Wide-angle shift at Magnum and elsewhere ...

[Flyfisher Tom]

What do you think of the trend in the past 10 or 20 (perhaps even 30) years in photojournalism's shift to wide-angle perspective, as opposed to the traditional 50mm perspective in years past?

Looking over the most recent Magnum photo galleries, one can't help but be struck by how often photojournalistic projects and assignments are nearly all shot with 35, 28, 24 perspectives.

Is this shift a matter of merit? Does the wide-angle convey more artistically (and not just literally)? Do wide-angles lend themselves to more geometric composition?

I admit I really like some of the reportage done with wide-angles. James Nachtwey, for instance, uses the wide-angle to give you the sense of immediacy and intimacy, of standing side by side with him near his subjects, and experience viscerally and vicariously his danger. On the other hand, I often wonder how the scene and message would be different if shot with a 50mm. Would it seem less intimate, more removed, less powerful in carrying you into the scene? 'Safer' perhaps?

In any event, I particularly like Christopher Anderson's work (he was formerly with Nachtwey at VII).

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/TreePf_MAG.aspx?Stat=Photographers_Portfolio&E=29YL534E3E3E

Also, of Magnum, Paolo Pellegrin :

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/TreePf_MAG.aspx?Stat=Photographers_Portfolio&E=29YL53UH6PQ

Nachtwey, by the way, was formerly with Magnum before forming VII :

http://www.viiphoto.com/

You can also catch him at work in "War Photographer", a film that provides an unique look into his work and philosophy as a photographer.

Curious to hear your thoughts 🙂

 

[zuikologist]

There does seem to be a trend. Wideangle appears to lend itself to more "artistic" photojournalism. The Magnum photogs presumably talk to each other and assess each others' work and liked what they saw with wideangle lenses. I have to agree regarding Christopher Anderson's work - powerful narrative photos.

BTW Do photojournalists ever shoot in the field with a view to producing a book? Wideangle shots might work better for books.

 

[varjag]

The rise of wide-angle perspective concides with introduction of wideangles with sufficient speed and image quality: the 8/28 Tessar simply wasn't it. Then it took some time until new crop of photographers grew on it, and old press who grinded their teeth with 50mm accepted it.

Wides make it easy to shoot in the crowds, 24/25mm maybe being the ideal focal there. You get enough in the frame, subject movement is less of an issue due to bigger field of view, and DOF is sufficient even at close ranges. It is also more usable for shooting sudden action, or just raising the camera overhead when you're isolated from it.

 

[boarini2003]

You get enough in the frame, subject movement is less of an issue due to bigger field of view, and DOF is sufficient even at close ranges. It is also more usable for shooting sudden action, or just raising the camera overhead when you're isolated from it.

That for me would be the principle advantage of wide angles.

 

[telenous]

I agree with the above comments. And of all the advantages that come with the use of wide-angle lenses, their prodigious DOF must be the one that is most important.

 

[kbg32]

Wide angles "tell a story", by including the subject within a scene, rather than isolating it. It is also easier to prefocus by using the hyperfocal distance, thus concentrating more on taking pictures of what is in front of you then fiddling with camera controls.

 

[VinceC]

All things being equal, a very wide angle tends to take more interesting photographs because of the perspective, making the viewer feel a part of the scene.

 

[Nachkebia]

Don`t forget the fact that wide angle gives more dramatic view due to itc su realistic point of view, it is also easier to compose dynamic composition because view itself is already a an affective point.

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

Is this shift a matter of merit? Does the wide-angle convey more artistically (and not just literally)? Do wide-angles lend themselves to more geometric composition?

I admit I really like some of the reportage done with wide-angles. James Nachtwey, for instance, uses the wide-angle to give you the sense of immediacy and intimacy, of standing side by side with him near his subjects, and experience viscerally and vicariously his danger. On the other hand, I often wonder how the scene and message would be different if shot with a 50mm.

Same here, exactly my observation and my questions too.
I this a huge advantage of he w-a lense is that it makes us feel involved, beeing in the middle of the story and beeing part of it. And without any doubt this has made the pics more exciting.

One the other hand, as you say, one has to ask if it is positive to establish this style as main stream standard , which is what actually happened. Maybe also because of the easier use of the wides , easier at least in many environments, related to DOF, prefocus style and crop.

IMHO it wold be time for the guys to re-think the use of wide lenses, its not always and per se a good choice. Sometimes it has an indiscrete and obtrousive impact, or distortion and exaggerated perspective is more bothering that exciting and you feel less would have been more.

And for the amateur crowd it would be time to discuss hat issue too, it's partly got a kinda obsession to shoot wides and superwides to tart the pics up a la mode , but too often the results tell us the photog hasn't got this lens under control , not all.

As for me, I consider everything below 28 to be a specialized lens, which must be used thoughtfully and needs knowledge and experience. And tho I do love the 28 or 25 FL in urban environments and as a travel lens, sometimes it simply does not to the trick, I must have a 50mm with me if I do not want to risk to miss anything.

Fitzi

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

One the other hand, as you say, one has to ask if it is positive to establish this style as main stream standard , which is what actually happened. Maybe also because of the easier use of the wides , easier at least in many environments, related to DOF, prefocus style and crop.

I agree. While I am a fan of wide-angles (as with everything, in moderation), I fear that it has become so prevalent and pervasive as to be cliche. After a while, looking at Time, Newsweek, NYT, BBC ... the shots largely begin to blur in their similarities. It becomes more a lure of converging lines, rather than the more rigorous geometry of a longer focal length.

When Winogrand first pioneered the skewed horizon, it was revolutionary. Now it seems every aspiring young photojournalist shoots as if a skewed horizon was an academic requirement.

I remember how difficult it was for members during the HCB contest to just use the 50mm, and to make the will of that focal length bend to our vision. In no small part, that is why I am still fond of HCB's work. He made a difficult focal length work to his geometric sense, rather than relying on the relative ease of wider-angles to pre-form that geometry in composition.

IMHO it wold be time for the guys to re-think the use of wide lenses, its not always and per se a good choice. Sometimes it has an indiscrete and obtrousive impact, or distortion and exaggerated perspective is more bothering that exciting and you feel less would have been more.

Yes. I wondered whether given the chance, situation, and opportunity, the same shot taken by the same photographer with a 50 would have given us, as the consumer/audience, a vastly different experience and emotional impact, one that we are currently missing out on. An ability for the photojournalist to show his/her ability to focus, in the compositional sense, rather than just stick the wide-angle above his head and let DOF do the work.

As I said, some photogs make phenomenal use of WA's. But a large number also seem to rely on it as a compositional crutch :angel:

 

[VinceC]

I think super-wides get over-used by photojournalists. They can become a crutch because then the biggest skill involved is simply getting close enough to the action. You can quickly show an entire scene instead of waiting for the telling moment, which takes more patience and an ability and willingness to stand back without becoming immersed in the action.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

And regarding intimacy ... one only has to look at our own Beniliam (David)'s work at RFF to see that the 50 can be used magically and intimately.

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

An ability for the photojournalist to show his/her ability to focus, in the compositional sense, rather than just stick the wide-angle above his head and let DOF do the work.

Spot on !

Fitzi

 

[Pherdinand]

I don't think a 50mm is "safer" nor less artistical or exciting. Just think about Robert Capa's work (and death).

I agree that the focusing on the subject (as well as the focusing as moving the lens) might be easier, with a WA (although they probably use AF all the time).

 

[varjag]

When Winogrand first pioneered the skewed horizon, it was revolutionary. Now it seems every aspiring young photojournalist shoots as if a skewed horizon was an academic requirement.

Winogrand did not pioneer the skewed horizon. He pioneered the use of lines other than horizon to define verticals or horizontals, something that many other's attempts at his style are entirely missing.

I remember how difficult it was for members during the HCB contest to just use the 50mm, and to make the will of that focal length bend to our vision. In no small part, that is why I am still fond of HCB's work. He made a difficult focal length work to his geometric sense, rather than relying on the relative ease of wider-angles to pre-form that geometry in composition.

I'm also quite fond of his work, and fifty is my favorite and most employed focal too 🙂 That said, I'm not entirely convinced that HCB picked this particular focal consciously, rather than simply used what came with his first Leica and stuck to it.

 

[VinceC]

Most of my photography these days is of my family. I find the 28/35/50 lenses, and short telephotos, to be much more "intimate" than very wide lenses. I hardly ever use the 25 or 21 unless it's for some kind of establishing shot to show how family members fit into a larger scene.

We see so many wide-angle photos these days that we're inundated with establishing shots and place-setter photographs.

 

[FrankS]

My take on this is that the use of a wide angle lens results in a more dramatic image, which is most often what a photojournalist is going for. It is excitingly different than how we see the world with our eyes, so it is fresh. The exaggerated wide angle perspective is a form of hyper-realism compared to how we see with our own eyes. IMO

 

[VinceC]

>>I'm not entirely convinced that HCB picked this particular focal consciously<<

In the 1930s, the 50mm lens was absolutely standard for 35mm, and the Leica and Contax camera were built around this focal length. Eisenstadt preferred the 35mm lens, those were two or three stops slower than a fast 50 ... a big sacrifice in the available-light era.

 

[3js]

Be fast or miss it

Be fast or miss it

I think it´s the fastness of using wa-lenses that makes it so popular. In those areas that Magnum photogs work, there usually isn´t time to focus, so a wide DOf of a wa-lens is really appreciated. That works in low lights too. And you can get a lot closer to the subject. Btw, a lot of HCB:s work was done with something else than the 50, even a 28 was used... Seasoned photogs can easily tell the difference, and actually he never claimed he used only the 50.

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

They can become a crutch because then the biggest skill involved is simply getting close enough to the action..

Undoubtedly one of the reasons why wides got so popular for the modern PJs.
Nothing wrong with it IMO, these guys make their living by results and so it is clear they prefer a round of shot to a bullet.
For similar reasons the 6X6 TLRs were the preferred tool for PJs in Europe partly until the early 70s, you could cut off 70% and you got still a serviceable neg. Not to speak of the Graflex in US.

No reason tho for amateurs to do the same and to try to make wides to be their standard lenses too . They are not under any economical pressure but free enough to deal with esthetic targets only.

Maybe it is because the wide lens seems to be easy to use, the truth is it isn''t easy at all. Ernst Haas once said " The best wide angle lens ? Ten steps back !"
I admit this is VERY old school, and tho not completely true still worth a thought anyway.😉

Fitzi