«

Years ago, the average amateur couldn't afford ultra wide angle
lenses. They cost far more than most could justify. However, as wide
zooms have appeared (and are relatively cheap) more and more amateurs
are using these lenses. But once you've seen one ultrawide angle
shot, of a beach or train station, it starts to get old, fast.
Ultrawide angle allows most scenes to achieve a kind of dynamic look,
but that's the problem. Ultrawide angle shots don't need
compositional thought in order to have an impact. If you will, they
are an easy out for people who would rather not invest the time and
thought into working a good composition out of a scene.

RichA wrote:
> Ultrawide angle shots don't need
> compositional thought in order to have an impact.
That's an hilariously ignorant statement.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
> > Ultrawide angle shots don't need
> > compositional thought in order to have an impact.
>
> That's an hilariously ignorant statement.

Seconded. Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.

- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/se...=Ryan+McGinnis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMTPmmAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bXY0H/3BOy09pwqovLbI3AJbH4Q7f
PeHAioeniT/M/KjzRxKptYRMWAQkFB7sruydsd6IdK2fLlLWjARzI4x3SXSqFE+ P
DePFnz+DE0EgH5mhhIZx19bimKMvld8EAPKRVoeS73PnWbyNNX SxD0iZVGahPH5z
0d8mg3MGHrINjPVlCIv2d2pkQoLP+Qb8OMb7X74u42ElL2P1BY jEemW+aqCTGmWa
A0K/0uof1Hhnb75Aa6smbDrogRKQLdJ7p2Rw5X3iK8QKhZ3ByU+wmd xp8dcKN7nE
NnqeVgqvsuTuqjoxLvwPm6IrSVb8BDHfr1RP0ORmSD50hJ9L07 MmITveubbUeDU=
=siiZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> OK, the storm chasing work is fascinating. You have given us an
> impressive sample of your work, and a demonstration of your skills as a
> photographer, and with PP.
> Now as a matter of curiosity, what equipment, are you/have you been using?
> Somewhere in that mix of lenses I sense there is at least one fairly
> wide lens you have used to create a less than "boring-as-crap" ultrawide
> shot.

Thanks! Yeah, I generally use ultrawide for the
up-close-with-the-storms photos; I'm shooting crop-sensor Canon bodies,
so the 10-22 has been the primary wide lens. I keep a nifty 50 and a
70-200 in the bag while chasing, too, mostly for panoramic stitch shots
and for the tornado close-ups.

I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
compose a shot in ultrawide.

- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/se...=Ryan+McGinnis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMTQiVAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bkfwH/RxgSFbTW3uEr8Yfw1wEeacL
Jn5qDC+G8FKa5uvKN++8DMV3mg9tnxaFQdk4G3PRm/zVkCYaMng3xSrjShGQD/fh
z6B0W/5XIjbVowwG6L7WS3aw43CcO4iBmZBEYPDekQVICE0hSRw6xIrC mo+trzm4
L7DrVgU5lwZW7bZnUqpZhBx4b13DP1WT4gBAjaZaaXBa8LLfaX D5xXZMdXk5riCt
TXgVXUku4o0Xb4hakFBPmL1UgK7AhaICE3E1fqbAZLJFWeoyI5 vhDpQu2+J679bs
oHqTdhUaEEiKIcB/D4Ut98SGUVN1txpIiRpyCWtMcaO1BGz6s1/yOeadCGJgiA4=
=DwSX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In rec.photo.digital Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

> On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>> RichA wrote:
>> > Ultrawide angle shots don't need
>> > compositional thought in order to have an impact.
>>
>> That's an hilariously ignorant statement.

> Seconded. Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
> but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
> it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.

Thirded. It's easy enough to take weird shots with an ultra wide, if
that's what the OT meant by "imapct". I find ultra wides the most
difficult lenses to take *good* shots with, however, and they need a
lot more compositional thought and experience than any other kind of
lens. Sounds like the OT hasn't much experience with them, probably
just looked at other people's photographs.

--
Chris Malcolm
Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.

On Jul 25, 10:57*pm, Ryan McGinnis <digic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> > RichA wrote:
> > > Ultrawide angle shots don't need
> > > compositional thought in order to have an impact.
>
> > That's an hilariously ignorant statement.
>
> Seconded. *Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
> but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
> it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.

Not really. The distortion provided by UW shots automatically conveys
a dyanamism that non-ultrawide shots don't have, so even if no thought
has gone into them, they are going to have an emotional impact on most
viewers.

"RichA" <> wrote in message
news:e8dfff51-6a46-444c-94ab-...
> Years ago, the average amateur couldn't afford ultra wide angle
> lenses. They cost far more than most could justify. However, as wide
> zooms have appeared (and are relatively cheap) more and more amateurs
> are using these lenses. But once you've seen one ultrawide angle
> shot, of a beach or train station, it starts to get old, fast.

yep I agree, most P&Ss have around 24 to 28mm lens (35mm equiv).
But do we need a wider angle for anythig more than a speacial effect i.e
distortion .

Most cameras also have a stitch facility now, that is meant for peole that
want to get the whole wedding party in rather than a distorted effect.

> Ultrawide angle allows most scenes to achieve a kind of dynamic look,
> but that's the problem. Ultrawide angle shots don't need
> compositional thought in order to have an impact. If you will, they
> are an easy out for people who would rather not invest the time and
> thought into working a good composition out of a scene.

In 35mm film days stitching wasnt; an option but it is now but not used as
much as I would have expected.

"Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
news:4c4d0899$0$24965$...

> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
> compose a shot in ultrawide.
> - --
> - -Ryan McGinnis
> The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
> Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
> Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/se...=Ryan+McGinnis

I second this... With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...
There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
not help.
--DR

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether"
<> wrote:
>"Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
>news:4c4d0899$0$24965$.. .
>
>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
>> compose a shot in ultrawide.
>> - --
>> - -Ryan McGinnis
>> The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
>> Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
>> Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/se...=Ryan+McGinnis
>
>I second this... With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
>"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
>characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...
>There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
>perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
>not help.


It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
irrelevant.

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <> wrote:
>>"Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
>>news:4c4d0899$0$24965$. ..

>>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
>>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
>>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
>>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
>>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
>>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
>>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
>>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
>>> compose a shot in ultrawide.
>>> - --
>>> - -Ryan McGinnis

>>I second this... With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
>>"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
>>characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...
>>There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
>>perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
>>not help.

> It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
> focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
> relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
> irrelevant.

Correct, and a good point. Also, associating "WA distortion" etc. with
specific FLs can result in odd results, as in a rectangular-perspective
10mm can be a super-wide on some formats (with the associated
"distortions" , and it can also be a "distortionless" long FL on other
formats. 'Course, a rotating-slit camera or a stitched digital panorama
with their altered effective sensor shapes can also affect the perspective
type of the system (in this case, the perspective type is "cylindrical").
Understanding perspective can be fun! 8^)
--DR