Overated primes II

Not at all. This is a completely different activity from taking photographs. If it doesn't interest you, that's fine, but it's certainly not sucking the soul out of me. Instead, it and others help me think about photography, see the points of view of others, and sometimes observe the effect of Internet forums on the behavior of people who might be entirely reasonable elsewhere.

Besides, it's dark and 10 degrees F out there, not the time of day or the weather in which I will typically be shooting.
People, please stop discussing, especially troll threads, and GTFO there and do some imagery instead. This place is sucking the soul out of you.
 
It seems pretty clear from your original posts and your comments that you have not actually experimented at any great length with the technique I have described (that is, shot with one or two focal lengths only for weeks or months at a time), and so you don't know the experience of being able to put camera to eye, immediately match it to your mental image of the shot because a particular focal length is imprinted in your brain, and snap the shutter.
I see a parallel to this in music performance. As I became more experienced with my specific instrument, I gained confidence in knowing when I was about to play a note, I just knew what that note would sound like before I actually played it. To me, this is much like what you described WRT being familiar and comfortable with a specific focal length. It makes perfect sense to me in principle, if not practice (yet).
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
 
Wow! You've got more patience than most, or you're a firefighter waiting for a call.
Nah. It took a few days to get through it in snippets, but now I'm engrossed.
 
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!
Not everyone understands/accept this.

I know, hard to believe.
I just took a few minutes to do the experiment. I learned it in theory after reading here and there, but haven't really seen it for myself. Both pictures are taken from the same height off the ground. I tried to frame such that the candles took up a similar proportion of the field of view. Shot in aperture priority to see how depth of field would be affected. I know this will be no revelation to most of you here, but I thought maybe some of you would be interested to see this compression/expansion of the z-axis in the images. As well as the change in angle of view.







 
Who pulled your chain?

Tedolf does not need a chain to be pulled! I think Tedolf would agree with me on this.
--
broke off a long time ago and it is permanently stuck in the "pulled" position!
john
my equipment is in Gear List
if you live near me you can test any of it...just e-mail
TEdolph
 
I'm saying I can see the shot and put the right camera to my eye faster than I can get the correct zoom while I'm trying to frame the shot. Alternatively, I suppose I could accomplish the same thing by getting to know very well the two extremes of a zoom, so I could quickly, without having to look, zoom to the widest and to the longest ends while I'm bringing my camera to my eye to capture the shot.
most people actually do.

Take a look at your EXIF data for any zoom lens you use.

Most shots will be at the widest end, the second most will be at at the longest end.

In reality, most people use there zoom like a Leica Varifocal lens, just two focal lenghts.

Which of course shows that Jere's entire contention is non-sense.

TEdolplh
 
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.
EXACTLY!
I use both primes and zooms. They each have their place. Why limit your options???
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
This made me laugh.

Will there be special "Director's Edition" with a section called, "Jere Landis Talks About Himself"?
No, that's only on the Special Platinum Limited Blu-ray Edition.
It's proper title is, "Prime Zoomer: Jere Landis on Jere Landis" .
OMG-my sides are splitting!
Jere, I hope you know this is all in jest. If it helps, you can list me in the credits as Apprentice Manual Focus Follower Intern.
--
Yeah Jere-all in jest.

(Man, I am laughing so hard my eyes are watering).
TEdolph
 
Thanks for the very sensible reply. So refreshing to hear from someone with an open unbiased mind and not a lecture.
Unbiased, not really.

It may have been said up topic already - primes also help one to see outside one's comfort zone. If you don't have the right focal length for what is in front of you, still making something of the subject takes some determination often enough. What results may fail, or it may open up a perspective that wouldn't otherwise be considered.

What I like about these two compositions regards limiting myself to two primes. If I mounted a zoom I would never have quite seen this area and captured it quite this way. They may not bring fame and fortune, but the exercise is not lost on seeing future scenes with a broader consideration of possibility - no matter what lens(es) are on hand when that something presents itself. I may even return to both sites again with the same perspectives in mind, to see if they can be done one better.









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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.
is that it is common for photography teachers (at least in the 70's)to force students to shoot with diffferent single focal lenghts for asingle assignement. The purpose was to force the student to "see" in different focal lenghts. You could do that with a zoom bet it would take a lot of self discipline.

Anyway, it was the training that made you "see" thigs in different focal lenghts so that you could select the right one.

Same thing applies today.
No, TEdolph, there are too many variables. This could well apply to others replies here. Opportunity, light, ability and aesthetics to name a few...
Yeah, you are right.

Photography teachers in the 1970's never did that.

I made that story up out of whole cloth.

Sheesh.

(My appologies to Ms. Weston and Mr. Kinel).
Jere notwithstanding.

Hope he enjoyed my lecture.

TEdolph
--



Eternity was in that moment.
TEdolph
 
............ If I mounted a zoom I would never have quite seen this area and captured it quite this way..................
No, the idea is to look at the scene with your eyes and visualise the image that you want, then zoom or choose the appropriate prime (and maybe walk a bit or crop later) to accommodate your visualisation.
Exactly.

You are supposed to look at a scene and say, "Ooh, ooh-I need to get out my 90mm!".
Regards.......... Guy
Tedolph
 
............ If I mounted a zoom I would never have quite seen this area and captured it quite this way..................
No, the idea is to look at the scene with your eyes and visualise the image that you want, then zoom or choose the appropriate prime (and maybe walk a bit or crop later) to accommodate your visualization.
Yes, to execute one's vision that is the recommended practice. But I'm still a student as well, and need to practice the scales and nursery rhymes regularly too. ;)
Guy, I agree that's the final goal of such practice, but compared to Bob, I'm still learning the alphabet. I understand some of the basics we're discussing, but putting them into practice is a much more hit or miss affair for me.

Discussions like this have actually given some meaning to this sequel, so it's not a complete waste of time. These topics make me think a bit more about what I'm trying to do, and how I might get there.

I'm still looking forward to Return of the Zoomers, though.
--
"Revenge of the Primes"?

Will there be action figures?

Man, Jere has a real good thing going!
TEdolph
 
It seems pretty clear from your original posts and your comments that you have not actually experimented at any great length with the technique I have described (that is, shot with one or two focal lengths only for weeks or months at a time), and so you don't know the experience of being able to put camera to eye, immediately match it to your mental image of the shot because a particular focal length is imprinted in your brain, and snap the shutter.

It's a very different experience from what I mostly do now, because I am mostly using zooms, which is see the approximate shot, tweak the zoom to frame it, and then snap the shutter. Instead of thinking, "I wonder if the people who say this have something worth trying," and trying it, you simply dismiss it because it is outside your experience. You don't need primes to learn to see this way, you just need practice. It's fine if it doesn't interest you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor does it make people like me "fanboys" of shooting this way or of primes any more than you are a "fanboy" of zooms. (Although maybe you are a fanboy of zooms?)
Maybe he just doesn't like being wrong?

Like maybe he can't stand it?

[snip]

TEdolph
 
Zooming in on Tedolph's comments proves he's in the prime of his insufferable wit.
Tedolf does have some Wit regardless of what you think of the person. Hell I would like to met Tedolf. Tedolf has contributed A lot to this forum and is knowledgeable.
Only if you would agree to buy me a beer.

An audience with Tedolph does not come cheaply!

Well, actually it does come cheaply-about the price of a beer.

But not a Bud Light-a good beer!
--
john
my equipment is in Gear List
if you live near me you can test any of it...just e-mail
tEdolph
 
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!
Not everyone understands/accept this.

I know, hard to believe.
I just took a few minutes to do the experiment. I learned it in theory after reading here and there, but haven't really seen it for myself. Both pictures are taken from the same height off the ground. I tried to frame such that the candles took up a similar proportion of the field of view. Shot in aperture priority to see how depth of field would be affected. I know this will be no revelation to most of you here, but I thought maybe some of you would be interested to see this compression/expansion of the z-axis in the images. As well as the change in angle of view.







I remember seeing something like this back one snowy evening when I was in my comfrotable easy chair, in my mountain redoubt reading one of my Kodak Joy of Photogrphy books..............zzzzzzzzzz.

TEdollph
 
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.
Wow! You've got more patience than most, or you're a firefighter waiting for a call.
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.
That'd be me. After suffering with the kit lens, I always want at least one fast lens in my bag so I have a way to shoot in more challenging light. As sensors improve, this might not be so critical, but with my E-PL1, it's a requirement for me .
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.
Agreed.
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.
OTOH, why does it matter to anyone if the Category 2 folks buy lenses? I figure it's more MFT glass going out the door, so that's good for everyone. Now, if someone is whining that they simply can't get a good photo with an ineffable, magical quality after spending a bunch of money on primes, that's another matter.
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, I think what you're saying is,

"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
--
that something bad happened to that guy!

Interesting thought--you can see that in actual life.

Watch a cat fight a dog.

Dog fights in two dimensions; cat fights in three.

Fascinating.

Moral of the story?

Jere-don't be a two dimensional thinker.

Swallow your pride, open your mind and we can help you!
TEdollph
 
............ If I mounted a zoom I would never have quite seen this area and captured it quite this way..................
No, the idea is to look at the scene with your eyes and visualise the image that you want, then zoom or choose the appropriate prime (and maybe walk a bit or crop later) to accommodate your visualization.
Yes, to execute one's vision that is the recommended practice. But I'm still a student as well, and need to practice the scales and nursery rhymes regularly too. ;)
Guy, I agree that's the final goal of such practice, but compared to Bob, I'm still learning the alphabet. I understand some of the basics we're discussing, but putting them into practice is a much more hit or miss affair for me.

Discussions like this have actually given some meaning to this sequel, so it's not a complete waste of time. These topics make me think a bit more about what I'm trying to do, and how I might get there.
If life is not a learning experience it goes by very quickly.
I'm still looking forward to Return of the Zoomers, though.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
--



Eternity was in that moment.
 
tedolf wrote:
[ re: visualisation]
Exactly.

You are supposed to look at a scene and say, "Ooh, ooh-I need to get out my 90mm!".
That's where lazy me cuts in.....

I look at a scene and roughly grasp what the area of interest might be. Is it the sailing boat alone on the water I want, or should I include some shoreline and/or other boats as well?

Then the lazy part me grabs the E-PL1 with the 14-150mm lens and frames what I want. Click.

Maybe eventually I will buy and use primes again after a pause of some years (when the range is complete to my satisfaction). Then it's a matter of making the same frame decision and as Tedolph says, "it's a 90mm scene " and fit that lens, ooops, it was really a 200mm scene so dig deeper in the camera bag and try again.

The primes approach suits slower and contemplative effort (and for partners, much time wasting). Zooms get the job done quickly and allow you to move on and take more shots before the sun goes down.

Good prime training is if staying in one place for more than a few days and revisiting more or less the same scenes, try a different prime each day and see what you see with each prime. Best suggestions would be 35mm equivalent first day (that really is the most used focal length for me anyway), next day a 20mm equivalent or close to it, then third day something around 100mm equivalent.

If the three days don't turn out looking completely different in the way things are captured, then maybe the way you look at the world is a bit stunted. (General advice, not aimed an anyone here necessarily).

Primes are no magic answer to the world's troubles, they are just another tool that often lets you shoot in lower light and possibly deliver shallower depth of field if needed, but IBIS does that lower light shooting anyway to some extent. A tripod does it even better.

First purchase should be body and zooms, second most important is a good tripod, thirdly start looking at primes. And a decent flash is in there somewhere, depends on needs. It's a system camera for heck's sake, and if you die before you've bought everything in the catalogue, then you have failed miserably.

Regards......... Guy
 
First purchase should be body and zooms, second most important is a good tripod, thirdly start looking at primes. And a decent flash is in there somewhere, depends on needs. It's a system camera for heck's sake, and if you die before you've bought everything in the catalogue, then you have failed miserably.
[chuckle] Exactly.

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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.
 
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.
Wow! You've got more patience than most, or you're a firefighter waiting for a call.
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.
That'd be me. After suffering with the kit lens, I always want at least one fast lens in my bag so I have a way to shoot in more challenging light. As sensors improve, this might not be so critical, but with my E-PL1, it's a requirement for me .
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.
Agreed.
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.
OTOH, why does it matter to anyone if the Category 2 folks buy lenses? I figure it's more MFT glass going out the door, so that's good for everyone. Now, if someone is whining that they simply can't get a good photo with an ineffable, magical quality after spending a bunch of money on primes, that's another matter.
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, I think what you're saying is,

"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."
that something bad happened to that guy!
Indeed it did! I was trying to counter the strong Star Wars zeitgeist found throughout this thread. Kahn was definitely a hardcore prime man, but Kirk would mount whatever he could find.
Interesting thought--you can see that in actual life.

Watch a cat fight a dog.

Dog fights in two dimensions; cat fights in three.

Fascinating.
No doubt a lesson learned in the Tedolph Consortium's mountain training facility.
Moral of the story?

Jere-don't be a two dimensional thinker.

Swallow your pride, open your mind and we can help you!
I know you're having fun, but I doubt that's helping Jere zoom in on the prime points.

Here's the thing. If a zoom lens covered the same focal lengths and apertures of two desired primes, offered the same image quality, and happened to be the same size and weight of those two primes, people would probably pick the zoom most of the time. Short of gear aesthetics and the ability to carry just one of the pair of primes, you'd be hard pressed to state an advantage to going with the two prime option, but even then, there'd be nothing wrong with that.

Maybe another system offers exactly that scenario, but MFT sure doesn't. Until it does, any debate about zooms vs. primes is a bit of a joke. If you need a Phillips head screwdriver, it really doesn't matter how great a multi-tipped Torx driver is for someone else; right tool for the job applies. We all learned the lesson that an Apple Tree cannot be directly compared to a Zebra, and the same holds true here.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
 
I respectfully, completely disagree.

Tiger Woods does not stand at the tee and think about keeping his head down, slowing his backswing, keeping his left arm stiff and making sure he follows through with his club. No. He only thinks about where to place the ball on the fairway or the green.

Nor, in my opinion, does any really great photographer think of all the things that you are suggesting that he should think about when framing a shot. He mearly sees the shot, frames it and takes it.

And he doesn't need to shoot it several times, as he knows he got it when he squeezes the shutter button.

It's done. It's over.... and it's as simple and instinctual as breathing.

At least it is for me.

Bob, from Ohio
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
 
Exactly.

You are supposed to look at a scene and say, "Ooh, ooh-I need to get out my 90mm!".
That's where lazy me cuts in.....

I look at a scene and roughly grasp what the area of interest might be. Is it the sailing boat alone on the water I want, or should I include some shoreline and/or other boats as well?

Then the lazy part me grabs the E-PL1 with the 14-150mm lens and frames what I want. Click.

Maybe eventually I will buy and use primes again after a pause of some years (when the range is complete to my satisfaction). Then it's a matter of making the same frame decision and as Tedolph says, "it's a 90mm scene " and fit that lens, ooops, it was really a 200mm scene so dig deeper in the camera bag and try again.

The primes approach suits slower and contemplative effort (and for partners, much time wasting). Zooms get the job done quickly and allow you to move on and take more shots before the sun goes down.

Good prime training is if staying in one place for more than a few days and revisiting more or less the same scenes, try a different prime each day and see what you see with each prime. Best suggestions would be 35mm equivalent first day (that really is the most used focal length for me anyway), next day a 20mm equivalent or close to it, then third day something around 100mm equivalent.

If the three days don't turn out looking completely different in the way things are captured, then maybe the way you look at the world is a bit stunted. (General advice, not aimed an anyone here necessarily).

Primes are no magic answer to the world's troubles, they are just another tool that often lets you shoot in lower light and possibly deliver shallower depth of field if needed, but IBIS does that lower light shooting anyway to some extent. A tripod does it even better.

First purchase should be body and zooms, second most important is a good tripod, thirdly start looking at primes. And a decent flash is in there somewhere, depends on needs. It's a system camera for heck's sake, and if you die before you've bought everything in the catalogue, then you have failed miserably.
what a scene calls out for is not framing, but depth compression or expansion. The framming while not irrelevant can be handled by moving the camera (usually) or cropping (if not).

You might remember a thread I posted a while ago, "Help-my composition sucks!".

There, the scene called out right away for a close up wide angle with the other monoliths receeding in the background.

It didn't work and I was stumped.

But that is what is supposed to happen when you have been trained on different focal lenghts.

I'm not sure that this will come naturally if you start off with zooms.

It is possible that I am wrong though.

Possible, that is all.
Regards......... Guy
Tedolph
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top