Focal length and way/style of shooting

[maris_rusis]

Focal length choices? Wide, medium, long = spaces, places, faces. Or so the old mantra goes.

[Ed_Ingold]

Ed, looks somewhat out of focus on my monitor. But then it is a little JPEG file.

The subject is the stone lantern, which is in focus. The background is deliberately out of focus, including the young Japanese woman crossing the bridge (we spoke later).

[Dieter Schaefer]

When you have a hammer, you look for the right-sized nails.

When all you've got is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.

[samstevens]

The subject is the stone lantern, which is in focus. The background is deliberately out of focus, including the young Japanese woman crossing the bridge (we spoke later).

While a photographer's interpretation certainly carries weight, my own view of the photo tells me that the lantern isn't the subject, even though it's in focus. To me the subject is the out-of-focus woman, path, and trees, where the indistinct story of the photo lies. Subjects aren't always the things in focus.

[Allen Herbert]

The subject is the stone lantern, which is in focus Ed.

 

Okay, if you say so. Looks a bit soft to me. Could offer you a sharper version by putting it in PS but really don't want to offend.

 

Anyway, lets not be carried away about, sharpness, or perceived sharpness.

 

Dieter, only the blind can see.

[sjmurray]

Lenses are like paint brushes for the painter. When using any lens I embrace the dynamics and qualities of that lens for that moment. For different situations I use the lens that most helps me to achieve what I am after.

[ruslan]

If I could misuse Ed's analogy, then I would suggest first choosing your 'nails', and then selecting your best hammers.

"Horses for courses".

I have seen very good portraits taken with 35/1.4 (some fashion photog. from Poland) and 45/1.8 lenses (Maxim Guselnikov on Facebook). So my question was - if you use 45 mm lens and then switch to 135 or 200 mm - how would it change your workflow/style?

Edited July 7, 2019 by ruslan

[ruslan]

I fully agree with @Ed_Ingold's comments, especially his second. It's fine to choose a focal length (hammer) and look for subjects (nails) that suit the lens. FWIW, I think it's much more important to choose a lens that best matches a subject/scene.

 

I'm an amateur but for 'events ' (social, business, concerts) I like to take shots with different focal lengths. From overview (wide angle) shots to close-ups (70-200mm). I have two main zoom lenses (often on two different cameras) that cover this range: 24-70mm and 70-200mm. Depending on the shots I want to take and how close I can get for 'close-ups', I choose the appropriate lens.

 

I've recently (voluntarily) been taking photos that support articles in a local newspaper. These articles are based on interviews. I pretty much know beforehand that either:

a) the context (indoor/outdoor) is important, so I don;t need close-ups, and/or

b) I'm going to be so close to the person/people being interviewed that I don't need a tele-lens

 

So my 24-70mm 'mid range' lens is just fine for this kind of work. It's also my 'walkabout' lens when I don't want to carry any others, Very occasionally, I use a 50mm 1.8 lens or - even less occasionally - a macro lens.

 

Coming back to Ed's point, the focal length of the lens you choose depends on the your photographic intentions, subject/scene, distance, style, etc.

 

If I could misuse Ed's analogy, then I would suggest first choosing your 'nails', and then selecting your best hammers.

 

 

Mike

The shooting styles of zoom shooter and die-hard prime shooter always differ. I am the latter. The last time I used to hold a zoom in my hands was 1997. If I could splurge on huge Canon RF 28-70/2 L newest zoom I would maybe try. :) Who knows.

[ruslan]

I use "subject" in a generic sense. The subject of a photo could be a person, a large rock, or a stone lantern. On this occasion, I was "seeing" what I could find, suitable for new 21 mm lens.

I like the work, good textures, sharpness, slightly blurred subject, overall Zeiss clarity and the location. Сompetently done with 21mm. It is very sad that a competently made work needs an additional explanation.

Edited July 7, 2019 by ruslan

[mikemorrell]

Each range of focal lengths has its own 'look' and is more suitable in some situations (and with some photographic intentions) than in others.

 

The best example I can think of is taking photos (once a year) at a cross-country running event.

 

For many 'running' shots, a 70-200 mm range works best and is the easiest to use. I can shoot groups/runners at 200mm while they're physically still some distance away. As they get closer to me, I can reduce the focal length to take similar shots with the same 'framing' and/or take some close-ups. With a long focal length and wide aperture, runners/groups further away are blurred so that my current 'subject(s)' stand out from them.

 

For variation, I take some wider-angle shots too (24-50mm). The main difference at wider angles is that there's less time between when a groups/runner is large enough 'in the frame' and when they're too close (running past me). There's less 'background blurring' so my location and framing needs different to separate the current 'subjects' from those following. Another difference is that changes of 'perspective' have more impact on wide-angle photos shot at close range. Those shot from a low perspective (a ditch) look very different to those shot from a high perspective (a stepladder). There's also more distortion in wide-angle photos taken at 45 degrees. Shot close-up, a runner's back leg/foot look longer than his/her front leg. So wide-angle shots taken from a low perspective at 45 degrees often look 'more dramatic' than those taken at 100-200mm.

 

Mike

 

 

 

"Horses for courses".

I have seen very good portraits taken with 35/1.4 (some fashion photog. from Poland) and 45/1.8 lenses (Maxim Guselnikov on Facebook). So my question was - if you use 45 mm lens and then switch to 135 or 200 mm - how would it change your workflow/style?

[Uhooru]

"Horses for courses".

I have seen very good portraits taken with 35/1.4 (some fashion photog. from Poland) and 45/1.8 lenses (Maxim Guselnikov on Facebook). So my question was - if you use 45 mm lens and then switch to 135 or 200 mm - how would it change your workflow/style?

For one, you will probably be standing further away.

[steve_gallimore1]

I think the distance to the subject, as a result of the lens choice, will influence both the look of the photo and the way in which the photo is taken.

 

Short lenses bring the photographer physically closer to the subject, resulting in more interaction, intimacy. Yet the resulting photos, unless they were very close indeed, often feel more distant, with the subject becoming lost in the surroundings.

 

Longer lenses generate a more detached, distant behaviour, allowing the photographer seperation from the subject and yet the results are the opposite, feeling more intimate, with the subject compressed and isolated from the surroundings.

 

I say subject because we don't have to be talking about portraits, or even people here.

 

I find it intetesting how the photograph and the reality required to create the photograph, can often be so very opposite.

[ruslan]

say subject because we don't have to be talking about portraits, or even people here.

I take shots of people in 90% of my works. So I mean human beings as objects. But I like and support your understanding. I will show you the link in a private letter.

 

Longer lenses generate a more detached, distant behaviour, allowing the photographer seperation from the subject and yet the results are the opposite, feeling more intimate, with the subject compressed and isolated from the surroundings.

Examining portraits and fashion works througout the years I notice the poses even differ.