Ultrawide fetish. A "fix" for an inability to compose properly?

On 10/02/2014 9:26 p.m., RichA wrote:
The fetish has been running for the last few years. Prices of wide angle lenses have risen and demand for them is up. It is a fix. Can't find a good subject, or frame it right? Just shoot the entire scene.

The drivel above is worse than your usual standard of misguided opinion
expressed as fact.

On 2014.02.10, 06:00 , Me wrote:
On 10/02/2014 9:26 p.m., RichA wrote:
The fetish has been running for the last few years. Prices of wide
angle lenses have risen and demand for them is up. It is a fix. Can't
find a good subject, or frame it right? Just shoot the entire scene.

The drivel above is worse than your usual standard of misguided opinion
expressed as fact.

You forgot to put "far" before the word "worse" and "low" before "standard".

--
Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
people are not trained to perform.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:54:38 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2014.02.10, 06:00 , Me wrote:
On 10/02/2014 9:26 p.m., RichA wrote:
The fetish has been running for the last few years. Prices of wide
angle lenses have risen and demand for them is up. It is a fix. Can't
find a good subject, or frame it right? Just shoot the entire scene.

The drivel above is worse than your usual standard of misguided opinion
expressed as fact.

You forgot to put "far" before the word "worse" and "low" before "standard".


RichA provides me with the entertainment that the Point and Shoot
Troll used to provide.

On 2014-02-15 08:14:30 +0000, rwalker said:

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:54:38 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2014.02.10, 06:00 , Me wrote:
On 10/02/2014 9:26 p.m., RichA wrote:
The fetish has been running for the last few years. Prices of wide
angle lenses have risen and demand for them is up. It is a fix. Can't
find a good subject, or frame it right? Just shoot the entire scene.

The drivel above is worse than your usual standard of misguided opinion
expressed as fact.

You forgot to put "far" before the word "worse" and "low" before "standard".


RichA provides me with the entertainment that the Point and Shoot
Troll used to provide.

Aah! He who's nym should not be uttered lest we tempt the fates of
trollishness and provoke his resurrection.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2/15/14 7:11 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:14:30 AM UTC-5, rwalker wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:54:38 -0500, Alan Browne

wrote:



On 2014.02.10, 06:00 , Me wrote:

On 10/02/2014 9:26 p.m., RichA wrote:

The fetish has been running for the last few years. Prices of wide

angle lenses have risen and demand for them is up. It is a fix. Can't

find a good subject, or frame it right? Just shoot the entire scene.



The drivel above is worse than your usual standard of misguided opinion

expressed as fact.



You forgot to put "far" before the word "worse" and "low" before "standard".


RichA provides me with the entertainment that the Point and Shoot

Troll used to provide.

Anyone who doesn't think wide angle is often used to cover up laziness and the
inability to compose is only kidding themselves. It's a way of avoiding
putting a real subject in an image. A "broad brush" if ever there was one.


Talk about "broad-brushing" it - YOU are the uncontested leader in that
department with a stupid statement such as that...

On 2014.02.16, 13:50 , Tony Cooper wrote:

I am long past being gobsmacked by the stupidity of RichA's posts, but
he does seem to challenge my sense of outrage.

I've *never* shot a scene too wide, and have often - in post - wished
I would have shot wider. Shooting wide allows later composition based
on where you position the primary subject. Often, through the
viewfinder, you don't see something about the scene that you want in
or out of the finished product. The right crop often makes the scene.


What I find amusing about RichA's latest hallucination is that I
actually have a much harder time with wide composition (that looks good)
than narrower FOV composition where it's easier to frame, exclude
distraction and focus the scene on the subject.

--
Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
- Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:10:42 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:

--- snip ---

Anyone who doesn't think wide angle is often used to cover up laziness and the
inability to compose is only kidding themselves. It's a way of avoiding
putting a real subject in an image. A "broad brush" if ever there was one.


Talk about "broad-brushing" it - YOU are the uncontested leader in that
department with a stupid statement such as that...

I don't know that it's entirely stupid.

I shoot with a D300 and when I bought it I chose the new 16~85mm lens
over any of established 18~XX variations which were available. This
was the 35mm equivalent of going from 28mm to 25mm and I knew from
experience that the extra spread of the shorter lense was very worth
while.

Since you first made this comment I have been going through my various
preferred images and have found that _in_most_cases_ I have zoomed in
or out to get my preferred view. However, in at least one case I have
made an enormous crop to find the picture which lay within. The
beginning https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1404.jpg
and after weeks of playing with colours, trying to take the hill out
of the foreground (with a clone stamp) and cropping to various sizes I
finally got to the end
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ropped%202.jpg
It was there all along but I couldn't quite see it.

But now I have started noticing perhaps the same thing elsewhere. I
have been using a slideshow to provide the desk top back ground for my
computer. It seems never to pick an entire file but just a full screen
window which shows part of a file. A number of times I have looked at
these cropped views and thought 'By Golly, there is a picture there!.

I haven't yet gone back looking for these but I will once I get
through my present backlog of prints.

So, to that extent you are right. The full wide-angle shot may be more
than is needed if there is a better picture hidden within it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Anyone who doesn't think wide angle is often used to cover up laziness and
the inability to compose is only kidding themselves. It's a way of avoiding
putting a real subject in an image. A "broad brush" if ever there was one.


Talk about "broad-brushing" it - YOU are the uncontested leader in that
department with a stupid statement such as that...

I don't know that it's entirely stupid.

it's not stupid at all. wide angle is very useful. it depends on the
scene.

I shoot with a D300 and when I bought it I chose the new 16~85mm lens
over any of established 18~XX variations which were available. This
was the 35mm equivalent of going from 28mm to 25mm and I knew from
experience that the extra spread of the shorter lense was very worth
while.

that lens didn't exist when i bought my slr, so i opted for the 12-24mm
which is *really* useful, and i often use it as a primary lens.

what would be idea for me would be a stabilized 15-150mm rather than
more common 18-200mm, but it's probably a lot harder to design and
market such a lens.

On 2014-02-16 22:44:55 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:10:42 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:

--- snip ---

Anyone who doesn't think wide angle is often used to cover up laziness and the
inability to compose is only kidding themselves. It's a way of avoiding
putting a real subject in an image. A "broad brush" if ever there was one.


Talk about "broad-brushing" it - YOU are the uncontested leader in that
department with a stupid statement such as that...

I don't know that it's entirely stupid.

I shoot with a D300 and when I bought it I chose the new 16~85mm lens
over any of established 18~XX variations which were available. This
was the 35mm equivalent of going from 28mm to 25mm and I knew from
experience that the extra spread of the shorter lense was very worth
while.

Since you first made this comment I have been going through my various
preferred images and have found that _in_most_cases_ I have zoomed in
or out to get my preferred view. However, in at least one case I have
made an enormous crop to find the picture which lay within. The
beginning https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1404.jpg
and after weeks of playing with colours, trying to take the hill out
of the foreground (with a clone stamp) and cropping to various sizes I
finally got to the end
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ropped%202.jpg
It was there all along but I couldn't quite see it.

But now I have started noticing perhaps the same thing elsewhere. I
have been using a slideshow to provide the desk top back ground for my
computer. It seems never to pick an entire file but just a full screen
window which shows part of a file. A number of times I have looked at
these cropped views and thought 'By Golly, there is a picture there!.

I haven't yet gone back looking for these but I will once I get
through my present backlog of prints.

So, to that extent you are right. The full wide-angle shot may be more
than is needed if there is a better picture hidden within it.

Exactly. However, the thing with the example you have show is, it would
have been better shot in landscape rather than portrait orientation to
start with.
Just another example of hindsight after the fact.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2/16/2014 6:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


Exactly. However, the thing with the example you have show is, it would
have been better shot in landscape rather than portrait orientation to
start with.
Just another example of hindsight after the fact.


In my experience most hindsight comes after the fact. ;-p



--
PeterN