Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
For Your Consideration
Back Up..Or Move Closer (Hope you'll add your own images)
Page <prev 2 of 2
Aug 2, 2015 11:28:38   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
ediesaul wrote:
Linda:
I like your big sky photo better. The cropped version is too neatly divided into thirds to make me feel comfortable.


:)

Reply
Aug 2, 2015 11:34:16   #
minniev Loc: MIssissippi
 
Dr.db wrote:
I'd have to agree with jenny that both pics tell a very different story, and further, I think that both together tell a more complete story.

If I'm using a longish zoom lens, I often find myself shooting "zoom series" shots, to reveal what may be going on in a little speck of the wider image. Here's a series I did at Smith Rock (Oregon), a popular rock climbing site. I wanted to somehow show those little tiny climbers rallying waay down there below this great big rock, and a series seemed to work better than any single shot. (I wasn't about to zoom with my feet on this one, since it would have entailed a steep 2-hour hike on a 105-degree day!)
I'd have to agree with jenny that both pics tell a... (show quote)


Thanks for sharing. You are right that some images seem to work better in series or sets. They CAN stand alone but they mean more when seen in a group. Maybe that's what makes Nat Geo so interesting, they usually provide both in their articles.

Reply
Aug 2, 2015 11:37:03   #
minniev Loc: MIssissippi
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
This is just a crop, not a change of perspective or focal length. But I think it speaks to the dilemma of how much to include in the frame.

People often suggest that I crop out some of my big skies :) For landscapes taken around Yakima, it's so natural to include them because we have long, unobstructed views in many directions - and I love that.

For this image, shot in the Cascades at elevation 5,400', I included a lot of the sky because I was feeling like I was up in the clouds.
This is just a crop, not a change of perspective o... (show quote)


I like the cropped version better, which is unusual for me. I wonder how an image of the paintbrush with just the cloud or landscape behind it would be, just enough to imagine what it is. I am partial to paintbrush thought, we don't have it here and I always chase it down when I'm where it grows. The other image set I thought about posting is so similar to this, it is kind of weird..

Reply
 
 
Aug 2, 2015 11:40:36   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
minniev wrote:
...The other image set I thought about posting is so similar to this, it is kind of weird..


:thumbup: :)

Reply
Aug 2, 2015 12:45:33   #
Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)
 
minniev wrote:
When shooting nature, do you find yourself backing up to get "everything in" or moving closer to get a more intimate portrait? I keep waffling. These are at Sawback Burn, site of an old forest fire area in Banff NP. I wanted to show the contrast between the destruction and the new growth which is dependent on it. Which do you think tells the story better?

If you feel so moved, please add your own shots, two of the same scene, one close in and one from more distance showing the "big picture" of the same scene. I'd love to learn more what other people think about this shooting dilemma.
When shooting nature, do you find yourself backing... (show quote)


I have to admit that I see a major difference between "back off" and "get closer" with a normal lens and, on the other hand "zoom out" or "zoom in" (respectively) with a zoom lens. The essentials of the concepts of perspective with those two alternate approaches are very different.

The truth of this is best learned by limiting one's self to using only a "normal" focal length lens (for your sensor or film format) for whatever period of time it takes to get over how "inconvenient" it feels.

It has become increasingly difficult over the past 40 years to get students to actually do this!

They ask..."show us pictures showing the difference".

The lesson is not learned if you don't do it yourself!

Dave

Reply
Aug 2, 2015 16:04:03   #
Dr.db Loc: Central Point, OR
 
Uuglypher wrote:
I have to admit that I see a major difference between "back off" and "get closer" with a normal lens and, on the other hand "zoom out" or "zoom in" (respectively) with a zoom lens. The essentials of the concepts of perspective with those two alternate approaches are very different.
...

So right! When & if I have the option, I will almost always choose the "zoom with your feet" approach, PLUS using a zoom lens to get that usually very different perspective if possible. In fact, I almost always grab the prime lens first and run all over the place as possible, then use a longer lens to fill in a few shots that I just couldn't "reach" physically - which happens a lot with landscapes... ;)

Reply
Aug 2, 2015 19:35:24   #
minniev Loc: MIssissippi
 
Uuglypher wrote:
I have to admit that I see a major difference between "back off" and "get closer" with a normal lens and, on the other hand "zoom out" or "zoom in" (respectively) with a zoom lens. The essentials of the concepts of perspective with those two alternate approaches are very different.

The truth of this is best learned by limiting one's self to using only a "normal" focal length lens (for your sensor or film format) for whatever period of time it takes to get over how "inconvenient" it feels.

It has become increasingly difficult over the past 40 years to get students to actually do this!

They ask..."show us pictures showing the difference".

The lesson is not learned if you don't do it yourself!

Dave
I have to admit that I see a major difference betw... (show quote)


I agree for the most part, and love shooting with my little primes. The ancient 50-200 lens I shot the closer of the Sawback images with, though, is a special favorite of mine. Sometimes I use it differently than I use any other zoom lens, it has a certain "personality". I think lots of us probably have a lens we're kinda attached to like that. I wouldn't take it on a hike though, it's a big old thing and I'd rather have a couple of my little 2-ounce primes instead.

Reply
 
 
Aug 2, 2015 19:53:28   #
Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)
 
minniev wrote:
I agree for the most part, and love shooting with my little primes. The ancient 50-200 lens I shot the closer of the Sawback images with, though, is a special favorite of mine. Sometimes I use it differently than I use any other zoom lens, it has a certain "personality". I think lots of us probably have a lens we're kinda attached to like that. I wouldn't take it on a hike though, it's a big old thing and I'd rather have a couple of my little 2-ounce primes instead.


Well....O.K.....Although I always have my stable of primes with me, there ARE times that the convenience of a fantastic walk-around zoom trumps a prime!
(there! I said it...and I'm soooo ashamed....)

Dave

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
For Your Consideration
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.