Change your perspective & lens - now you're a real photographer ;)

JonMcGuffin

So I was perusing Joe McNally's blog today and came across what I believe is a really fantastic blog post
http://blog.joemcnally.com/2015/07/21/change-your-lens/

I think in light of all of our recent conversations regarding becoming a better photographer, it's often times just a change of perspective and a change of lens is all it takes to really light it up.

Joe of course takes wonderful images by just about anybody's account but I find some in this set to really really good!

spraynpray

Very rousing!

ggbutcher

...and, that's pretty much why I like my zoom. Lost IQ is more than made up by 'reflexive perspective'...

tcole1983

Zooms can be sharp so I don't think the iq difference is what one considers with pro level zooms. However I think many primes have character and different bokeh aspects that the zooms don't. A zoom is convenient, but for me I think it instigates a lack of creativity from me most of the time. I find more interesting shots when I put a prime on. I have just like Joe did in his article switch lenses around and get different perspectives for shots...it helps. I took three shots tonight of the same thing..first shot with 17-55, second with 300 f4 and last with 105. I am anxious to see them when I get on my computer at home because I know what I want the shot to look like and hope one turned out that way.

Msmoto

I love this....and have done something similar......what I thought was a set of images with a certain lens, later I determine my original plans were not very good.

Example...recent ride on the Cumbres & Toltec...thought the fisheye would be great....but it was a flop, IMO. The 24mm and 70-200 worked out much better.

Motorsports venues, sometimes, much closer is allowed and vehicles can be shot with short 70-200 vs. 400 or longer.

Flexibility, both in the kit and in the thinking.....that is it.

PB_PM

Wasn't there some famous photographer (don't care who) that said unless you look at your subject for at least 25 minutes you'll never really see it, or even start to be creative? To me this has little to do with focal length, and more to do with how you position yourself first. Position, perspective, light and shutter speed are the keys!

WestEndFoto

I can relate to this. With a prime, I am forced to visualize what the shot will look like. A zoom somehow interferes with that process for me. I can't zoom in an out with a prime. Since I usually cannot get the shot that I want, or feels right, in the particular spot that I am standing, I have to visualize where the best place to stand is and then move there. With this "first visualization", comes additional visualizations that would not come to me if I did not do the first one.

I have one zoom, my 14-24. I either shoot it at 14 or 24. Almost nothing in between. It seems like I am taking a snapshot, which is inherently unsatisfying, if I do that. I find I cannot think if I am in the middle of the zoom range. I can't explain it. It is simply so.

WestEndFoto

Another way to look at it is this. I believe that visualization is the key to good artistic photography. Without visualization, you merely have snapshots. It is the difference between the creation of an artistic vision and the mere recording of an event.

safyre

Primes are good for a beginner photographer to learn about perspective, vantage points, and actually move around instead of just being lazy and zooming. I personally used primes for almost 2 years until just recently when I switched back to zooms. Now I'm really able to create more dynamic images without having to constantly change lenses all the time. Yes I know there is supposedly some drop off in image quality but getting the shot > image quality.

JonMcGuffin

Well, no need to turn this into a prime vs zoom discussion. There's no point really. 300mm is 300mm regardless of whether it's done on the 300m f4 or the 200-400 @300mm f4.

Joe didn't even mention prime or zoom or even the focal length for that matter. Reason being, it doesn't matter. The entire point is to simply understand as others of you here have said is that you need to often take a step back, go for another focal length, angle and distance to your scene/subject and go with that.

We can't always envision and pull off every picture we think will work. It's as much about working the picture while you're in the process of creating It..

Pistnbroke

This reminds me of the wedding photographer who when seeing clients had a copy of Vogue with him and pointed out that the shot on the cover took 4 hrs to produce.....

In your world McNally not mine.

spraynpray

@JonMcGuffin: +1.

Joe's post was to illustrate how a naf background could become powerful just by changing the perspective of it. Prime versus zoom, character of lenses etc. doesn't matter. I would get a shot in the bag if the light was special then take the time to improve on it if possible (always possible!).

kenadams

Great article! Really something to keep in mind!

One thing though, I think not many of us are in a position where they can bring a 14-24 and a 600 f4 to the same shoot on the off chance they might need it...

sevencrossing

Primes are good for a beginner.... I personally used primes for almost 2 years until just recently when I switched back to zooms.

As other have said, it does not matter, 300mm is 300mm
It is simply a case of having and using the right lens

tcole1983

It isn't a prime vs zoom discussion but it is relevant and you can't say there is no difference. He also clearly says he tried from up close and then not only moved but eventually used a 600 f4. Besides why shoot a 200 f2 if you have an 18-200? 200 is the same no matter right? Wrong...the 200 f2 has that look. You are going to get that look you want. In the article he is mostly talking about changing perspective to get the look you want but as I said yesterday I took three different pictures at three focal lengths to try to get a certain look...mostly because I wanted subject isolation but also hoping one would give me the look I wanted.

sevencrossing

Different primes and different zooms will all have different "looks" at different apertures
It is up to you, to decide the "look" you want
but at 200mm the perspective will be unchanged

WestEndFoto

Unless I am shooting wide open, the look will be similar or the same for a prime or zoom.

My point is that shooting a prime is a different process than shooting a zoom. That process forces me to visualize more, which is important in my photography.

Everyone else can decide what is important for them.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I have been liking my 300mm shots and that article and previous one he is shooting at 200mm-600mm. It's Not just for the bokeh but for the framing that im liking the tele shots. When it suits 35 or 50mm for enviromental.

JonMcGuffin

No better way to compress the sun right onto your model than to shoot at 600mm. Despite the fact most of us can't afford to carry around the luggage of lenses Joe does, 600mm lenses such as the Tamron or Sigma are actually quite affordable and I'm sure would offer quite similar - if not indistinguishable results.

The pictures are a factor of model, pose, lighting, makeup, hair, wardrobe, angles, and focal length FAR more than it is "this lens vs another" or even f4 vs f6.3. When the sun is 90million miles away and an infinity sky, it just doesn't matter much in that case.

WestEndFoto

One thing that also I like about longer focal lengths, besides the compression, is that it is easy to edit out distracting background subjects by shifting your position.

KnockKnock

Hah.. whoa, going to 600mm. Yeah. Must be nice to have that option. I really need a tele option greater than 105mm.

Moving away from prime/zoom, doesn't NR forum protocol demand a conversation about the Df when talking about slowing down :-)

snakebunk

For one or two years I only had my 500 mm lense, so I have photographed most things with it. A good thing is that you can get almost on level with things that are high up. You can also isolate a good bakground as in the article. A bad thing is that air starts to lower the image quality as you move too far away.

tektrader

I am aware of the effects of compressing the perspective with focal lengths......... Problem is I struggle with using it, or even remembering its there to use.

I expect that's the difference between an amateur and a pro.............. Maybe sometime the light bulb will come on....

spraynpray

I am aware of the effects of compressing the perspective with focal lengths......... Problem is I struggle with using it, or even remembering its there to use.

I expect that's the difference between an amateur and a pro.............. Maybe sometime the light bulb will come on....

I learned photography back in the days of only film cameras (mechanical and manual only) long before digital. These days the emphasis seems to be on learning software before technique. I sometimes feel like a fish out of water with such complexity to get an image now by comparison to then. Funny old world.

tektrader

Funny old world indeed, In fact my Photographic training was way back in the 1970's at College. It wasn't really a direction in my life at that time. The long hair in the photo's I have back then, are a dead giveaway of how vintage both myself and my OM-1 are these days.

But after a 35 year, off again, on again relationship with photography. I bought back in.

Luckily the technical part didn't get forgotten, however the artistic part is extremely rusty even after the last 5 years practice. BUT I keep trying.........

IMO the advent of good quality zoom lenses sort of killed off the use of this knowledge for most people, who preferred to zoom rather than step back, then accepting what ever depth perspective they got.

spraynpray

"MO the advent of good quality zoom lenses sort of killed off the use of this knowledge for most people, who preferred to zoom rather than step back, then accepting what ever depth perspective they got."

Absolutely +1. But of course you can always swap out your 70-200 for your 80-400 and still get perspective options.