Two views
May 20, 2019 14:04:58 #
ebrunner wrote:
I've been watching a youtube channel created by ph... (show quote)
I've been pondering this question about using a longer lens for landscape photography. After a while I came to a cop out conclusion, to wit, the correct lens is the one that will most accurately capture the photographer’s vision.
We cannot know which lens will do that unless we have had experience with an assortment of lenses or are working with a zoom. Right there is something to work on for future shoots. Instead of looking at a scene and making a knee jerk reaction to grab the widest angle in your kit, take the zoom and explore the different looks you could be working with. And ( this is a drum I will keep beating) think about how that view could look as a stitched composite.
May 20, 2019 14:24:49 #
You say you can see into the distance better with #2, and while that is true I would say that #1 still has more detail - it's just not in the area that you mentioned. My guess is that the view up the stream is what you were most interested in capturing and you wanted to use the eye-guiding effect of the stream itself and its banks. While that effect is lost in #1, the natural framing and the cloud detail more than make up for it IMO.
May 21, 2019 05:37:20 #
Cwilson341 wrote:
I've gone back and forth on these several times no... (show quote)
You expressed the idea very nicely that the wider shot is more along the lines of what you look for in a landscape photo, while the tighter shot is more along the lines of a detail analysis of the broader view. Thank you for pointing this out. I'm tending to agree with you. Thanks.
erich
May 21, 2019 05:38:32 #
jaymatt wrote:
I’m torn--I like the inclusion of the cloud, but I also appreciate the depth showing the creek in the longer lens version. So, tossup for me.
Perhaps your impression as well sees the tighter shot more of a detail photo of the broader picture. Thanks you.
erich
May 21, 2019 05:42:21 #
Rich1939 wrote:
Erich, I wonder if the photographer you were watch... (show quote)
You make a really good point that speaks to using longer lenses, if you are creating a pano. Since the magnification of the longer lens brings us in closer to the scene; but stitching together several shots also gives us a broad view of the landscape. I think I'm going to work more on panos and use longer lenses when doing so for the reason you illustrate. That is also the thinking of Thomas Heaton, whose videos I've been watching. Thanks.
erich
May 21, 2019 05:45:10 #
kenievans wrote:
Erich think these are an example of your discussion but please correct me if I am wrong. I took these a couple of weeks ago in New Mexico. The first was shot at 18mm and the second at 44mm both within a few seconds of each other. At this angle I don't think it benefited from the longer lens. I think it loses the sense of scale. In your two pictures I prefer the longer lens. Maybe the subject and scale should be considered as well.
A really good example of what I'm considering, Kenie. I like the closer shot of your two. I still get a sense of scale from the distant mountains; but there is much more detail the see in the closer shot. I believe that scale is important; and will have a great impact on the lenses we choose. Great example. Thanks.
erich
May 21, 2019 05:47:30 #
artBob wrote:
In my experience, we humans (maybe dogs, monkeys, and other creatures too) respond to the view somewhat as if we were in the position. In these examples, the wide lens literally "distances," seems more "contemplative." With the tele, my feet could be in the water, we are more involved. This involvement could be physical, i.e., just "closer," as in your shot, or esthetic, forcing us to focus on a detail we might see as intensively in normal vision.
These are both good examples of the point I was trying to illuminate. Great examples. Thanks.
Erich
May 21, 2019 09:25:25 #
ebrunner wrote:
You make a really good point that speaks to using longer lenses, if you are creating a pano. Since the magnification of the longer lens brings us in closer to the scene; but stitching together several shots also gives us a broad view of the landscape. I think I'm going to work more on panos and use longer lenses when doing so for the reason you illustrate. That is also the thinking of Thomas Heaton, whose videos I've been watching. Thanks.
erich
erich
Please don't restrict your thinking to panos. Gene51 has posted a fantastic image of a sunrise near a bridge of the Hudson River. That image is a composite of 15 images. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-500160-1.html
The Trout Lake picture we just played with here is a 2 image composite. If I had used a wide angle, the foreground tree would appear larger in comparison to the mountains and they conversely, smaller.
May 21, 2019 11:33:27 #
Rich1939 wrote:
I've been pondering this question about using a lo... (show quote)
Good point, focusing on "What is YOUR point in making the photograph?"
May 21, 2019 11:35:36 #
Rich1939 wrote:
Please don't restrict your thinking to panos. Gene51 has posted a fantastic image of a sunrise near a bridge of the Hudson River. That image is a composite of 15 images. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-500160-1.html
The Trout Lake picture we just played with here is a 2 image composite. If I had used a wide angle, the foreground tree would appear larger in comparison to the mountains and they conversely, smaller.
The Trout Lake picture we just played with here is a 2 image composite. If I had used a wide angle, the foreground tree would appear larger in comparison to the mountains and they conversely, smaller.
For those who might have been misled in a previous thread whether lens length distorts perspective, it is good to have another experience to confirm that it indeed does.
May 22, 2019 12:17:43 #
R.G. wrote:
You say you can see into the distance better with #2, and while that is true I would say that #1 still has more detail - it's just not in the area that you mentioned. My guess is that the view up the stream is what you were most interested in capturing and you wanted to use the eye-guiding effect of the stream itself and its banks. While that effect is lost in #1, the natural framing and the cloud detail more than make up for it IMO.
I agree that the framing and the cloud are very important. That is probably why I find both photos appealing. Thanks for the comment.
Erich
May 22, 2019 12:21:51 #
Rich1939 wrote:
I've been pondering this question about using a lo... (show quote)
I definitely need to work much more on stitching views together to form a whole. That is a very attractive way of having your cake and eating it too. The lens I've been using most often lately is the 24-120. That give me a pretty wide range and, while not as wide as a twenty (one of my favorite lenses), it does give you very wide to moderately high magnification (120mm). I'll keep your suggestions in mind the next time I'm out shooting.
Erich
May 22, 2019 12:26:22 #
Rich1939 wrote:
Please don't restrict your thinking to panos. Gene51 has posted a fantastic image of a sunrise near a bridge of the Hudson River. That image is a composite of 15 images. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-500160-1.html
The Trout Lake picture we just played with here is a 2 image composite. If I had used a wide angle, the foreground tree would appear larger in comparison to the mountains and they conversely, smaller.
The Trout Lake picture we just played with here is a 2 image composite. If I had used a wide angle, the foreground tree would appear larger in comparison to the mountains and they conversely, smaller.
I use LR. I was under the impression that it would only work on a single row. I'll have to read up more on how Gene achieved 3 rows and then made it go 5 across. Do you just highlight all the views and press merge? Not sure how that is done.
Erich
May 22, 2019 13:06:27 #
ebrunner wrote:
I use LR. I was under the impression that it would only work on a single row. I'll have to read up more on how Gene achieved 3 rows and then made it go 5 across. Do you just highlight all the views and press merge? Not sure how that is done.
Erich
Erich
I use either Photoshop or Microsoft's 'ICE". With Photoshop you have to ways to access the merge program, 1st open the images you want to merge in bridge and from there select them all and open them in ACR. In ACR you can select all/merge.
With Microsoft's ICE you would go to your file, select all the images you want to merge, right click/open in "Image Composite Editor".
I recommend having both options as sometimes one will work well when the other won't. (I've haven't been able to figure out any rhyme or reason why)
May 22, 2019 13:49:38 #
ebrunner wrote:
I've been watching a youtube channel created by ph... (show quote)
Personally, I’d give the same scene a go with a zoom to 67mm ! The result of which I’d be glad to post with your permission.
Dave
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.