![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7via http://ift.tt/2co02k2:
torrilin
reblogged your post and added:
Eh? It can be, for some people? Maybe? It’s gonna depend a lot on what kinds of lens distortions you consider a problem and what you plan to shoot. Maybe the kinds of composition you tend to fall back on.
I don’t mean that it’s the Truest Vision, I mean it’s the most neutral level of magnification. Things look the size they are through a 35, while a telephoto makes them look larger and a wide-angle makes them generally look smaller. Yes, there’s a lot more complex optics going on than that, but that’s all I mean– to be the size people are in photos, you stand a distance away that’s friendliest to a 35 (or FX 50).
For the vast majority of my career as a photographer, though, I’ve been less concerned about optical distortions, which I generally don’t notice, and more about trying to get something interesting in focus. I’ve always kind of shot documentary-style, and I’ve only rarely set things up or gone into something just to ‘see what i get’– I’ve always been shit at the art stuff, and instead felt like I had this drive to Document What Was Going On and so on. So it just gives me a different set of concerns, I think.
Mostly I’ve had to fight with motion blur and inadequate lighting, so I literally haven’t ever paid attention to lens distortion beyond what’s horrifyingly unflattering for portraits, since most of my photos end up being of people.
99.99% of the photos of my career have looked approximately like this (back when my equipment couldn’t eliminate motion blur, I had a rock-solid kink for this technique, which is panning to follow the face of my chosen subject while the background and everything else blurs) (this is the 85), or like this
where my primary concern is that i can’t f*cking get far enough away with the lens i have while standing on a bench to get the shot. (this is the 35)
and sometimes this kind of thing
which must have come out with a color cast hence the desaturated edit. I still don’t have the necessary distance, I loved those girls so much, I skated with them for nine years and this was the season I missed due to injury, and then I retired with zero fanfare and just stopped coming around. Anyway. I didn’t expect I’d get quite so many feels from looking back at these photos just now.
Nowadays I do this at the farm, which is often but not always less dramatic.
This is my only semi-special-effects lens, which is a 10.5mm fisheye.
torrilin
reblogged your post and added:
Eh? It can be, for some people? Maybe? It’s gonna depend a lot on what kinds of lens distortions you consider a problem and what you plan to shoot. Maybe the kinds of composition you tend to fall back on.
I don’t mean that it’s the Truest Vision, I mean it’s the most neutral level of magnification. Things look the size they are through a 35, while a telephoto makes them look larger and a wide-angle makes them generally look smaller. Yes, there’s a lot more complex optics going on than that, but that’s all I mean– to be the size people are in photos, you stand a distance away that’s friendliest to a 35 (or FX 50).
For the vast majority of my career as a photographer, though, I’ve been less concerned about optical distortions, which I generally don’t notice, and more about trying to get something interesting in focus. I’ve always kind of shot documentary-style, and I’ve only rarely set things up or gone into something just to ‘see what i get’– I’ve always been shit at the art stuff, and instead felt like I had this drive to Document What Was Going On and so on. So it just gives me a different set of concerns, I think.
Mostly I’ve had to fight with motion blur and inadequate lighting, so I literally haven’t ever paid attention to lens distortion beyond what’s horrifyingly unflattering for portraits, since most of my photos end up being of people.
99.99% of the photos of my career have looked approximately like this (back when my equipment couldn’t eliminate motion blur, I had a rock-solid kink for this technique, which is panning to follow the face of my chosen subject while the background and everything else blurs) (this is the 85), or like this
where my primary concern is that i can’t f*cking get far enough away with the lens i have while standing on a bench to get the shot. (this is the 35)
and sometimes this kind of thing
which must have come out with a color cast hence the desaturated edit. I still don’t have the necessary distance, I loved those girls so much, I skated with them for nine years and this was the season I missed due to injury, and then I retired with zero fanfare and just stopped coming around. Anyway. I didn’t expect I’d get quite so many feels from looking back at these photos just now.
Nowadays I do this at the farm, which is often but not always less dramatic.
This is my only semi-special-effects lens, which is a 10.5mm fisheye.
