21mm vs. 50mm Perspective: Pick One
Apr 19, 2018 07:36:46 #
RWR wrote:
They look different due to the difference in position.
Yes. The position matters a great deal, on reflection--maybe as much as the compression in the photo. In the 21mm shot, the church appears very distant and small.
Apr 19, 2018 07:37:58 #
VTMatwood wrote:
I prefer the second as there is no contention for the main focal point of the image, while in the first my eye is drawn to both the tree and the statue, "confusing" me as to the main subject.
Yes. I see now that the tree in the middle is a large problem. Thank you.
Apr 19, 2018 07:39:25 #
RGreenway wrote:
To me, I preferred the second just looking at the posting, but looking at the downloads caused me to prefer the first by a large margin. The second just seems to be incomplete.
Maybe it is framed too tightly. Perhaps more space around the statute would have been better. Thank you.
Apr 19, 2018 07:42:33 #
CO wrote:
I think in photo #2, the buildings along the stree... (show quote)
Yes. Photo #2 with a 21mm lens might have been much better. The dome roof building btw is the Alabama Supreme Court--former home of Senate candidate Roy Moore. Maybe even a 28mm or 35mm would work better. The church would not appear so small. Thank you for your comments.
Apr 19, 2018 07:45:27 #
billnikon wrote:
There are so many perspectives to chose from. If it was me I would work from the front of the statue on a low angle and include his face and the church. That said I like the 50 better cause is shows the church better.
Maybe so. The frustrating thing is that I spent a lot of time walking around and trying to frame the shot. It is a small area and in hindsight much of the comments seem obvious--but not so much when I was standing there. It took me awhile to even see that the 50mm shot was possible. Thank you very much.
Apr 19, 2018 07:46:59 #
waegwan wrote:
#2 is best. There is too much going on in #1. #2 is much more obvious what is going on; in #2 the church is right there, very obvious.
I think I am trending in that direction, but agree with the idea that a wider angle from position #2 may well have been better.
Apr 19, 2018 07:48:14 #
Apr 19, 2018 07:53:12 #
leftj
Loc: Texas
whwiden wrote:
The subject is a statute of Jefferson Davis lookin... (show quote)
Neither one grabs me.
Apr 19, 2018 07:54:20 #
Daisy Dog wrote:
Defiantly Picture 2 (50mm). It 'features' the statue rather then just including it in the composition. Picture 2 tells more of a story; the perspective draws your eye to the head of the statue and you realize he's looking over the town . . . as least as much as anyone made of stone can to.
Interesting. For me, both seem to capture the "looking" aspect. But I agree very much with the "features" concept. The second photo seems to feature the statute--though it is so tight that I do find merit in the comment that the statute can act as more of a frame.
Food for thought.
I am coming to the notion that neither composition really works very well--for different reasons.
Another larger problem with the photo seems to be that you need some sort of history or backstory for the photo to fully tell its story--that is to say, the photo does not really stand on its own--even if you notice that the statute is of Jefferson Davis, you do not know the identity of the church. Maybe it works for a travel memory photo, but not really more.
Apr 19, 2018 07:55:12 #
leftj wrote:
Neither one grabs me.
Yes. See my prior comment. Though #2 is trending--both photos have issues.
Apr 19, 2018 08:13:36 #
CaptainC wrote:
Just to be clear. A different lens NEVER changes perspective. Going from wide to normal to telephoto only changes the field of view. To change perspective, the camera-to-subject distance must change.
Actually I think I would have liked a 50mm shot where you stepped back to get the statue in the relatively same framing as the 21mm. The resulting compression of the background buildings would have been, I think, more dynamic. But, between the two shots as presented, the 21mm has more of a story with the statue looking out over the town. The 50mm shot says nothing to me.
Apr 19, 2018 08:40:39 #
Without the background story my first thought is why a pic of the back of a statue? It’s not obvious he is looking over the Church, the building next to it washes the Church right out of the composition. That being said, I prefer the 2nd photo.
Apr 19, 2018 08:41:32 #
angle is angle, but compression is compression, that is why a 300 mm lens on an 8x10 camera makes a more interesting "normal" view than a 35mm lens on an APS-C does. ( #2 is much better)
Apr 19, 2018 08:44:43 #
whwiden wrote:
The subject is a statute of Jefferson Davis lookin... (show quote)
Thanks for posting this comparison and for explaining the subjects’ relationship. I’m a novice so seeing the difference in the two lenses is valuable to me.
I think the second shot is much more powerful. It’s composition is stronger. It is also less busy and cluttered.
I had to search for the relevant MLK church in the first one: it is mostly just a random shot to get the broad picture but doesn’t have a strong subject or story.
Apr 19, 2018 08:45:02 #
Unfortunately I’d pick neither because I’d shoot the front of the statue!
However if you wanted to show the perspective of the statue overlooking the scenery then I’d pick #1 but you should have come closer to the statue and use it to anchor the frame as one should with a wide angle.
However if you wanted to show the perspective of the statue overlooking the scenery then I’d pick #1 but you should have come closer to the statue and use it to anchor the frame as one should with a wide angle.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.