't normally even think of shooting like this... but it just presented itself.
20151227-L1000186 by Roger H, on Flickr