Reading mode: Light Dark

Overated primes II

Go to last post
There's one bloke here (shan't start him off by naming him) who keeps following me around angrily agreeing...

Personally, I dislike hair shirt photography, and can become mildly vexed when told that my photos would be better if I [insert annoying and stupid thing].

As I stated above, I mainly use primes, because their (obvious) advantages are more useful to my style than their (equally obvious) disadvantages.

I simply do not believe that primes force some sort of desirable technique on you. It is exactly the same as the loonies who think we should use tripods for every shot, however bright.

It has as much validity as suggesting we shoot one handed, or hanging from a tree, or with a five year old camera, or with an obscure 1960s film, or do everything in camera, and comes from personality types who think that pain is virtuous, and that somehow making life hard will bring rewards. They should have been smacked less as children. Or perhaps more.
larsbc said:
Julian_K said:
Totally agree, I'm not sure how these things even turn into a debate. Prime obviously have there pro's and con's, as do zooms, pick your poison.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of acrimony develops when people start posting their opinions in an obnoxious and insulting manner. Then it slides downhill. I've seen plenty of disagreements in other forums where things don't go downhill like so many threads here. It all hinges on the maturity and politeness of the participants.

Debate is fine. It's the boorish behaviour that ruins everything.

larsbc
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
What I said was that if you shoot for a fairly lengthy period of time (weeks to months) with only one or two focal lengths available to you (I don't care if you do that with primes or by taping your zoom lens at a particular focal length), your eye becomes accustomed to seeing and framing that way, and it's very quick to immediatly take the picture. In certain types of shooting, that can be an advantage. It doesn't make you a better photographer or make you more creative, but it does allow you to take a certain type of picture you might not otherwise have been able to take, due to the length of time you need to frame the shot. Of course, you lose the opportunity to take shots outside those focal lengths, as you could do if you had been using a zoom.

A wedding photographer friend mainly uses primes for that reason. He can see shots and frame them in his mind, and in an instant take the shot. I've also seen him do that with portrait shooting with camera-shy subjects (like me!). He can get the shot before I have a chance to freeze up.

When I was doing a lot of street shooting I tended to work that way, too, preferring to carry two cameras, one with a slightly wide normal lens for context shots and another with a medium telephoto for longer shots, rather than one camera with a zoom. I could see pictures in my head, often just out of the corner of my eye, and quickly bring the right camera to my face and take the shot before it vanished.

It's a useful type of eye training when you are shooting things that will change enough in a few seconds so you'd lose the shot if you took the time to adjust a zoom. For other kinds of shooting, it's only helpful if you find limiting yourself forces you to break out of your comfort zone.

There's nothing magic about shooting with primes themselves. You can achieve essentially the same effect by taping your lens at a certain focal length and shooting that way until it's how your eye sees. And there's nothing special about shooting this way. It's just another way to work.
bbbinohio said:
That's clearly what I thought you were suggesting. You weren't???
Click to expand...
 
Jere Landis said:
Nothing wrong with shooting either, but trying to convince people that a fixed focal will make them or force them to become a better photographer is strictly hogwash and anyone with average intelligence knows better.
Click to expand...
Did you see many such persons here ? The most I've seen is one person saying that shooting legacy lenses with an E-Pl1 was the most cost effective solution ..

I think you are a zoom Don Quichotte : no one is fighting against persons who are fine shooting zooms, that is only in your imagination. I didn't read a lot of messages advocating that everybody should shoot primes only. I saw much more guys like you ranting against those who love shooting primes. Others have usually a moderate view of the interest of using primes versus zooms and vice- versa.

--
rrr_hhh
 
I've read this whole thing now, both the original and the sequel and I have to say I'm fascinated by the social dynamics. I can't help but throw in my take on the matter. With regard to the original topic, I've seen two points of view that seem pretty valid.

1)If you shoot often in low light conditions, or require shallow depth of field, there is no substitute for fast glass and fast primes are the best if not the only way to get this type of performance. So for those that need them, fast primes are not overrated.

2) If you bought fast primes because they look awesome and cost a lot and you just feel that they will impart some ineffable magical quality to your photographs, you are bound to be disappointed and for you these lenses will seem overrated.

There seem to be a number of posters in this thread who are really overemphasizing the prevalence of those that fall into category two. My take is that most people who buy fast primes know why they are buying them and are capable of using them effectively.

Now... and I've found this to be far more interesting... I think that what got the OP's feathers ruffled in the first place was tedolph pointing out his misunderstanding of a fundamental aspect of good shot composition. Frankly, this was a non sequitur and has nothing to do with the relative merit of primes vs. zooms. I thought it was a good point to make, though, and I think the OP would benefit from considering what point he was trying to make.

Basically, he was saying that there's more to good composition than framing. Think about two approaches to composing a particular shot. First you set your zoom to 14mm and frame so that the subject's face comprises about a third of the width of the frame. Take the shot. Then set your zoom to 45mm and walk backwards until again, the subject's face comprises about a third of the width of the frame. These won't be equivalent compositions! In the first the subject will appear larger relative to the environment, this can give the observer a feeling of relative insignificance. In the second shot, much less of the environment is visible in the frame. It can give more of a sense of intimacy... that the observer is occupying the same space as the subject. I'm a novice and certainly not an artist and there are certainly other ways to use angle of view and perspective in composing a shot. The point is that there is more to an artful composition than simple framing, and a skillful photographer, whether using a zoom or a prime lens, will choose a focal length with an understanding of the resultant angle of view and how it effects the composition, and not just to achieve a particular frame or field of view.

Carl

The Chaste Student
 
I like to think I can see shots in my mind and frame them at all the lengths I use.

In EFL, 14, 20, 24, 28, 70, 105, (and then whatever).

I don't see any great virtue in having them on my camera rather than a zoom.

If I'm using primes, I almost never put on one and then change it, I know what they do...

I would imagine that goes for most people who shoot a lot.
phototransformations said:
What I said was that if you shoot for a fairly lengthy period of time (weeks to months) with only one or two focal lengths available to you (I don't care if you do that with primes or by taping your zoom lens at a particular focal length), your eye becomes accustomed to seeing and framing that way, and it's very quick to immediatly take the picture. In certain types of shooting, that can be an advantage. It doesn't make you a better photographer or make you more creative, but it does allow you to take a certain type of picture you might not otherwise have been able to take, due to the length of time you need to frame the shot. Of course, you lose the opportunity to take shots outside those focal lengths, as you could do if you had been using a zoom.

A wedding photographer friend mainly uses primes for that reason. He can see shots and frame them in his mind, and in an instant take the shot. I've also seen him do that with portrait shooting with camera-shy subjects (like me!). He can get the shot before I have a chance to freeze up.

When I was doing a lot of street shooting I tended to work that way, too, preferring to carry two cameras, one with a slightly wide normal lens for context shots and another with a medium telephoto for longer shots, rather than one camera with a zoom. I could see pictures in my head, often just out of the corner of my eye, and quickly bring the right camera to my face and take the shot before it vanished.

It's a useful type of eye training when you are shooting things that will change enough in a few seconds so you'd lose the shot if you took the time to adjust a zoom. For other kinds of shooting, it's only helpful if you find limiting yourself forces you to break out of your comfort zone.

There's nothing magic about shooting with primes themselves. You can achieve essentially the same effect by taping your lens at a certain focal length and shooting that way until it's how your eye sees. And there's nothing special about shooting this way. It's just another way to work.
bbbinohio said:
That's clearly what I thought you were suggesting. You weren't???
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
phototransformations said:
What I said was that if you shoot for a fairly lengthy period of time (weeks to months) with only one or two focal lengths available to you (I don't care if you do that with primes or by taping your zoom lens at a particular focal length), your eye becomes accustomed to seeing and framing that way, and it's very quick to immediatly take the picture. In certain types of shooting, that can be an advantage. It doesn't make you a better photographer or make you more creative, but it does allow you to take a certain type of picture you might not otherwise have been able to take, due to the length of time you need to frame the shot. Of course, you lose the opportunity to take shots outside those focal lengths, as you could do if you had been using a zoom.

A wedding photographer friend mainly uses primes for that reason. He can see shots and frame them in his mind, and in an instant take the shot. I've also seen him do that with portrait shooting with camera-shy subjects (like me!). He can get the shot before I have a chance to freeze up.

When I was doing a lot of street shooting I tended to work that way, too, preferring to carry two cameras, one with a slightly wide normal lens for context shots and another with a medium telephoto for longer shots, rather than one camera with a zoom. I could see pictures in my head, often just out of the corner of my eye, and quickly bring the right camera to my face and take the shot before it vanished.

It's a useful type of eye training when you are shooting things that will change enough in a few seconds so you'd lose the shot if you took the time to adjust a zoom. For other kinds of shooting, it's only helpful if you find limiting yourself forces you to break out of your comfort zone.

There's nothing magic about shooting with primes themselves. You can achieve essentially the same effect by taping your lens at a certain focal length and shooting that way until it's how your eye sees. And there's nothing special about shooting this way. It's just another way to work.
bbbinohio said:
That's clearly what I thought you were suggesting. You weren't???
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So you're saying you can change cameras and get the shot faster than doing a quick zoom with camera already in hand. Isn't that what you just said?
 
clengman said:
I've read this whole thing now, both the original and the sequel and I have to say I'm fascinated by the social dynamics. I can't help but throw in my take on the matter. With regard to the original topic, I've seen two points of view that seem pretty valid.

1)If you shoot often in low light conditions, or require shallow depth of field, there is no substitute for fast glass and fast primes are the best if not the only way to get this type of performance. So for those that need them, fast primes are not overrated.

2) If you bought fast primes because they look awesome and cost a lot and you just feel that they will impart some ineffable magical quality to your photographs, you are bound to be disappointed and for you these lenses will seem overrated.

There seem to be a number of posters in this thread who are really overemphasizing the prevalence of those that fall into category two. My take is that most people who buy fast primes know why they are buying them and are capable of using them effectively.

Now... and I've found this to be far more interesting... I think that what got the OP's feathers ruffled in the first place was tedolph pointing out his misunderstanding of a fundamental aspect of good shot composition. Frankly, this was a non sequitur and has nothing to do with the relative merit of primes vs. zooms. I thought it was a good point to make, though, and I think the OP would benefit from considering what point he was trying to make.

Basically, he was saying that there's more to good composition than framing. Think about two approaches to composing a particular shot. First you set your zoom to 14mm and frame so that the subject's face comprises about a third of the width of the frame. Take the shot. Then set your zoom to 45mm and walk backwards until again, the subject's face comprises about a third of the width of the frame. These won't be equivalent compositions! In the first the subject will appear larger relative to the environment, this can give the observer a feeling of relative insignificance. In the second shot, much less of the environment is visible in the frame. It can give more of a sense of intimacy... that the observer is occupying the same space as the subject. I'm a novice and certainly not an artist and there are certainly other ways to use angle of view and perspective in composing a shot. The point is that there is more to an artful composition than simple framing, and a skillful photographer, whether using a zoom or a prime lens, will choose a focal length with an understanding of the resultant angle of view and how it effects the composition, and not just to achieve a particular frame or field of view.

Carl

The Chaste Student
Click to expand...
More often than not, the quality of a prime shot, as described by so called "prime shooters" refers to sharpness and lack of certain abberations instead of depth of field control, perspective, and composition. Most here, who seem to be prime fanboys, seem to think it's so easy to draw the camera to the eye and snap a perfectly framed photo quickly. I think most photogs who do much shooting know better. Cropping usually comes into play, which causes you to lose quality in the final photo. The question is, does the quality loss cause you to lose what you gained by the prime in the first place?
 
Excellent.

I think the primary difference is how the sentiments in discussions are conveyed. Tedolf's condescending style derails conversations and distracts from what he has of value to contribute, quite insufferably. Whereas what you did in style informs and explains as well as supporting the players and discussion as a whole. I wasn't too interested in seeing what this all stemmed from -but I have to say thanks very much for taking the time to put focus back on the meat of the topic.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.
 
Jere Landis said:
More often than not, the quality of a prime shot, as described by so called "prime shooters" refers to sharpness and lack of certain abberations instead of depth of field control, perspective, and composition. Most here, who seem to be prime fanboys, seem to think it's so easy to draw the camera to the eye and snap a perfectly framed photo quickly. I think most photogs who do much shooting know better. Cropping usually comes into play, which causes you to lose quality in the final photo. The question is, does the quality loss cause you to lose what you gained by the prime in the first place?
Click to expand...
I don't believe it matters much if the crop isn't extreme, unless very large prints are the objective. I'll often crop up to a 1/4 of an image when perspective correction is called for (for me, that's rather common), and I don't hesitate with regard to IQ. But mainly, I don't travel much w/o both primes and zooms, light as they are, so this isn't a black and white issue afaic.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.
 
Jere Landis said:
More often than not, the quality of a prime shot, as described by so called "prime shooters" refers to sharpness and lack of certain abberations instead of depth of field control, perspective, and composition. Most here, who seem to be prime fanboys, seem to think it's so easy to draw the camera to the eye and snap a perfectly framed photo quickly. I think most photogs who do much shooting know better. Cropping usually comes into play, which causes you to lose quality in the final photo. The question is, does the quality loss cause you to lose what you gained by the prime in the first place?
Click to expand...
I don't believe, and I've not seen anyone say, there is any quality difference worth having between a top notch prime and a top notch zoom. Some chap tele zooms "zoom" beyond the focal length they can properly manage on the basis budget buyers would rather have a soft 200 than a lens that stops at 150, but that's an oddity.

A prime can be smaller and faster and have a "bokeh" (much mis-used word, and I'm probably mis-using it here) that is matched to the focal length. One or all of those may be critical to you at any time... Or it may not, in which case use a zoom, it's simpler!

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
Bob Tullis said:
Jere Landis said:
More often than not, the quality of a prime shot, as described by so called "prime shooters" refers to sharpness and lack of certain abberations instead of depth of field control, perspective, and composition. Most here, who seem to be prime fanboys, seem to think it's so easy to draw the camera to the eye and snap a perfectly framed photo quickly. I think most photogs who do much shooting know better. Cropping usually comes into play, which causes you to lose quality in the final photo. The question is, does the quality loss cause you to lose what you gained by the prime in the first place?
Click to expand...
I don't believe it matters much if the crop isn't extreme, unless very large prints are the objective. I'll often crop up to a 1/4 of an image when perspective correction is called for (for me, that's rather common), and I don't hesitate with regard to IQ. But mainly, I don't travel much w/o both primes and zooms, light as they are, so this isn't a black and white issue afaic.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the very sensible reply. So refreshing to hear from someone with an open unbiased mind and not a lecture.
 
Louis_Dobson said:
I simply do not believe that primes force some sort of desirable technique on you. It is exactly the same as the loonies who think we should use tripods for every shot, however bright.
Click to expand...
What!? Don't you realize it's simply NOT POSSIBLE to shoot sharp pictures hand-held? You're wasting all the luscious prime lens sharpness by not using a 30 pound tripod and head for EVERY picture. How do you expect to EVER by the next Ansel Adams without a tripod?

/sarcasm ;)
 
453C said:
jalywol said:
Tim F 101 said:
People who want primes should buy primes. People who want zooms should buy zooms. Your camera is not a personal statement. Photos are a personal statement. Your camera is a tool. I like to use primes except when I don't, and then I use a zoom. It baffles me that people take this stuff personally.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!
453C said:
I use both primes and zooms. They each have their place. Why limit your options???
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You're being entirely too reasonable about this. Overated primes II finally made it to DVD.

Let's max this mutha out so Jere can bring us ...
Overated primes III: Return of the Zoomers
--
Click to expand...
This made me laugh.

Will there be special "Director's Edition" with a section called, "Jere Landis Talks About Himself"?
453C said:
http://453c.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
TEdolph
 
clengman said:
I've read this whole thing now, both the original and the sequel and I have to say I'm fascinated by the social dynamics. I can't help but throw in my take on the matter. With regard to the original topic, I've seen two points of view that seem pretty valid.

1)If you shoot often in low light conditions, or require shallow depth of field, there is no substitute for fast glass and fast primes are the best if not the only way to get this type of performance. So for those that need them, fast primes are not overrated.
Click to expand...
Of course.
clengman said:
2) If you bought fast primes because they look awesome and cost a lot and you just feel that they will impart some ineffable magical quality to your photographs, you are bound to be disappointed and for you these lenses will seem overrated.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
clengman said:
There seem to be a number of posters in this thread who are really overemphasizing the prevalence of those that fall into category two. My take is that most people who buy fast primes know why they are buying them and are capable of using them effectively.
Click to expand...
Yes.
clengman said:
Now... and I've found this to be far more interesting... I think that what got the OP's feathers ruffled in the first place was tedolph pointing out his misunderstanding of a fundamental aspect of good shot composition.
Click to expand...
You got it!
clengman said:
Frankly, this was a non sequitur and has nothing to do with the relative merit of primes vs. zooms. I thought it was a good point to make, though, and I think the OP would benefit from considering what point he was trying to make.
Click to expand...
it ws necessary to flush the OP out of the tall grass and place his personaltiy on trial so that the sinless could cast stones.
clengman said:
Basically, he was saying that there's more to good composition than framing. Think about two approaches to composing a particular shot. First you set your zoom to 14mm and frame so that the subject's face comprises about a third of the width of the frame. Take the shot. Then set your zoom to 45mm and walk backwards until again, the subject's face comprises about a third of the width of the frame. These won't be equivalent compositions!
Click to expand...
Not everyone understands/accept this.

I know, hard to believe.
clengman said:
In the first the subject will appear larger relative to the environment, this can give the observer a feeling of relative insignificance. In the second shot, much less of the environment is visible in the frame. It can give more of a sense of intimacy... that the observer is occupying the same space as the subject.
Click to expand...
OOF areas will also look vastly different.
clengman said:
I'm a novice and certainly not an artist and there are certainly other ways to use angle of view and perspective in composing a shot. The point is that there is more to an artful composition than simple framing, and a skillful photographer, whether using a zoom or a prime lens, will choose a focal length with an understanding of the resultant angle of view and how it effects the composition, and not just to achieve a particular frame or field of view.
Click to expand...
Selection of focal lenght and aperture also dramatically effect the "look" of a photograph which is why the OP's position was preposterous.

But then, ther is that thing called the "ego", eh?
clengman said:
Carl

The Chaste Student
Click to expand...
Tedolph
 
Jere Landis said:
clengman said:
I've read this whole thing now, both the original and the sequel and I have to say I'm fascinated by the social dynamics. I can't help but throw in my take on the matter. With regard to the original topic, I've seen two points of view that seem pretty valid.

1)If you shoot often in low light conditions, or require shallow depth of field, there is no substitute for fast glass and fast primes are the best if not the only way to get this type of performance. So for those that need them, fast primes are not overrated.

2) If you bought fast primes because they look awesome and cost a lot and you just feel that they will impart some ineffable magical quality to your photographs, you are bound to be disappointed and for you these lenses will seem overrated.

There seem to be a number of posters in this thread who are really overemphasizing the prevalence of those that fall into category two. My take is that most people who buy fast primes know why they are buying them and are capable of using them effectively.

Now... and I've found this to be far more interesting... I think that what got the OP's feathers ruffled in the first place was tedolph pointing out his misunderstanding of a fundamental aspect of good shot composition. Frankly, this was a non sequitur and has nothing to do with the relative merit of primes vs. zooms. I thought it was a good point to make, though, and I think the OP would benefit from considering what point he was trying to make.

Basically, he was saying that there's more to good composition than framing. Think about two approaches to composing a particular shot. First you set your zoom to 14mm and frame so that the subject's face comprises about a third of the width of the frame. Take the shot. Then set your zoom to 45mm and walk backwards until again, the subject's face comprises about a third of the width of the frame. These won't be equivalent compositions! In the first the subject will appear larger relative to the environment, this can give the observer a feeling of relative insignificance. In the second shot, much less of the environment is visible in the frame. It can give more of a sense of intimacy... that the observer is occupying the same space as the subject. I'm a novice and certainly not an artist and there are certainly other ways to use angle of view and perspective in composing a shot. The point is that there is more to an artful composition than simple framing, and a skillful photographer, whether using a zoom or a prime lens, will choose a focal length with an understanding of the resultant angle of view and how it effects the composition, and not just to achieve a particular frame or field of view.

Carl

The Chaste Student
Click to expand...
More often than not, the quality of a prime shot, as described by so called "prime shooters" refers to sharpness and lack of certain abberations instead of depth of field control, perspective, and composition.
Click to expand...
are incorrect.
Jere Landis said:
Most here, who seem to be prime fanboys, seem to think it's so easy to draw the camera to the eye and snap a perfectly framed photo quickly. I think most photogs who do much shooting know better. Cropping usually comes into play, which causes you to lose quality in the final photo. The question is, does the quality loss cause you to lose what you gained by the prime in the first place?
Click to expand...
Of course, with a flawed premise, there is no hope that you would arrive at a correct conclusion.

TEdolhp
 
Bob Tullis said:
Excellent.

I think the primary difference is how the sentiments in discussions are conveyed. Tedolf's condescending style derails conversations and distracts from what he has of value to contribute, quite insufferably.
Click to expand...
that perhalps TEdolph has noting of value to say on that particular topic. Tedolph must then, by sheer necessity steer the discussion (within the bounds of the DPR posting rules of course!) to a position where he does have something of value to say.

Of course, your contention that such activity is "insufferble" is clearly hyperbole.

It is certiantly, "sufferable".
Bobo Hodls said:
Whereas what you did in style informs and explains as well as supporting the players and discussion as a whole.
Click to expand...
True, but it was very boring.

Nothing there to stir men's souls.
Bobo Hodls said:
I wasn't too interested in seeing what this all stemmed from -but I have to say thanks very much for taking the time to put focus back on the meat of the topic.
Click to expand...
Go back and take a look Bob, it was a lot of fun.

Anyway, I am not sure it is fair to TEdolph to characterize his activity in this thread without having read the underlying thread.

Really Bob, you should be ashamed.
Bobo Hodls said:
--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.
Click to expand...
TEdolph
 
Zooming in on Tedolph's comments proves he's in the prime of his insufferable wit.
 
larsbc said:
Julian_K said:
Totally agree, I'm not sure how these things even turn into a debate. Prime obviously have there pro's and con's, as do zooms, pick your poison.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of acrimony develops when people start posting their opinions in an obnoxious and insulting manner. Then it slides downhill. I've seen plenty of disagreements in other forums where things don't go downhill like so many threads here. It all hinges on the maturity and politeness of the participants.
Click to expand...
It hnges on the vulnerablility of some peoples' egos.
larsbc said:
Debate is fine. It's the boorish behaviour that ruins everything.
Click to expand...
Oh, please.

What is this the Queen's Debating Society?
larsbc said:
larsbc
Click to expand...
Tedolph,

The Gentlemanly
 
ulfie said:
Zooming in on Tedolph's comments proves he's in the prime of his insufferable wit.
Click to expand...
Again I disagree.

I believe that it is sufferable!

Jere's bruised ego is not.

TEdolph
 
OK, OK...uh... I'll revise it to read "Zooming in on Tedolph's comments proves he's in the prime of his disagreement."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top