Limiting one's self with a prime - useful or BS?

When it comes up, as it will from time to time, the notion that limiting yourself to a single focal length is often pooh-poohed as having any merit. As I review this image, it's NOT what I wanted, and the discussions about this posture come to mind.

This is a baked OOC JPG, so please ignore the NR on the underpass floor. This is about composition. (I guess I should find the RAW to process with LR4 now, but I think we can handle this [g])





When I decided to break out the table tripod, I wanted all that is seen, but wanted the background arches to be lower (centered in the f/g arches), which would also bring more symmetry with the underpass wall arches. And I also wanted to allow the tops of those pillars to be fully revealed. I find this architecture fascinating. Having the 12mm mounted, I wasn't thinking this one of those with hero image potential and figured I'd do a quick exercise rather than break out the 9-18 lens.

But then it became a study about compromise. I had to assess what was more important within the limitation, the overall impression or more precise symmetry. I could gain better symmetry if I moved down the stairs a few steps (but invariably moving closer), bringing the background perspective to be more centered with the f/g - but I'd lose the sense of confinement (or wariness of ambush, truth be told) that this FOV conveys in my mind. The portrait orientation didn't work to my liking, and in the end I think this turned out (as a composition) rather well despite it not being the original thought.

One evening when it's deserted and I'm passing through again I'll attempt it again, with the 9-18 this time. Just for curiosity's sake.

This reinforced the notion to take my time, and look closer. This in part is why a tripod's value for close examination of a study can matter, but it's about subtleties. The experience in seeing is not lost on more spontaneous opportunities either, IMO. At the time I couldn't identify that sense of confinement and wariness this particular perspective gives me, but I just knew there was something very compelling that didn't quite work the same in other positions considered.

And I believe it's practices like this that are of value for times when one is not fully prepared for what presents itself, which translates to more than just this particular type of study.

Here's where I ask, "No?"

What do you think about how I perceive this 'limiting one's self' thing? I supposes as there are different personality types there are different opinions that also might relate to different stages of advancement as well. So - just curious, is all.

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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

A lot of what you said is quite frankly over my head but one thing that did resonate was that you saw in your head right away what you wanted to create, I assume because there was something important in that vision that you wanted to communicate to the viewer (or later remember yourself).

BTW, what you wanted to do with the arches (but couldnt') I think would have been perfect.

This to me is what photography is about and the equipment should allow you to realize it-not frustrate it.

You go on to contend that by being limited to a single focal lenght you had to reconsider, force your mind to see something different, etc. and you posit that is a good thing.

I don't think so. I think that first image that jumps into your head (hopefully) is the inspired one and that is the one you soudl create.

To me, and for me photography is a way to asuage the frustrated painter in me. I don't have the physical or technical skills to paint-I can barely do mechanical drawings-anthough there are people in my family that are very talented in this. So photography is my way to paint, and I see the image in my head right away-the trouble is trying to duplicate it in the LCD screen and the print.

I don't want to be forced to see it a different way because I don't have access to other focal lengths.

I suppose as a student it is a good exercise to broaden your thinking but when you are actuallly trying to produce not so much.

Tedolph, Ph.D.

Bob Tullis said:

When it comes up, as it will from time to time, the notion that limiting yourself to a single focal length is often pooh-poohed as having any merit. As I review this image, it's NOT what I wanted, and the discussions about this posture come to mind.

Having the 12mm mounted, I wasn't thinking this one of those with hero image potential and figured I'd do a quick exercise rather than break out the 9-18 lens.

Click to expand...

This is where the problem lies - I don't even want to talk about limits here - if you had the 9-18mm with you, you could have gone through the exercise, and then changed lenses... am I missing something? Did you not do that because of a self-imposed limitation that it is more pure to only use Primes??

Trying to understand, not trying to be critical...

Bobo Hodls said:

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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

Click to expand...

--
---
Cleve

I would say the 9-18 compared to the 12/2 would give more choices in perspective / composition.

You would still need to reposition yourself with the 9-18 to find what you are hoping to achieve.

I feel the zoom would help to achieve closer to what you want to achieve compared to the prime, given that the 9-18 is a 2X zoom the perspective difference for the same overall composition would be subtle but may achieve the look you want for the background {arches etc}

Certainly purists love primes but you need to move with your feet .. zooms are more flexible and at times essential.
--
John

http://boyzo.smugmug.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48966961@N00/sets/

jazzbass62 said:

Bob Tullis said:

When it comes up, as it will from time to time, the notion that limiting yourself to a single focal length is often pooh-poohed as having any merit. As I review this image, it's NOT what I wanted, and the discussions about this posture come to mind.

Having the 12mm mounted, I wasn't thinking this one of those with hero image potential and figured I'd do a quick exercise rather than break out the 9-18 lens.

Click to expand...

This is where the problem lies - I don't even want to talk about limits here - if you had the 9-18mm with you, you could have gone through the exercise, and then changed lenses... am I missing something? Did you not do that because of a self-imposed limitation that it is more pure to only use Primes??

Trying to understand, not trying to be critical...

Click to expand...

I think you are being rude Henry and someone should hit the "Complain" button!

TEdolph

jazzbass62 said:

jazzbass62 said:

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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

Click to expand...

--
---
Cleve

Click to expand...

I think the idea of limiting yourself to a single prime lens is useful as a learning technique. Beyond that I think all but the most stubborn prime users would be happy with a zoom if it met all their size/speed/quality/price desires.

tedolf said:

jazzbass62 said:

Bob Tullis said:

When it comes up, as it will from time to time, the notion that limiting yourself to a single focal length is often pooh-poohed as having any merit. As I review this image, it's NOT what I wanted, and the discussions about this posture come to mind.

Having the 12mm mounted, I wasn't thinking this one of those with hero image potential and figured I'd do a quick exercise rather than break out the 9-18 lens.

Click to expand...

This is where the problem lies - I don't even want to talk about limits here - if you had the 9-18mm with you, you could have gone through the exercise, and then changed lenses... am I missing something? Did you not do that because of a self-imposed limitation that it is more pure to only use Primes??

Trying to understand, not trying to be critical...

Click to expand...

I think you are being rude Henry and someone should hit the "Complain" button!

TEdolph

tedolf said:

Cleve

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Or rude either... teDOLPH =- Just tryin' to understand
--
---
Cleve

This is the 21st century, and self-flagellation went out of style quite a while ago. Primes have their place, principally in offering a wider aperture and maybe better optical quality, but if you have a zoom apprpriate to the job, you would be an idiot to leave it at home.

Doing architectural work, you only have to be stuck with your back to the wall and just the 12mm to hand once, and you will know the pooh-poohers are right.

It seems that the issue with your meticulously controlled picture is entirely down to eyepoint rather than focal length but, because of the building restrictions, it could only be fixed with the 9-18, so I guess you have answered your own question.

Bob Tullis said:

When it comes up, as it will from time to time, the notion that limiting yourself to a single focal length is often pooh-poohed as having any merit. As I review this image, it's NOT what I wanted, and the discussions about this posture come to mind.

I could gain better symmetry if I moved down the stairs a few steps (but invariably moving closer),

Click to expand...

Bobo Hodls said:

What do you think about how I perceive this 'limiting one's self' thing?

Click to expand...

It's complete baloney. It's your business to take advantage of your gear, not limit yourself, you only do that for the intellectual exercise. And you know what may result if you go down that path.

Bobo Hodls said:

it's NOT what I wanted.......,

Click to expand...

It depends on a great deal on the individual. A more experienced photographer may not need to "challenge" himself by sticking with a prime. He is thinking about various compositions and angles and a zoom lens can aid in that.

On the other hand, there are plenty of beginners (some of whom have had pro level cameras for years) who simply zoom in and out to get the framing they want, without considering different angles.

Just peruse these forums and the challenges to see how many photos are taken from a standing position. Sometimes using a prime forces a person to move around and find a better angle for the photo.

In this regard, I think of an article/interview I read regarding a photography teacher's experiences at his workshops. He said he could always tell the people who would take the best photos because they were the ones dressed in clothes they didn't mind getting dirty. Sure enough, while the majority of people stood in the same spot taking photos of the subject from the same basic angle the people in "dirty clothes" would be kneeling or even laying in various positions in order to get a different angle of the subject.

I liken the situation to learning to play an instrument. I taught students who wanted to be able to just pick up a guitar or horn and be taught to play a riff they liked (as opposed to actually learning to play the instrument). It didn't seem to register with them that the great musicians they wanted to emulated started out learning the basics. As one of my teachers always said "You have to learn the rules well enough to be able to bend them without it sounding like s* ".

I think photography is the same.

--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

Bob Tullis said:

When it comes up, as it will from time to time, the notion that limiting yourself to a single focal length is often pooh-poohed as having any merit. As I review this image, it's NOT what I wanted, and the discussions about this posture come to mind.

This is a baked OOC JPG, so please ignore the NR on the underpass floor. This is about composition. (I guess I should find the RAW to process with LR4 now, but I think we can handle this [g])





When I decided to break out the table tripod, I wanted all that is seen, but wanted the background arches to be lower (centered in the f/g arches), which would also bring more symmetry with the underpass wall arches. And I also wanted to allow the tops of those pillars to be fully revealed. I find this architecture fascinating. Having the 12mm mounted, I wasn't thinking this one of those with hero image potential and figured I'd do a quick exercise rather than break out the 9-18 lens.

But then it became a study about compromise. I had to assess what was more important within the limitation, the overall impression or more precise symmetry. I could gain better symmetry if I moved down the stairs a few steps (but invariably moving closer), bringing the background perspective to be more centered with the f/g - but I'd lose the sense of confinement (or wariness of ambush, truth be told) that this FOV conveys in my mind. The portrait orientation didn't work to my liking, and in the end I think this turned out (as a composition) rather well despite it not being the original thought.

One evening when it's deserted and I'm passing through again I'll attempt it again, with the 9-18 this time. Just for curiosity's sake.

This reinforced the notion to take my time, and look closer. This in part is why a tripod's value for close examination of a study can matter, but it's about subtleties. The experience in seeing is not lost on more spontaneous opportunities either, IMO. At the time I couldn't identify that sense of confinement and wariness this particular perspective gives me, but I just knew there was something very compelling that didn't quite work the same in other positions considered.

And I believe it's practices like this that are of value for times when one is not fully prepared for what presents itself, which translates to more than just this particular type of study.

Here's where I ask, "No?"

What do you think about how I perceive this 'limiting one's self' thing? I supposes as there are different personality types there are different opinions that also might relate to different stages of advancement as well. So - just curious, is all.

Click to expand...

I think it is just what you wanted to do, nothing more, nothing less. Cogito ergo sum does not apply here IMO. The picture is very good.

Bobo Hodls said:

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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

Click to expand...

--



Eternity was in that moment.

Yes, shooting strictly with a prime is a useful and excellent learning exercise. And, yes it is BS to constrain yourself to one tool when your skills would allow you do get any shot imaginable because of your excellent eye and composition discipline. Regardless of whether you were fulfilled or not in your vision, we got to see the end result which is still a wonderful, well thought out, well conceived photograph.

Your angst is duly noted, please go out and try again! But, please feel free to share it even though it's EXACTLY what you hoped!

Dan

jazzbass62 said:

Bob Tullis said:

When it comes up, as it will from time to time, the notion that limiting yourself to a single focal length is often pooh-poohed as having any merit. As I review this image, it's NOT what I wanted, and the discussions about this posture come to mind.

Having the 12mm mounted, I wasn't thinking this one of those with hero image potential and figured I'd do a quick exercise rather than break out the 9-18 lens.

Click to expand...

This is where the problem lies - I don't even want to talk about limits here - if you had the 9-18mm with you, you could have gone through the exercise, and then changed lenses... am I missing something? Did you not do that because of a self-imposed limitation that it is more pure to only use Primes??

Click to expand...

No, it's not a purist thing. I do enjoy primes - had mostly fast zooms with the years spent with the DSLR, so it's part novelty, part having a fast lens for both day and night. I have a hard time limiting what I pack in the bag, 'just in case'. When I do I invariably see something suited the lens I don't take, no matter what lenses I do take. So not being prepared is something I feel I invariably compensate for when not taking the whole kit. I guess (having read ahead in the topic) I still feel like the student - maybe I always will?

jazzbass62 said:

Trying to understand, not trying to be critical...

Click to expand...

I thought that was clear, but I appreciate the caveat. And your thoughts, Cleve.

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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

cmorse said:

I think the idea of limiting yourself to a single prime lens is useful as a learning technique. Beyond that I think all but the most stubborn prime users would be happy with a zoom if it met all their size/speed/quality/price desires.

Click to expand...

Sounds like we're in agreement.

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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

You can zoom a prime by cropping it. That's what MF and LF photographers who didn't have zooms did for ages, no limitation at all. For a small format photographer cropping wasn't as much of an option and so the prime could be perceived as "limiting".

On a related note, show me someone who says "I can zoom with my feet" and I'll show you someone who doesn't understand the rank basics of composition and perspective. It is a limitation if you don't allow cropping (or stitching in the modern era) for all the reasons you specify in your post.

So is "limiting" yourself with a prime "BS"? On the one hand yes - you can crop to zoom with a prime and if you want to limit yourself you can do it just as easily with a zoom.

On the more general question of "limiting" it is a typical exercise for learning. You'll get assignments - or give yourself assignments - to help with learning. Classics are locking yourself in a mundane room and having to produce a picture from that "boring" environment. Or shoot a particular location. Or use a particular specialized film. Limiting yourself to a single focal length can be an interesting exercise. So in that sense it isn't "BS" if we consider it a learning tool. But to me that is it, a learning tool and exercise. The idea that walking around with the prime instead of zoom will make you more creative all the time I have trouble understanding. It is more of tool to help you learn how to compose and once you've learned the lesson it is time to move on without self imposed fetters.

--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

Bob,

Wonderful photo!

Here you've presented a strong argument for the BS case. And for my part, I can hardly bring myself to step out the front door without a zoom lens or two in my bag. You've shown us a particular situation where "zooming with your feet" is not an option, if I understand your description of the geometry correctly. Unless, of course, your feet are equipped with concrete augers that would get you down lower so's to compose the image just the way you wanted.

OTOH, how often are the shooting constraints quite so ... well, constraining.

But bottom line: wonderful photo, even if it's not exactly what you wanted.
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix

I think you've demonstrated both the benefits and pitfalls of limiting yourself to a single lens. The pitfall is obvious: you can't capture the same perspectives that you can with a variety of lenses.

But the benefit is that you learn from that limitation. You've been forced to think about the image, and why it doesn't look like what you envisioned. You, personally, may exercise this level of thought routinely, but a great many people don't. With a zoom, it's too easy to just stand in one place, zoom until you've got the framing you want, and move on, without exploring different angles, shooting positions, etc.

For the scene you photographed, there are two ways to react to what you don't like about the image: go back and reshoot with a different lens, or go back with the same lens and look for a different way to shoot it that produces a better image. Maybe not the same image you have in your mind now, but better than your first attempt.

Which option forces you to think more, and likely has a bigger impact on your photographic vision?

I don't think anyone would claim that shooting with only one lens is the optimum approach to photography. But I think, at least for most people, it does make you think more about composing your shot, which is educational. I wouldn't go on a shoot that couldn't be easily repeated with only one lens. But I might make a point of heading out for a day of photography in my local area with just one lens, to see what I can accomplish with it.
--

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image, or the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light. Bokeh is not the same as depth of field (DOF).

nickoly said:

This is the 21st century, and self-flagellation went out of style quite a while ago. Primes have their place, principally in offering a wider aperture and maybe better optical quality, but if you have a zoom apprpriate to the job, you would be an idiot to leave it at home.

Doing architectural work, you only have to be stuck with your back to the wall and just the 12mm to hand once, and you will know the pooh-poohers are right.

Click to expand...

All fine and well if one knows what one is going to do. I often don't.

nickoly said:

It seems that the issue with your meticulously controlled picture is entirely down to eyepoint rather than focal length but, because of the building restrictions, it could only be fixed with the 9-18, so I guess you have answered your own question.

Click to expand...

So what I got has no merit because it wasn't the original vision? Sorry, not sure I follow.

nickoly said:

Bob Tullis said:

When it comes up, as it will from time to time, the notion that limiting yourself to a single focal length is often pooh-poohed as having any merit. As I review this image, it's NOT what I wanted, and the discussions about this posture come to mind.

I could gain better symmetry if I moved down the stairs a few steps (but invariably moving closer),

Click to expand...

nickoly said:

What do you think about how I perceive this 'limiting one's self' thing?

Click to expand...

It's complete baloney. It's your business to take advantage of your gear, not limit yourself, you only do that for the intellectual exercise. And you know what may result if you go down that path.

Click to expand...

nickoly said:

nickoly said:

it's NOT what I wanted.......,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Touche. Appreciate the directness. Going out for something specific but unprepared indeed is stupid. But I'm not convinced that this intellectual exercise to see what else could be done was a complete waste of my time. At least, it's not it was a sunset or confluence of events that will never be duplicated again. I pass this place often, took countless exposures, but never from 'there'.

Thanks for your perspective.

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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

I'm that guy that learned how to play a few styles of guitar fairly well, but when it came to getting more serious did not have the discipline to start with Mary Had A Little Lamb and such, which was very necessary. My loss.

But you help to understand I feel I still need that practice. I guess I have to figure out whether I need to let go of that impression of myself (or whether I need a LOT more practice).

Thanks for you contribution Charles.

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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

rkhndjr said:

I think it is just what you wanted to do, nothing more, nothing less. Cogito ergo sum does not apply here IMO.

Click to expand...

You know. . . [chuckle] that might make the most sense of all.

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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

dcassat said:

Yes, shooting strictly with a prime is a useful and excellent learning exercise. And, yes it is BS to constrain yourself to one tool when your skills would allow you do get any shot imaginable because of your excellent eye and composition discipline. Regardless of whether you were fulfilled or not in your vision, we got to see the end result which is still a wonderful, well thought out, well conceived photograph.

Your angst is duly noted, please go out and try again! But, please feel free to share it even though it's EXACTLY what you hoped!

Click to expand...

[wide grin] But that might mean - success! I much fear a need for. . . therapy?



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

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.