Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Zoomin With Your Feet Is Not A Myth!!! It's A Way Of Life!!!

Reply
Thread Tools

Zoomin With Your Feet Is Not A Myth!!! It's A Way Of Life!!!

 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2008
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:44:32 +1000, Doug Jewell wrote:

>> Zooming with your feet sounds OK in theory, but it fundamentally
>> alters the relationship between subject and background, or between
>> primary and secondary subjects. In other words, the perspective.

. . .

> What you say is correct, but at the same time, if you rely
> soley on your zoom to frame from the position where you are,
> you will only ever see the likely shot from one perspective.
> If you are "zooming with your feet", you will move to
> different positions to examine different perspectives. You
> might ultimately return to the previous location, or end up
> shooting from an entirely new location. This is regardless
> of whether you are using a lens of fixed or variable focal
> length.


Well said, probably because I'm in complete agreement. This
"zooming with your feet" will be useful primarily to a rather small
percentage of photographers that have the inclination and also the
ability to visualize the scene to know where to aim their feet. The
rest of them (or possibly us) will be content to do little walking
and will prefer to "zoom with their zoom lenses". Sometimes they'll
be fortunate enough to shoot from a good location, but most of the
times, their "good enough" shots won't compare favorably with those
taken by the better photographers that are perfectionists, and who
won't be deterred by the extra time and effort required to find the
ideal location.

This would still be true even if zoom lenses had never been
produced. Most people shoot with their cameras at eye level, even
if crouching or standing on a chair or on some other object would
produce a more pleasing image. I still like my zooms though.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2008
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
>
>> He reminds me of my old cat "Chuck," he was the boss of the block,
>> weighed in at over 14lbs when he was in his prime and not an ounce of
>> fat, he was a BIG cat

>
> Yes, Max is a big boy as well. He's getting up there in age as well.
>
>> I got 21+ years out of him before he had a seizure (stroke) there was
>> only one decent thing to do after that, and I'm not ashamed to say I
>> cried when I bought him home from the vets and laid him to rest under
>> his favorite shady bush in the back yard

>
> No shame, they are family. We went through the same grieving period
> when we
> had to put our chocolate lab, Rex, down.
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>

I have always enjoyed cats, and have had one around for most of my life,
often more than one, but I never have gotten emotionally attached to
one. They are so independent, and self-sufficient, that I don't mourn
them when they die. Dogs, on the other hand, are a completely different
story. I haven't had a dog in over 20 years, and don't intend to again
as having to put the last one down almost killed me.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2008
Robert Haar wrote:
> On 1/25/08 5:53 PM, "Draco" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 25, 1:11 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Yes folks, it's true. Contrary to what the misfits, inbreeds, posers,
>>> wannabes, miscreants, and other assorted flavors of idiot we have out here,
>>> "zooming with your feet" is the industry standard and technically correct
>>> terminology adopted and used by pro shooters world wide. It even goes
>>> further into the realm of scientific wonders.
>>>
>>> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/zoom_zoom.htm>
>>>
>>> Rita

>> Being able to zoom with your feet beats a mechanical zoom any day.
>> Being able
>> to get closer to your subject is much better than being far away.

>
> Depending on the shot that you want, you might choose the perspective and
> DOF effects of of lens zoom versus "foot zoom." But I agree in general.
> There is too much dependence on using a zoom lens as a replacement for
> proper position.
>
>> Unless it
>> is a life changing moment. Like getting a full view finder of a lion
>> on the
>> hunt with a 50mm lens.
>>
>> That would be a life ending moment if one was dumb enough... Oh yeah.
>> I
>> forgot where I was.
>>

>
> Or if you are already at the edge of a cliff and want to get closer to the
> bird flying in the valley.
>

I recall taking some pictures of the lake below from Chimney Rock in
North Carolina. Love that optical zoom! Grin.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kevin McMurtrie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"William Graham" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Ron Hunter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> >> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >> "Rita Berkowitz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes folks, it's true. Contrary to what the misfits, inbreeds, posers,
> >>> wannabes, miscreants, and other assorted flavors of idiot we have out
> >>> here,
> >>> "zooming with your feet" is the industry standard and technically
> >>> correct
> >>> terminology adopted and used by pro shooters world wide. It even goes
> >>> further into the realm of scientific wonders.
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/zoom_zoom.htm>
> >>>
> >>> Rita
> >>
> >> A midrange fixed lens can beat the quality of a zoom lens costing 10x
> >> more. I'll carry a single 28mm F/1.8 sometimes. You can also combine
> >> "zooming with your feet" with a zoom lens to alter perspective to your
> >> liking.
> >>

> >
> > Please don't try that 'zooming with your feet' thing when you are
> > photographing the Grand Canyon, or Royal Gorge scenic sites. Bloody,
> > broken bodies detract from the pleasure of others....

>
> It's a bit hard to do when you are engaged in astro-photography
> too........Although waiting for the right time of year is kind of like,
> "zooming with your feet", I suppose......


For astrophotography, zooming with your feet means using your toes to
turn a dial at the other end of the lens

--
I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2008
In rec.photo.digital Doug Jewell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Tony Polson wrote:


>> If you are walking around looking for a good shot, and you find it,
>> then you want to be able to hold your camera to your eye, frame it,
>> set aperture and shutter speed, focus and shoot. The zoom lens is the
>> key to doing this quickly without having to change your position.
>>
>> Zooming with your feet sounds OK in theory, but it fundamentally
>> alters the relationship between subject and background, or between
>> primary and secondary subjects. In other words, the perspective.
>>
>> If you have to move from the position where you chose to make the shot
>> because you only have fixed focal length lenses, the perspective will
>> change and the symmetry of the shot (or its asymmetry) will change or
>> even be lost.


> What you say is correct, but at the same time, if you rely
> soley on your zoom to frame from the position where you are,
> you will only ever see the likely shot from one perspective.
> If you are "zooming with your feet", you will move to
> different positions to examine different perspectives. You
> might ultimately return to the previous location, or end up
> shooting from an entirely new location. This is regardless
> of whether you are using a lens of fixed or variable focal
> length.


> If you get into the habit of moving around forward and
> backwards, to get the perspective right, then use the
> appropriate focal length (regardless of whether that means
> changing fixed lenses, or turning the barrel on a zoom lens)
> to get the appropriate framing, then ultimately the photo
> will be better.


I often find myself juggling position, orientation, and zoom in order
to frame the elements of the picture as I want. The most complex
example of that happened recently when I noticed in an old photograph
that there were four very strong non-aligned diagonals, three of which
I had been able to hit image corners with by tilting and cropping. It
seemed to me that by changing camera position I ought to be able to
get all four into the corners, and I wondered if that would make a
more interesting picture.

So I returned with camera to the spot. I had to adopt a very awkward
combination of position, camera angle, tilt, and focal length in order
to do it. It took a lot of experiment, and I wasn't at all sure that I
had found the best way of doing it. It would probably have helped if
I had brought waders so I could have walked into the river, and a tall
monopod to hoist the camera up above my head, with remote view in
order to compose the image from a position way above my head.

--
Chris Malcolm http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2008
In rec.photo.digital ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:44:32 +1000, Doug Jewell wrote:


>>> Zooming with your feet sounds OK in theory, but it fundamentally
>>> alters the relationship between subject and background, or between
>>> primary and secondary subjects. In other words, the perspective.


>> What you say is correct, but at the same time, if you rely
>> soley on your zoom to frame from the position where you are,
>> you will only ever see the likely shot from one perspective.
>> If you are "zooming with your feet", you will move to
>> different positions to examine different perspectives. You
>> might ultimately return to the previous location, or end up
>> shooting from an entirely new location. This is regardless
>> of whether you are using a lens of fixed or variable focal
>> length.


> Well said, probably because I'm in complete agreement. This
> "zooming with your feet" will be useful primarily to a rather small
> percentage of photographers that have the inclination and also the
> ability to visualize the scene to know where to aim their feet. The
> rest of them (or possibly us) will be content to do little walking
> and will prefer to "zoom with their zoom lenses". Sometimes they'll
> be fortunate enough to shoot from a good location, but most of the
> times, their "good enough" shots won't compare favorably with those
> taken by the better photographers that are perfectionists, and who
> won't be deterred by the extra time and effort required to find the
> ideal location.


> This would still be true even if zoom lenses had never been
> produced. Most people shoot with their cameras at eye level, even
> if crouching or standing on a chair or on some other object would
> produce a more pleasing image. I still like my zooms though.


I did a lot of crouching and climbing in my film SLR days. I also
sometimes wanted to take a photograph from a position I couldn't get
my head into, such over the heads of a crowd, or with the camera
jammed into the corner of a room, or held out of a train window at
arm's length. The problem with those positions was not being able to
compose the image, so having to aom and shoot blind and wide, and hope
that cropping would be able to find a fair approximation of what
imagination had hoped for.

I have found having a swivellable live-view LCD so liberating in the
extra range of positions from which I can compose a shot that I now
won't ever go back to a camera which I have to squint through in order
to compose my images.

--
Chris Malcolm (E-Mail Removed) DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2008
On 27 Jan 2008 10:40:54 GMT, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: I did a lot of crouching and climbing in my film SLR days. I also
: sometimes wanted to take a photograph from a position I couldn't get
: my head into, such over the heads of a crowd, or with the camera
: jammed into the corner of a room, or held out of a train window at
: arm's length. The problem with those positions was not being able to
: compose the image, so having to aom and shoot blind and wide, and hope
: that cropping would be able to find a fair approximation of what
: imagination had hoped for.
:
: I have found having a swivellable live-view LCD so liberating in the
: extra range of positions from which I can compose a shot that I now
: won't ever go back to a camera which I have to squint through in order
: to compose my images.

I keep my Canon G-5 for exactly that reason. But I get much better pictures
with my DSLR.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2008
ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Well said, probably because I'm in complete agreement. This
>"zooming with your feet" will be useful primarily to a rather small
>percentage of photographers that have the inclination and also the
>ability to visualize the scene to know where to aim their feet. The
>rest of them (or possibly us) will be content to do little walking
>and will prefer to "zoom with their zoom lenses". Sometimes they'll
>be fortunate enough to shoot from a good location, but most of the
>times, their "good enough" shots won't compare favorably with those
>taken by the better photographers that are perfectionists, and who
>won't be deterred by the extra time and effort required to find the
>ideal location.
>
> This would still be true even if zoom lenses had never been
>produced. Most people shoot with their cameras at eye level, even
>if crouching or standing on a chair or on some other object would
>produce a more pleasing image. I still like my zooms though.



The vast majority of camera owners, and the majority of DSLR owners,
just take snapshots. They are recording family events, vacations,
weekend trips or just normal life where they live. They see all this
from eye level so they snap it from eye level.

On the other hand, a photographer will look for a viewpoint that gives
the right emphasis to a subject, or optimises the available light, or
places it in the right context with its surroundings, or the
background, or a secondary subject. In order to do this to best
advantage, he/she needs to be prepared to walk, run, climb, stretch,
crouch, kneel, lie on the ground and (above all, sometimes) wait for
the right light or content to present itself, or any combination of
these.

And the determination to do any or all of these is what separates a
photographer from a snapshooter.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2008
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:29:47 +0000, Tony Polson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: The vast majority of camera owners, and the majority of DSLR owners,
: just take snapshots. They are recording family events, vacations,
: weekend trips or just normal life where they live. They see all this
: from eye level so they snap it from eye level.
:
: On the other hand, a photographer will look for a viewpoint that gives
: the right emphasis to a subject, or optimises the available light, or
: places it in the right context with its surroundings, or the
: background, or a secondary subject. In order to do this to best
: advantage, he/she needs to be prepared to walk, run, climb, stretch,
: crouch, kneel, lie on the ground and (above all, sometimes) wait for
: the right light or content to present itself, or any combination of
: these.
:
: And the determination to do any or all of these is what separates a
: photographer from a snapshooter.

I don't disagree, partly because I don't think your definition of the
derogatory term "snapshot" is precise enough to take issue with. But I would
point out that most of the memorable pictures that have defined the history of
photography have been taken from at or near eye level.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
George Kerby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2008



On 1/26/08 10:42 PM, in article (E-Mail Removed), "Rita
Berkowitz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> George Kerby wrote:
>
>> Well, this one is free and you get both ears.
>>
>> http://image50.webshots.com/650/7/91...0yPnpKL_fs.jpg
>>
>> BTW: "Rita" is was done with the despiciable Canon 85mm Y1.2 that you
>> consider to be beneath your dignity. Moron. More $$$ than grey matter.

>
> It aint about money, fool, it's about quality. The dirt cheap 85/1.4 Nikkor
> kills every version of the 85 Canon offers.
>

In your deluded reality, bitch.
>> A jpeg - unaltered (as out of the camera) that was captured with my
>> MK-II about a year and a half ago. It has not been sharpened, screwed
>> with, or even resized with any software. Nada.
>>
>> Wide open Y1.2 - 1/640 sec @ ISO 800

>
> I highly suspect that isn't either version of the 85/1.2L since the bokeh
> and DoF is way too shitty. Don't get me wrong, the 85/1.2L has crappy
> bokeh, but this is more on par with a 24-105 or 24-70 on a good day.
>

"Rita", you wouldn't know what a good photograph with excellent bokeh would
be if it hit you in your massive boxcar of an ass. You have proven that by
your posted examples. Simple enough.
>
>
> Rita
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I need to connect two computers 500 feet away T The Head Wireless Networking 3 04-07-2008 11:15 PM
How to run 2 computers wirelessly from 20+ feet away from the wall outlet wirelessly? Cymbal Man Freq. Wireless Networking 3 06-04-2005 11:16 AM
Pages open in window about ten feet wide Marek Williams Firefox 1 05-30-2005 07:58 AM
for all lady's under 5 feet tall Computer Support 9 11-29-2003 05:37 PM
Re: Big Feet Warren Computer Support 1 09-19-2003 08:47 PM



Advertisments