300mm Telephoto Lens and Boudoire Photography, am I missing something? Locked

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
En Trance
Regular MemberPosts: 357
300mm Telephoto Lens and Boudoire Photography, am I missing something?
Mar 26, 2013

I purchased a good wide angle lense to enable full body shots in very close quarters and to maximize my low light capability by being as close to the model as possible. I can actually shoot a framed doorway from 4 ft away and I love it.

More and more, I see these gigantic zoom lenses pointed at a model that is two steps away from the photographer. I thought that it was just amatures showing off the new lens but even seasoned pros are doing it. What gives?

steephill
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,952
Why do you think it is a 300mm?
In reply to En Trance, Mar 26, 2013

Wide aperture, wide angle zooms are rather large too. In addition very few 300mm lenses will focus down that far.

Many would question the use of a wide angle used close up for portraiture citing perspective issues. Same argument can be used against tele lenses. Whatever the lens chosen it is an aesthetic choice by the photographer so is really nobody else's business.

-- hide signature --

Steve
www.pbase.com/steephill

Doug J
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,640
Re: 300mm Telephoto Lens and Boudoire Photography, am I missing something?
In reply to En Trance, Mar 26, 2013

Wide angle isn't 300mm.

scorrpio
Senior MemberPosts: 2,421
Re: 300mm Telephoto Lens and Boudoire Photography, am I missing something?
In reply to En Trance, Mar 26, 2013

'300mm' is not 'gigantic zoom'.   (it's a moderately gigantic prime)  You might wish to determine precisely the model of the lens being used before going any further.

If the lens in question is an EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM,  it's a full-frame equivalent of the 18-200, and is pretty huge.

scorrpio
Senior MemberPosts: 2,421
Re: 300mm Telephoto Lens and Boudoire Photography, am I missing something?
In reply to Doug J, Mar 26, 2013

Doug J wrote:

Wide angle isn't 300mm.

You need to read OP more carefully...

Doug J
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,640
Re: 300mm Telephoto Lens and Boudoire Photography, am I missing something?
In reply to scorrpio, Mar 26, 2013

scorrpio wrote:

Doug J wrote:

Wide angle isn't 300mm.

You need to read OP more carefully...

I did, 300mm is still not WA. Am I missing something?

Micketto
Senior MemberPosts: 1,900
Re: 300mm Telephoto Lens and Boudoire Photography, am I missing something?
In reply to En Trance, Mar 26, 2013

En Trance wrote:

I purchased a good wide angle lense to enable full body shots in very close quarters and to maximize my low light capability by being as close to the model as possible. I can actually shoot a framed doorway from 4 ft away and I love it.

More and more, I see these gigantic zoom lenses pointed at a model that is two steps away from the photographer. I thought that it was just amatures showing off the new lens but even seasoned pros are doing it. What gives?

Because wide angle lenses distort the body and cause you to be right in the model's face making them less comfortable. Long primes don't.

No pro shoots serious portraits with a wide angle.

Allan Olesen
Senior MemberPosts: 2,148
Re: 300mm Telephoto Lens and Boudoire Photography, am I missing something?
In reply to Doug J, Mar 26, 2013

Doug J wrote:

scorrpio wrote:

Doug J wrote:

Wide angle isn't 300mm.

You need to read OP more carefully...

I did, 300mm is still not WA. Am I missing something?

Yes. You are missing the fact that nobody in this thread has claimed that 300 mm is wide angle.

So I will repeat scorrpio's suggestion:

You need to read OP more carefully.

Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,935Gear list
Wild hyperbole, perhaps?
In reply to En Trance, Mar 26, 2013

En Trance wrote:

I purchased a good wide angle lense

A what?

to enable full body shots in very close quarters

Portraiture with skate-board park perspective? If that's your bag, then you probably aren't open to a serious discussion on perspective. But I'll try, anyway.

and to maximize my low light capability by being as close to the model as possible.

That has nothing, at all, to do with "low light capability". In fact, being too close makes lighting (even effectively utilizing available light) more difficult. Closer distances make it more likely that your shadow will fall on the subject, and wider angles include more background that may be unevenly (and distractingly) lit.

I can actually shoot a framed doorway from 4 ft away and I love it.

Do your subjects "love it"? or your customers? Everything that lives has some concept of "personal space", a "fear circle", a "fight of flight" reaction. For an adult human, that's typically 8-10 feet for an adult that is not a member of our "family" or "tribe". We estimate that distance when looking at pictures by the relative size of facial features, if the nose is a certain amount bigger than the eyes, and the eyes a certain amount bigger than the ears, the subject is at "x" distance.

Working at 4 feet is difficult. If you don't pose your subject "flat", you get football player shoulders, bulging foreheads, blooming noses, elongated limbs, and a general "fattening" look that typically makes female subjects want to rip the photographer's spine out. Especially in the "boudoir" work you mentioned.

So, unless you're brilliant (your questions say you're not. Sorry) with your composition and can create such a rapport with your subject that their expressions simply radiate intimacy, safety, and comfort, that too close perspective that you "love" is likely to disturb whoever sees your images.

More and more, I see

Things that aren't actually happening?

these gigantic zoom lenses pointed at a model that is two steps away from the photographer.

"Gigantic zoom lenses" typically can't focus to two steps away.

I thought that it was just amatures showing off the new lens but even seasoned pros are doing it. What gives?

Mostly, wild hyperbole, it appears. "Gigantic zooms" from "two steps" away. Wide angles that are "loved".

Do you know that the "gigantic zooms" are capable of going to 300mm (my big zoom is a 70-200mm f2.8)? Do you know that, if the zoom can go to 300mm, that's what the photographer is shooting it at, and not 80-100mm?

Every 4-8 years, 300mm f2.8 lenses go through a resurgence in the fashion field. In large studio or location work they put you at distances of 20 ft or more from your subject, and that causes the opposite of the "fear circle" perspective: there's an emotional disconnect with the model. For fashion, turning a human into a mannequin can be a "good thing". Not "my thing", but some clients want it. But that's not what you're describing, because that's 8 steps, not 2, and a crew, in a spacious location, and I'm sure that, even with your penchant for hyperbole and colored views, you'd have noticed that.

So, here's "what gives".

You've misestimated the distances, and the "seasoned pros" are shooting 8-10 feet away from their subjects, like they have been for decades. with their zooms at 80-100mm, focal lengths that have also been used for decades.

Consider switching to decaf, or maybe tea.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +42 more
En Trance
Regular MemberPosts: 357
Re: 300mm Telephoto Lens and Boudoire Photography, am I missing something?
In reply to Doug J, Mar 26, 2013

Doug J wrote:

Wide angle isn't 300mm.

Never once said that wide angle is 300mm  I have a wide angle, I have a 300mm.  I am asking about a 300mm.

En Trance
Regular MemberPosts: 357
Re: Why do you think it is a 300mm?
In reply to steephill, Mar 26, 2013

steephill wrote:

Wide aperture, wide angle zooms are rather large too. In addition very few 300mm lenses will focus down that far.

Many would question the use of a wide angle used close up for portraiture citing perspective issues. Same argument can be used against tele lenses. Whatever the lens chosen it is an aesthetic choice by the photographer so is really nobody else's business.

-- hide signature --

Steve
www.pbase.com/steephill

Models just wanna look gorgeous.  Not too into perspectives on a portrait, maybe a landscape?

Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,935Gear list
"Perspective" is part of "gorgeous"
In reply to En Trance, Mar 26, 2013

En Trance wrote:

steephill wrote:

Wide aperture, wide angle zooms are rather large too. In addition very few 300mm lenses will focus down that far.

Many would question the use of a wide angle used close up for portraiture citing perspective issues. Same argument can be used against tele lenses. Whatever the lens chosen it is an aesthetic choice by the photographer so is really nobody else's business.

-- hide signature --

Steve
www.pbase.com/steephill

Models just wanna look gorgeous.

Models want to look like what the client wants them to look like. That's why they're models. But that's neither here nor there.

Not too into perspectives on a portrait, maybe a landscape?

Portraits are all about perspective: much more so than landscapes are. I explained it in my other post, but I'll elaborate.

"Perspective" is entirely about distance. If a subject's ears are 6 inches farther back from the camera than their nose, and you're shooting from 4 feet, then the nose is on a plane where things look 14% larger than the plane the ears are on. That's too close. First, it gives your subject a "big nose", and even the rankest amateur will tell you that's the total and exact opposite of how to "look gorgeous". If the subject isn't totally parallel to the camera, if their body is turned at an angle, you can have an elbow a full foot closer to the camera, 33% larger. A leg can get elephantine; a belly, bulging. How does that "look gorgeous"

Take it out to 10 feet, and now the "nose plane" only looks 5% larger than the ear plane. Limbs are in proportion, the body looks natural. You've achieved a more natural, more gorgeous. And you've got the eye/ear/nose ratios "right" so we subconsciously read their proportions and pick up the "distance cues" that says "here's a person at 10 feet, comfortably outside our fear circle".

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +42 more
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,935Gear list
Look at your own work...
In reply to En Trance, Mar 26, 2013

En Trance wrote:

steephill wrote:

Wide aperture, wide angle zooms are rather large too. In addition very few 300mm lenses will focus down that far.

Many would question the use of a wide angle used close up for portraiture citing perspective issues. Same argument can be used against tele lenses. Whatever the lens chosen it is an aesthetic choice by the photographer so is really nobody else's business.

Models just wanna look gorgeous. Not too into perspectives on a portrait, maybe a landscape?

Interesting.

Have a look at your own work. You only posted two portraits.

Kitty 982 is an above the knee portrait. Including space at the top, the picture encompasses about 4 feet. Shot with a Canon 40D, and a zoom at 53mm, it's a simple calculation to see you shot her from about 9.5 feet, which is close enough to the tried-and-true 10 feet for a "gorgeous" shot. Not the 4 feet you mentioned earlier, which would have enlarged her forehead because her head is tilted down, and really blown up that "strong" arm.

Nona B is also about a 4 foot shot, and you took it at 85mm, so you were 15 feet away. Guess the wide angle and 4 feet stuff doesn't really happen.

You're shooting a 1.6x crop camera, too. Those "seasoned pros" you mentioned are probably shooting full frame, so where you used 53 and 85mm, they used 85 and 135mm (two "classic" portrait focal lengths, in use for decades, btw). The seasoned pro would probably have been using the classic 70-200mm f2.8, which is a dang big lens.

So, there's the big lens.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +42 more
En Trance
Regular MemberPosts: 357
Re: Wild hyperbole, perhaps?
In reply to Joseph S Wisniewski, Mar 26, 2013

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

En Trance wrote:

I purchased a good wide angle lense

A what?

to enable full body shots in very close quarters

Portraiture with skate-board park perspective? If that's your bag, then you probably aren't open to a serious discussion on perspective. But I'll try, anyway.

and to maximize my low light capability by being as close to the model as possible.

That has nothing, at all, to do with "low light capability". In fact, being too close makes lighting (even effectively utilizing available light) more difficult. Closer distances make it more likely that your shadow will fall on the subject, and wider angles include more background that may be unevenly (and distractingly) lit.

I can actually shoot a framed doorway from 4 ft away and I love it.

Do your subjects "love it"? or your customers? Everything that lives has some concept of "personal space", a "fear circle", a "fight of flight" reaction. For an adult human, that's typically 8-10 feet for an adult that is not a member of our "family" or "tribe". We estimate that distance when looking at pictures by the relative size of facial features, if the nose is a certain amount bigger than the eyes, and the eyes a certain amount bigger than the ears, the subject is at "x" distance.

Working at 4 feet is difficult. If you don't pose your subject "flat", you get football player shoulders, bulging foreheads, blooming noses, elongated limbs, and a general "fattening" look that typically makes female subjects want to rip the photographer's spine out. Especially in the "boudoir" work you mentioned.

So, unless you're brilliant (your questions say you're not. Sorry) with your composition and can create such a rapport with your subject that their expressions simply radiate intimacy, safety, and comfort, that too close perspective that you "love" is likely to disturb whoever sees your images.

More and more, I see

Things that aren't actually happening?

these gigantic zoom lenses pointed at a model that is two steps away from the photographer.

"Gigantic zoom lenses" typically can't focus to two steps away.

I thought that it was just amatures showing off the new lens but even seasoned pros are doing it. What gives?

Mostly, wild hyperbole, it appears. "Gigantic zooms" from "two steps" away. Wide angles that are "loved".

Do you know that the "gigantic zooms" are capable of going to 300mm (my big zoom is a 70-200mm f2.8)? Do you know that, if the zoom can go to 300mm, that's what the photographer is shooting it at, and not 80-100mm?

Every 4-8 years, 300mm f2.8 lenses go through a resurgence in the fashion field. In large studio or location work they put you at distances of 20 ft or more from your subject, and that causes the opposite of the "fear circle" perspective: there's an emotional disconnect with the model. For fashion, turning a human into a mannequin can be a "good thing". Not "my thing", but some clients want it. But that's not what you're describing, because that's 8 steps, not 2, and a crew, in a spacious location, and I'm sure that, even with your penchant for hyperbole and colored views, you'd have noticed that.

So, here's "what gives".

You've misestimated the distances, and the "seasoned pros" are shooting 8-10 feet away from their subjects, like they have been for decades. with their zooms at 80-100mm, focal lengths that have also been used for decades.

Consider switching to decaf, or maybe tea.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

This one wins the prize as the most amazingly dumb response I have ever read.  The answer to my question would involve a technique that is being utilized at close quarters with a 300mm zoom lense.

You pretend to know what gigantic is and perspective. Let me clue you in. AT TWO STEPS AWAY, 300mm IS G I N O R M O U S !  This is what my query is about.  This is not a forum for you to spit out all of your amatuer hour theories and waste everyones time answering the question that you want to talk about.

Let me answer some of your stupidity:

1. None of your business what wide angle lense I purchased. It is not relevant to this post.

2. Perspective is one of your words, not a part of my query. Argue with your self. Actually the question does not involve my photography in any way, but that of people using 300mm zooms in close quarters, which I do not do.

3. Wide Angle Lenses enable full body shots in close quarters.  Yes, I have been in hotel rooms that are so small that it is impossible to get a 6'-3" model framed as my back is against the wall. Wide Angle is a good answer. And for your information, this is not a forum about renting big hotel rooms.

4. Low Light Capability is strickly enhanced with wide angles and close proximity to the subjects. As in 3 above, wide angles allow me to get closer to the subject and maintain a reasonble frame. Pure Physics dictates that this enhances the amount of light reflected into my lense as intensity is an inverse function of distance from the source. Increasing distance diminishes light intensity. What a damned fool perspective you have.

5. All of your crap about framing and 4 ft away, 8-10 ft.  Try this one.  The model will shoot you if you don't get her hair and shoes. Again, my word about 4 ft is about the capability of the wide angle lense and not a rule for taking shots. If you were trying to answer my question you would have known that.

6. And for your last burst of stupidity, No I do not know what the Photographer is shooting his 300mm zoom at.  And when it comes down to it, neither do you. All of your talk about 20 ft away, 6 paces is therefor utter ignorance.  Chew on this: If he is shooting his 300mm at 50mm, then maybe he is 2 paces away!  The question is WHY ARE SOME PROS USING 300mm LENSES IN CLOSE QUARTERS.  THE QUESTION WAS NOT  >>> WHY ARE SOME PROS LENSES STUCK AT 300mm? Like your brain is stuck on stupid.

7. First read the OPs question, then answer the OPs question.  If you can't do that, move along.

8. By the way, you are pollution.....

En Trance
Regular MemberPosts: 357
Re: "Perspective" is part of "gorgeous"
In reply to Joseph S Wisniewski, Mar 26, 2013

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

En Trance wrote:

steephill wrote:

Wide aperture, wide angle zooms are rather large too. In addition very few 300mm lenses will focus down that far.

Many would question the use of a wide angle used close up for portraiture citing perspective issues. Same argument can be used against tele lenses. Whatever the lens chosen it is an aesthetic choice by the photographer so is really nobody else's business.

-- hide signature --

Steve
www.pbase.com/steephill

Models just wanna look gorgeous.

Models want to look like what the client wants them to look like. That's why they're models. But that's neither here nor there.

Not too into perspectives on a portrait, maybe a landscape?

Portraits are all about perspective: much more so than landscapes are. I explained it in my other post, but I'll elaborate.

"Perspective" is entirely about distance. If a subject's ears are 6 inches farther back from the camera than their nose, and you're shooting from 4 feet, then the nose is on a plane where things look 14% larger than the plane the ears are on. That's too close. First, it gives your subject a "big nose", and even the rankest amateur will tell you that's the total and exact opposite of how to "look gorgeous". If the subject isn't totally parallel to the camera, if their body is turned at an angle, you can have an elbow a full foot closer to the camera, 33% larger. A leg can get elephantine; a belly, bulging. How does that "look gorgeous"

Take it out to 10 feet, and now the "nose plane" only looks 5% larger than the ear plane. Limbs are in proportion, the body looks natural. You've achieved a more natural, more gorgeous. And you've got the eye/ear/nose ratios "right" so we subconsciously read their proportions and pick up the "distance cues" that says "here's a person at 10 feet, comfortably outside our fear circle".

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

You may have some valuable knowledge in your head, but it is not coming out here.  First read the OPs post.  The question is not about my photography.

"DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY A PHOTOGRAPHER WOULD PREFER TO USE A 300mm LENSE IN CLOSE QUARTERS"?  Try answering that one.

I will continue to use my wide angle lense for portraits and I do not shoot from 4 ft away unless my back is against a wall.  Never said that I did.  If you think that wide angle lenses are not suitable for portraiture, and that zoom lenses are preferred, then do the world a favor and throw you camera in the trash.

Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,935Gear list
By the way, you are pollution.....
In reply to En Trance, Mar 26, 2013

En Trance wrote:

This one wins the prize as the most amazingly dumb response I have ever read.

Went right over your head, did it?

Seriously, did you expect that anyone would actually read a long, numbered list of insults? But go ahead and do it again, if you like. Only takes a second or two to select and delete.

My mentor had a saying: "Good art can't come from bad karma. You obviously carry so much negative energy within you that it will seriously affect your work. You have my pity.

And I'll repeat: try decaff, or tea. That's probably about the best advice that anyone will ever give you.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +42 more
Hugowolf
Forum ProPosts: 11,193
Re: "Perspective" is part of "gorgeous"
In reply to En Trance, Mar 26, 2013

En Trance wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

En Trance wrote:

steephill wrote:

Wide aperture, wide angle zooms are rather large too. In addition very few 300mm lenses will focus down that far.

Many would question the use of a wide angle used close up for portraiture citing perspective issues. Same argument can be used against tele lenses. Whatever the lens chosen it is an aesthetic choice by the photographer so is really nobody else's business.

-- hide signature --

Steve
www.pbase.com/steephill

Models just wanna look gorgeous.

Models want to look like what the client wants them to look like. That's why they're models. But that's neither here nor there.

Not too into perspectives on a portrait, maybe a landscape?

Portraits are all about perspective: much more so than landscapes are. I explained it in my other post, but I'll elaborate.

"Perspective" is entirely about distance. If a subject's ears are 6 inches farther back from the camera than their nose, and you're shooting from 4 feet, then the nose is on a plane where things look 14% larger than the plane the ears are on. That's too close. First, it gives your subject a "big nose", and even the rankest amateur will tell you that's the total and exact opposite of how to "look gorgeous". If the subject isn't totally parallel to the camera, if their body is turned at an angle, you can have an elbow a full foot closer to the camera, 33% larger. A leg can get elephantine; a belly, bulging. How does that "look gorgeous"

Take it out to 10 feet, and now the "nose plane" only looks 5% larger than the ear plane. Limbs are in proportion, the body looks natural. You've achieved a more natural, more gorgeous. And you've got the eye/ear/nose ratios "right" so we subconsciously read their proportions and pick up the "distance cues" that says "here's a person at 10 feet, comfortably outside our fear circle".

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

You may have some valuable knowledge in your head, but it is not coming out here. First read the OPs post...

Wow, speaking of yourself in the third person, now that is really weird.

Brian A

En Trance
Regular MemberPosts: 357
Re: Look at your own work...
In reply to Joseph S Wisniewski, Mar 26, 2013

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

En Trance wrote:

steephill wrote:

Wide aperture, wide angle zooms are rather large too. In addition very few 300mm lenses will focus down that far.

Many would question the use of a wide angle used close up for portraiture citing perspective issues. Same argument can be used against tele lenses. Whatever the lens chosen it is an aesthetic choice by the photographer so is really nobody else's business.

Models just wanna look gorgeous. Not too into perspectives on a portrait, maybe a landscape?

Interesting.

Have a look at your own work. You only posted two portraits.

Kitty 982 is an above the knee portrait. Including space at the top, the picture encompasses about 4 feet. Shot with a Canon 40D, and a zoom at 53mm, it's a simple calculation to see you shot her from about 9.5 feet, which is close enough to the tried-and-true 10 feet for a "gorgeous" shot. Not the 4 feet you mentioned earlier, which would have enlarged her forehead because her head is tilted down, and really blown up that "strong" arm.

Nona B is also about a 4 foot shot, and you took it at 85mm, so you were 15 feet away. Guess the wide angle and 4 feet stuff doesn't really happen.

You're shooting a 1.6x crop camera, too. Those "seasoned pros" you mentioned are probably shooting full frame, so where you used 53 and 85mm, they used 85 and 135mm (two "classic" portrait focal lengths, in use for decades, btw). The seasoned pro would probably have been using the classic 70-200mm f2.8, which is a dang big lens.

So, there's the big lens.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

You are good.  We can have a wonderful exchange as soon as you learn to read. I can frame a doorway at 4 ft away.  I CAN NOT HOWEVER CALL A PICTURE OF A FRAMED DOORWAY A PORTRAIT, as some of you on this post insist.

Both Kitty and Nona were shot with a 40D and a Canon 28-135mm tele.

mike703
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,834
read the replies
In reply to En Trance, Mar 26, 2013

En Trance wrote:

"DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY A PHOTOGRAPHER WOULD PREFER TO USE A 300mm LENSE IN CLOSE QUARTERS"? Try answering that one.

They don't.  That point has already been made twice (see the replies from steephill and scorrpio).

Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum ProPosts: 33,935Gear list
do the world a favor and throw you camera in the trash
In reply to En Trance, Mar 26, 2013

En Trance wrote:

You may have some valuable knowledge in your head, but it is not coming out here. First read the OPs post. The question is not about my photography.

"DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY A PHOTOGRAPHER WOULD PREFER TO USE A 300mm LENSE IN CLOSE QUARTERS"? Try answering that one.

No, I will not try answering that.

I assure you, I read at an extremely high level of comprehension. All the difficulties in this conversation stem from your inability to write clearly. Man up and accept the blame for the chaos that you cause.

Now, back to the issue at hand: what you just claimed you asked bears no resemblance to what you actually said (which wasn't even a "question", by the way, unless you count the sarcastic little "what gives?" at the end).

So, to refresh your memory, here's what you actually said

"More and more, I see these gigantic zoom lenses pointed at a model that is two steps away from the photographer. I thought that it was just amatures showing off the new lens but even seasoned pros are doing it. What gives?"

I told you "what gives", it was simply a truth that you don't want to accept: that you are not around enough "seasoned pros" to see "more and more" what they are doing, that you lack the experience to assess what lenses they're actually using, and why. If you had asked the question you actually wanted answered (that's called "communication", something very different from what you did), I would have answered differently.

I will continue to use my wide angle lense for portraits and I do not shoot from 4 ft away unless my back is against a wall. Never said that I did. If you think that wide angle lenses are not suitable for portraiture, and that zoom lenses are preferred, then do the world a favor and throw you camera in the trash.

That is excellent advice, for you. Seriously, your communication skills are atrocious, and I feel sorry for your portrait subjects. Do you give every model a long, numbered list of insults, too?

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +42 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads