-raoul- Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 <p>I might have been a little agressive, sorry.</p>But the "photo world" is so much about "what camera did you use" that it pisses me off that a lot of photogs systematically make fun of any discussion that is actually about photography. I would think because they are not so sure about their pics, but that's just my guess...<br> Of course there are no real rules but talking about possible ones could be a way of thinking about photography. <p>In the end it's my fault, I should stop looking at all those photo forums.</p> So, who's starting the next W/NW guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclectic image Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 So there goes my gadget vest out of the window. Guess all I can do now is carry my 4.5 foot zoom lens in a dustbin liner...oh well. I am however interested to see how many people will actually try t buy a negative length lens, just so they can shoot a shot up their own ass. Controversial...I hope so. Funniest thing I have read in ages...... Puts me in mind of a thread in Amateur Photographer in the UK about landscape photographers taking shots of lone trees ! We have all done it but it is definitely time to stop. Thanks for the laugh Mark<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclectic image Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 oops...sorry about the size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Checking if you have the desired ISO is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmdc Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Glad that some people liked them. (I'm the one who wrote the original post that started so much discussion over there..) It was all meant in fun, tongue in cheek, but at the same time, trying to be informative and helpful. It was sort of a poke at all of the crap that gets dumped in those groups, some very general "why this doesn't work" pointers for people who are being lazy, the way you might congenially trash people's work over a few beers. (As well as trashing my own, which were the basis for nearly all of the "Unbreakable Rules.") All through it, I try to tell people "Break any or all of these rules, but break them well." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkag Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Raoul, You're pics are much more interesting than any list of rules could be, joke or not :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpolaski Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 The 135mm lens is one of the most underrated street lenses in history. The DSLR equivilent is an 85mm lens at the 1:1.5 ratio. If the photo isn't good enough, back up. (Yes, I use SLRs on the street. I've also used a 2x3 Crown Graphic. It's all in the photographer, not the equipment. I make lousy pictures most of the time, and can only pinpoint the problem as being between the camera and the soles of my shoes.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 <I>"The 135mm lens is one of the most underrated street lenses in history."</I> <P> Can you point us to a body of work that supports this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkag Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 "Can you point us to a body of work that supports this?" Why? It either works for ya or it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I guess that was sort of my point, except that I've never seen it really work. But I am willing to look...any takers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 135 wouldn't work for me either. puts me out of the scene and into the "safe zone" that i'd rather not be in. i like working in the 24-35 area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 >>>>If the photo isn't good enough, back up.<<<< I guess you didn't like Robert Capa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sknowles Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 <p>A 135mm lens is a personal choice, and I've found it useful for some events like parades and the pre-parade staging area. During the parade it's hard to get close, unless your a photojournalist with a pass to walk into the street and parade, so a 135mm helps gets you closer. In the pre-parade staging area it's useful to avoid getting close as people work and it's let's you get impromptu shots. An 85mm and 135mm lenses work to get closeups you can't otherwise get. Examples are of the recent <a href="http://www.wsrphoto.com/gallerypr1.html">Seattle Pride</a> parade. And I noticed many photojournalist use 80-200mm zooms judging by the size of the lens. <p>I apologize for the color cast on some shots, some of the Provia slides scanned with a blue cast and it was hard trying to correct for that and get the original color in the slide back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 PJs will always go for good wideshots first and if there's nothing else, they'll pull out the tele zoom to create *workable* shots. This was told to me by a PJ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkag Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 SP - how bout DiCorcia's Heads? I don't know if it's 135 or not but it's on the long end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 would you call "DiCorcia's Heads" street? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john sypal Posted July 20, 2006 Author Share Posted July 20, 2006 The limiting factor in use of a longer lens is that all most folks can seem to use it for is to "get closer" to what they want to put in the middle of the frame. In Winogrand's book "1964", (page 133) he photographed a parade in Dallas with a long lens, and it still looks like a Winogrand Photograph. What he used here was rather than the focal length, he applied how long lenses visually flatten the entire picture, creating new relationships with what is in front and in the back. The subject of the photograph IS the photograph, as he had said and no matter what lens is used that is what matters. Araki used some long lenses on the street in the late 1960s as well and made some great pictures. Check out the first part of "Araki by Araki" to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkag Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Eric, it's not like you easily classify that work under any genre. But why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkag Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Or check William Klein's New York. The opening shot of that book as well as a few others in it are done with a long tele. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 "Eric, it's not like you easily classify that work under any genre." you're right. i'm just a bit hungry. think i'll make a sandwich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_rhodes_ii Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 The comment above about the use of a telephoto to compres an image hits the nail right on the head. A telephoto does get you closer, but it can also be used to flatten out and image or to throw a backgroud out of focus so that the subject stands out in an image. I am a PJ major (currently interning at a daily) and I have to say that I pull out my 200mm inside sometimes when I have the room so that I can focus on one person in a line, for example, and have them stand out. I know it is painfully true that too many of us DO go for the ultra wide-in-the-face shot first, but being a PJ is a little harder than what was described above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanggan Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Interesting article, John. I do agree most; especially about using the wide-normal lenses, instead of teles. Regards! Hanggan-Indonesia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now