salvatore.mele 1 Posted October 19, 2004 A thousand kilometers from the North Pole, glaciers which calve off inthe sea, far away mountains, little to no traces of the human race...this the show in front of our eyes during a mountain trip in remoteSvalbard. And this what I tried to convey with a cropped 20mm shot. Isthis wide angle too wide?Thisother shot, which I consider one of the best I ever took, wasinstead taked with a 50mm. If you care making a comparison, it will bemuch appreciated. Link to comment
AaronFalkenberg 0 Posted October 19, 2004 Again, this is a really good shot, but I prefer the 50mm version. The sweeping "S" curves are more pronounced in the 50mm shot, leading the eye from the left, past the subject, deep into the photograph. The lines are not as effective here, and the immediacy to the subject is less. Link to comment
forrest_andrew 0 Posted October 20, 2004 first of all great shot! fantastic job of capturing the awe inspiring beauty of wilderness. now 20mm or 50mm?? that's a toughy. i think they both work. the person attracts more attention in the 50mm version. but there's a more expansive view in the 20mm. in the 20mm i feel that i'm being shown the scene whereas in the 50mm i'm almost drawn into the scene. i guess that makes it the 50mm. only time will tell which one you keep going back to. Link to comment
pennington 0 Posted October 20, 2004 Both images are wonderful. I think the figure belongs dead center in both of them. The 50mm version does draw the viewer in but this version gives such a feeling of solitude to the lonely hiker that I prefer the wider view. And no it's not too wide. Link to comment
sef1664877429 0 Posted October 20, 2004 Pretty much what everyone else has said, the other version is about the person, this is about the landscape, but ironicly the curves of the landscape work better in the other version This version has its merits, though. Just a matter of taste which you'd prefer, I guess. Link to comment
romeyer.jp 0 Posted October 20, 2004 Personally, I do really prefer the 20mm shot, and for me it absolutely not too wide...it conveys exactly what you say, the immensity of this space without human trace but the only person in the center, that I find more significant here... Just one detail: for my personal taste, I would prefer a "softener" frame than this large black that is, in a way - for me - offseting a bit of the wide view feeling. great shot! Link to comment
cojacal 0 Posted May 16, 2005 Salvatore, these are both superb shots. The lighting and colour contrast so dramatic. I was looking at this for a few minutes and thinking it reminded me so much of sitting on a mountain top on Prins Karls Forland, Svalbard some fifteen years ago ... before reading your description. Fantastic light at 78 north. I think I prefer the 20mm shot to the 50mm, but they are both superb. Thanks Link to comment
salvatore.mele 1 Posted May 16, 2005 Colin, which mountain on Prinz Karl Forlandet? One is here and the view you get is here... Link to comment
cojacal 0 Posted May 20, 2005 Salvatore, I spent a month summer of 1990 on a zoology expedition on the south of the island, around Forlandsletta, and I was recalling days up on Salfjellet. The furtherst north I got was the Archibald Glacier. There is something about this landscape, and your photographs have captured it beautifully - they bring back great memories! I will perhaps scan some of my 35mm slides and post them. Cheers. Colin. Link to comment
Recommended Comments
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