Lss
Well-known
How do you measure it? By time spent?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No. It's multi-dimensional. Time. Money (not necessarily spent on kit or materials, but e.g. on going to places to take pictures, or visiting exhibitions, or putting on exhibitions). What else you do besides. How well you understand what you are doing. How well you understand (or attempt to understand) what others are doing. The books you read. The breadth of your interest. The people you talk to, and how you talk to them. How you plan what you are going to do. Whether you lie awake thinking about it. What you give up in order to practise your photography. What else is more important to you.
That'll do for a start.
Cheers,
R.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hmmm, "Science is the tree of death... "
I always think of Hooke, that great scientist who said "Ut extensio sic vires" or something similar. Like Russian I learnt Latin but have forgotten most of it. Anyway, to continue; it translates as the more you pull it the longer it gets. Later scientists added that it eventually breaks.
It seems appropriate so I'll throw it into the mix.
Regards, David
I always think of Hooke, that great scientist who said "Ut extensio sic vires" or something similar. Like Russian I learnt Latin but have forgotten most of it. Anyway, to continue; it translates as the more you pull it the longer it gets. Later scientists added that it eventually breaks.
It seems appropriate so I'll throw it into the mix.
Regards, David
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Fred,
Lots of things are equally important. That's why I carefully chose the word "more".
Can't agree with the second para, though. Science was a damn' sight more use than art against my childhood diphtheria and against my appendicitis a handful of years ago. Then again, Blake was good at profound-sounding false dichotomies.
Cheers,
R.
ferider
Veteran
What a bummer quote.
Celebrate 100 years of relativity theory instead (which Einstein published at ETH Zurich in 1915). Science and Art might be much closer than you think. At least when it comes to passion, existentialism, fooling around, etc.
Roland.
Ronald M
Veteran
My first camera was a RF with fixed 50 mm, Waltz with 50 2.0 Nippon Koagu if you must. Tried auxiliary wide and tele but they were a bust. Nikons with 43 to 86 arrived and I wanted one so bad, but that would have proved a bust to. I did manage some pretty good pics with the 50.
After college I bought a Pentax and 6 lenses all in one go. I got out of jail. Then I added a 24, 50 & 100 macros, 300, 400, 800 and learned I could not carry it all.
I also learned mirror slap is not to be disregarded even at 1/1000.
Then came the Leicas and made the same mistake , too much glass.
Then came TLR, pics were junk.
Then the RB67 with 90, 180, 150 Soft focus. Did well with that.
Digital Nikons next and too many lenses.
Back to Leica M8 &9. Still too many lenses , but I have learned to just carry a few.
Nikons and Leica are my kit today and I will probably not change. There is something interesting about the 58 1.4 Nikkor. That can be a one lens kit or I use the 24/120 4.0 . Pretty nice as zooms have improved over the decades. I tend to use it at 40/50 mm.
A leica 50 is now finding favor again and I remember how much I wanted out of the 50 box when that was all I had. It now works for me. There are more Leica lenses and I will carry them occasionally. They are all so darn good, it is hard to decide.
No matter what, a 50 seems to be important now.
After college I bought a Pentax and 6 lenses all in one go. I got out of jail. Then I added a 24, 50 & 100 macros, 300, 400, 800 and learned I could not carry it all.
I also learned mirror slap is not to be disregarded even at 1/1000.
Then came the Leicas and made the same mistake , too much glass.
Then came TLR, pics were junk.
Then the RB67 with 90, 180, 150 Soft focus. Did well with that.
Digital Nikons next and too many lenses.
Back to Leica M8 &9. Still too many lenses , but I have learned to just carry a few.
Nikons and Leica are my kit today and I will probably not change. There is something interesting about the 58 1.4 Nikkor. That can be a one lens kit or I use the 24/120 4.0 . Pretty nice as zooms have improved over the decades. I tend to use it at 40/50 mm.
A leica 50 is now finding favor again and I remember how much I wanted out of the 50 box when that was all I had. It now works for me. There are more Leica lenses and I will carry them occasionally. They are all so darn good, it is hard to decide.
No matter what, a 50 seems to be important now.
David Hughes
David Hughes
... Personally I was thinking more of too many menus and buttons on digital cameras, not diptheria.
Hi,
Some similarities, both seem very contagious. My 2d worth is to add that I think the programmers got the upper hand sometime in the mid 90's. Earlier cameras did what photographers - more or less - wanted. Then they let the programmers off the lead and they started to show off about what could be done.
Regards, David
sreed2006
Well-known
I have read all the posts in this thread. It is amazing how it wanders.
To get back on topic: in the past 8 years I accumulated a wide range of Zuiko lenses. The range goes from 18mm to 500mm.
There's four variations of the 50mm focal length in the accumulation (50/1.4, 50/1.8, 50/2 macro, and 50/3.5 macro). There are also the 24/3.5 shift and the 35/2.8 shift lenses, which can be used as normal lenses, but that's not what they were made for.
If I told you I picked a 50mm lens, I would also have to say which one of the four, because they have distinct uses, or properties of size and weight. Likewise with the shift lenses.
When I go for a photo hunt (wandering until I see a good opportunity), I pick a lens that suits my mood at the time, or which I just want to try out some more, and then look for subjects that meet that lens' field of view. I often revisit sites where I have taken pictures at a different focal length and see what other kind of photograph I can make with the current focal length.
Consistency is not my watch-word. I try new things all the time. Thus I have close-ups and distant 18mm pictures of the same park bench under an oak tree at the park. The same subject, very different pictures, and very different moods, all inspired by what the lens could do.
For macro photography, the focal length all depends on how far away from the subject the lens needs to be. For that I have 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm. Trying to get insects in their natural environment with a 50mm is not very workable, since the lens has to be so close, so I use the 135mm for that task (and I am not very good at it, yet).
To do more-or-less formal portraits, I have found that the Zuiko 90mm f/2 lens is far, far better than any of my other lenses, even other brands. At one sitting, I just could not get a decent portrait of my daughter using a Canon 24-105mm zoom lens using a Canon digital camera. I put on the Zuiko 90/2, via an adapter bought from the head bartender here, and the portraits were just beautiful. So saying I use 90mm for portraits wouldn't tell the whole story for that either.
When I have a specific task to do, I follow the general rules I have learned from books, magazines, and the internet on what focal length (and other property) best fits that task.
When I am free to find any subject at all, then I depend on inspiration from the focal length that I chose to use on an outing, and look at the world differently, to match the lens.
I find that rewarding, and even occasionally get a good picture.
To get back on topic: in the past 8 years I accumulated a wide range of Zuiko lenses. The range goes from 18mm to 500mm.
There's four variations of the 50mm focal length in the accumulation (50/1.4, 50/1.8, 50/2 macro, and 50/3.5 macro). There are also the 24/3.5 shift and the 35/2.8 shift lenses, which can be used as normal lenses, but that's not what they were made for.
If I told you I picked a 50mm lens, I would also have to say which one of the four, because they have distinct uses, or properties of size and weight. Likewise with the shift lenses.
When I go for a photo hunt (wandering until I see a good opportunity), I pick a lens that suits my mood at the time, or which I just want to try out some more, and then look for subjects that meet that lens' field of view. I often revisit sites where I have taken pictures at a different focal length and see what other kind of photograph I can make with the current focal length.
Consistency is not my watch-word. I try new things all the time. Thus I have close-ups and distant 18mm pictures of the same park bench under an oak tree at the park. The same subject, very different pictures, and very different moods, all inspired by what the lens could do.
For macro photography, the focal length all depends on how far away from the subject the lens needs to be. For that I have 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm. Trying to get insects in their natural environment with a 50mm is not very workable, since the lens has to be so close, so I use the 135mm for that task (and I am not very good at it, yet).
To do more-or-less formal portraits, I have found that the Zuiko 90mm f/2 lens is far, far better than any of my other lenses, even other brands. At one sitting, I just could not get a decent portrait of my daughter using a Canon 24-105mm zoom lens using a Canon digital camera. I put on the Zuiko 90/2, via an adapter bought from the head bartender here, and the portraits were just beautiful. So saying I use 90mm for portraits wouldn't tell the whole story for that either.
When I have a specific task to do, I follow the general rules I have learned from books, magazines, and the internet on what focal length (and other property) best fits that task.
When I am free to find any subject at all, then I depend on inspiration from the focal length that I chose to use on an outing, and look at the world differently, to match the lens.
I find that rewarding, and even occasionally get a good picture.
Fine explanation, Sid, of an approach to the "photo hunt" like mine and interestingly a number of others here. Good hunting!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
ferider
Veteran
I guess, only a New Yorker would blame the fatal decision of a democratic president on one of the most gentle, genius scientists that ever lived. And ignore that his fancy iPhone or GPS device would not work without the theory behind it. Oh well,
Roland.
ferider
Veteran
Thanks for not deleting my post, Fred
(living in the Bay Area for about 20 years now)
(living in the Bay Area for about 20 years now)
robert blu
quiet photographer
To the original question my answer is "it depends" which is not surprising!
As Sid in post #173 explain if I have a specific goal the selection is more or less due.
But if I feel free to photograph without any specific goal it depends very much on the nmood of the day.Sometimes it's very conventional which means 35 or 50 with my RF film cameras, sometimes I like to explore the possibilities of the 20 (in the case with my slr cameras, I have no 20-21 for my RFs).
Lately I'm mainly shooting Impossible film therefore the lens is the one of the camera !
I still have my old but good 35-70 and 80-200 but never use them...
robert
As Sid in post #173 explain if I have a specific goal the selection is more or less due.
But if I feel free to photograph without any specific goal it depends very much on the nmood of the day.Sometimes it's very conventional which means 35 or 50 with my RF film cameras, sometimes I like to explore the possibilities of the 20 (in the case with my slr cameras, I have no 20-21 for my RFs).
Lately I'm mainly shooting Impossible film therefore the lens is the one of the camera !
I still have my old but good 35-70 and 80-200 but never use them...
robert
ferider
Veteran
No, Truman, Fred.
Didn't mean any of that, posted more in the spirit of Baz Luhrmann:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the class of '97 Wear sunscreen
:::
Live in New York City once but leave before it makes you hard Live in northern California once but leave before it makes you soft"
Roland.
PS: I've spent a night in Manhattan only once. Been a dozen or so times in upstate NY though.
Didn't mean any of that, posted more in the spirit of Baz Luhrmann:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the class of '97 Wear sunscreen
:::
Live in New York City once but leave before it makes you hard Live in northern California once but leave before it makes you soft"
Roland.
PS: I've spent a night in Manhattan only once. Been a dozen or so times in upstate NY though.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thank'ee kindly.
Full article at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps ignore gurus.html
Cheers,
R.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
After several decades I have come to know that I tend to naturally see, at this point in time, at a 35mm FoV. That doesn't mean that for commercial work that I don't use different F/Ls but I have been shooting all of my personal work with equipment that really matches the way I see and work (Leica MM and 35mm) and again I say at this particular time.
It doesn't limit me in any way to shoot at one F/L because the photographs I am seeing are at the F/L. I also have been shooting all of my personal work with an MM because I have been seeing in shapes, tones and visual relationships. It does make it easy when I head out the door or go on vacation. I just grab the MM with the 35mm lens.
This is what I have come to find out about me and probably isn't going to be the road for anyone else.
It doesn't limit me in any way to shoot at one F/L because the photographs I am seeing are at the F/L. I also have been shooting all of my personal work with an MM because I have been seeing in shapes, tones and visual relationships. It does make it easy when I head out the door or go on vacation. I just grab the MM with the 35mm lens.
This is what I have come to find out about me and probably isn't going to be the road for anyone else.
giganova
Well-known
FWIW, here's a little plot that shows the focal lengths of this year's award winning Press Photo Awards:
bert26
-
I have a 1.4 Canon FD 50mm on my AE1, a v3 35mm Summicron on my M6, and a Ricoh GR1s which obviously has a focal length of 28mm.
I love my AE1/50 setup to death but it was damn near impossible for me to shoot street with. I used the GR1s a lot for a while, but I had to get so close I'd end up getting into a lot of **** with subjects. After using the m6/35 cron for about a year straight almost exclusively, it's really hard for me to go back to using the GR1s for street. For me personally, 35mm is the perfect street lens. Just wide enough and zone focusing is the ****.
I live in Portland, OR and it generally sucks shooting street here. Downtown isn't densely populated like NYC, so it's really hard to get away with anything shorter than a 35, at least for me.
My shots with the GR1s often looked like this. Meh.
I love my AE1/50 setup to death but it was damn near impossible for me to shoot street with. I used the GR1s a lot for a while, but I had to get so close I'd end up getting into a lot of **** with subjects. After using the m6/35 cron for about a year straight almost exclusively, it's really hard for me to go back to using the GR1s for street. For me personally, 35mm is the perfect street lens. Just wide enough and zone focusing is the ****.
I live in Portland, OR and it generally sucks shooting street here. Downtown isn't densely populated like NYC, so it's really hard to get away with anything shorter than a 35, at least for me.
My shots with the GR1s often looked like this. Meh.