50mm pictures with D300

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:22:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote in orclj.35954$fj2.32481@edtnps82:
"Kinon O'Cann" wrote in message
news:MNalj.4076$Ev6.3566@trndny07...
"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
Sosumi wrote:

While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left.
So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures
without a zoomlens to learn composition.
So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and
tried to see....
I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you
have to "create" instead of zooming.

You got it! You did good. I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able
to get the results you want by zooming with your feet.

Zooming with your feet. Spoken like a true clueless imbecile.

Sorry, you can change your position, but you cannot zoom, oh fattest of
asses.

When I read unsolicited insulence such as this, I almost think that
retroactive abortion can be justified.

Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. They would rather
spend money, lots of it, and let technology create their art.

That childish response is actually correct. Moving with your feet is
*not* the same thing as zooming (changing focal length) because it
changes *perspective*, which zooming does not. It's why a "dolly zoom"
is not the same as lens zoom alone.

True, but since we often use zoom not to acquire the specific kind of
perspective which only a specific focal length can give, but simply to
catch the object of interest at an image filling size, "zooming with
the feet" is a perfectly intelligible and useful concept.

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

On Jan 22, 7:57*pm, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas wrote:



On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:22:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote in orclj.35954$fj2.32481@edtnps82:
"Kinon O'Cann" wrote in message
news:MNalj.4076$Ev6.3566@trndny07...
"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
Sosumi wrote:
While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left.
So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures
without a zoomlens to learn composition.
So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and
tried to see....
I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you
have to "create" instead of zooming.

You got it! *You did good. *I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able
to get the results you want by zooming with your feet.

Zooming with your feet. Spoken like a true clueless imbecile.

Sorry, you can change your position, but you cannot zoom, oh fattest of
asses.

When I read unsolicited insulence such as this, I almost think that
retroactive abortion can be justified.

Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. *They would rather
spend money, lots of it, and let technology create their art.
That childish response is actually correct. *Moving with your feet is
*not* the same thing as zooming (changing focal length) because it
changes *perspective*, which zooming does not. *It's why a "dolly zoom"
is not the same as lens zoom alone.

True, but since we often use zoom not to acquire the specific kind of
perspective which only a specific focal length can give

This where everyone seem to get messed up. Focal length has no
effect on perspective, so "acquire the specific kind of perspective
which only a specific focal length can give" is a false statement,
because it is only subject distance that effects perspective.

but simply to
catch the object of interest at an image filling size, "zooming with
the feet" is a perfectly intelligible and useful concept.

"Filling the frame" is THE important concept here, as it maximises the
use of the capture medium. "Filling the frame" can be achieved
"Zooming" OR "Getting closer", but these are mutually exclusive and
you can't combine the two and "Zoom closer".

In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical
one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got
confused from there.

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
"Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
Sosumi wrote:

While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left.
So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures
without a zoomlens to learn composition.
So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and
tried to see....
I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you
have to "create" instead of zooming.

You got it! You did good. I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able
to get the results you want by zooming with your feet.

I'm a relative pup to photography. I've only been doing it for 8 years
now. So to clarify the "Zooming with your feet" thing. I read that as a
"creative analogy."

That's how it was meant, right?

Also, why do the Beatles start singing in my head whenever I read a post
by you?

:O)

Have fun,
Dave
The analogy came across crystal clear. And, I think that the 50mm challenge
is a great one.

Perhaps everyone on the group should take a few shots with that sorely
neglected portal and post it somewhere. Subscribers to the group could
choose the best one.

Albeit, virtual accalaides just don't have the same effect as a big cheque.

Take Care,
Dudley

In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical
one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got
confused from there.

I'd say it's a case of purists versus pragmatists.

But, I'd like to know when the term zoom (which probably referred simply to
the moving of one lens element away from another when applied to the first
zoom lens) suddenly aquired such a rigidly legalistic and inflexible
meaning.

Is it against the law to think of getting closer to the subject as "zooming
in on it"?

Sometimes the mould of academia does more to kill creativity than it does to
foster it.

So Long Folks,
Dudley

Beauty isn't always found in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it can be
found in the mind as well.

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
DaveS wrote:

You got it! You did good. I love the old 50 and it is nice to be
able to get the results you want by zooming with your feet.

I'm a relative pup to photography. I've only been doing it for 8
years now. So to clarify the "Zooming with your feet" thing. I read
that as a "creative analogy."

It's both a creative analogy as well a way to take full advantage of your
equipment's potential while maximizing yours.

That's how it was meant, right?

See above: My suggestion is to put one of your favorite prime lens on and
go out for a day or two and see how much more you think about your shots
and
the fun you have doing it. If you don't have any primes just set your
zoom
to 35, 50, 85, or 105mm and lock it in place with some electrical tape and
go out and have fun.

One of my recent self imposed creative chores, is to do some "classic"
photographs. I've restricted myself to 8X10 format and B&W. Maybe I'll add
the prime lens bit also. This thread did get me thinking.

Also, why do the Beatles start singing in my head whenever I read a
post by you?

I'm not sure if that is a compliment but I'll take it as one.

My version... :O)

Have fun,
Dave

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
Sosumi wrote:

While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left.
So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures
without a zoomlens to learn composition.
So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and
tried to see....
I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you
have to "create" instead of zooming.

You got it! You did good. I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able to
get the results you want by zooming with your feet.

Rita


Thanks Rita.
My feet are not that great, but it's worth it.
Ansel Adams had quite a few remarkable expressions that can help taking
better pictures. When wise men talk, I always listen..

"A good photograph is knowing where to stand."

" In my mind's eye, I visualize how a particular... sight and feeling will
appear on a print. If it excites me, there is a good chance it will make a
good photograph. It is an intuitive sense, an ability that comes from a lot
of practice. "

"You don't take a photograph, you make it."

"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter. "

As an aid for my own photo's I look at the thumbnails more; if they look
interesting, there's a chance so is the photo and vice versa.
Also to look critical at your own pictures can be hazardous. So I look
quickly at a picture and think if it's possible it was a holiday snapshot.
If the answer is yes, the picture is not good.

I'll write you to your mailbox about something that's not for the public.

Thanks again!


--
Sosumi

"Sosumi" wrote in message
...

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
Sosumi wrote:

While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left.
So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures
without a zoomlens to learn composition.
So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and
tried to see....
I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you
have to "create" instead of zooming.

You got it! You did good. I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able
to get the results you want by zooming with your feet.

Rita


Thanks Rita.
My feet are not that great, but it's worth it.
Ansel Adams had quite a few remarkable expressions that can help taking
better pictures. When wise men talk, I always listen..

"A good photograph is knowing where to stand."

" In my mind's eye, I visualize how a particular... sight and feeling will
appear on a print. If it excites me, there is a good chance it will make a
good photograph. It is an intuitive sense, an ability that comes from a
lot of practice. "

"You don't take a photograph, you make it."

"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter. "

As an aid for my own photo's I look at the thumbnails more; if they look
interesting, there's a chance so is the photo and vice versa.
Also to look critical at your own pictures can be hazardous. So I look
quickly at a picture and think if it's possible it was a holiday snapshot.
If the answer is yes, the picture is not good.

I'll write you to your mailbox about something that's not for the public.

Thanks again!


--
Sosumi

Now, that's photography in a nutshell.

If one can't see with the mind, it doesn't matter what technological marvel
is plopped in front of the eye.

Take Care,
Dudley

Beauty isn't always found in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes it can live
in the mind as well.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems PixelPix wrote:
On Jan 22, 7:57?pm, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:22:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote in orclj.35954$fj2.32481@edtnps82:
"Kinon O'Cann" wrote in message
news:MNalj.4076$Ev6.3566@trndny07...
"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
Sosumi wrote:

While I was waiting for my new zoom lens, I only had the 50mm left.
So I thought about something someone said someday: take pictures
without a zoomlens to learn composition.
So for all you boys and girls I hauled my camera around town and
tried to see....
I think there's absolutely some truth in this. You do feel that you
have to "create" instead of zooming.

You got it! ?You did good. ?I love the old 50 and it is nice to be able
to get the results you want by zooming with your feet.

Zooming with your feet. Spoken like a true clueless imbecile.

Sorry, you can change your position, but you cannot zoom, oh fattest of
asses.

When I read unsolicited insulence such as this, I almost think that
retroactive abortion can be justified.

Some people are just too lazy to zoom with their feet. ?They would rather
spend money, lots of it, and let technology create their art.
That childish response is actually correct. ?Moving with your feet is
*not* the same thing as zooming (changing focal length) because it
changes *perspective*, which zooming does not. ?It's why a "dolly zoom"
is not the same as lens zoom alone.

True, but since we often use zoom not to acquire the specific kind of
perspective which only a specific focal length can give

This where everyone seem to get messed up. Focal length has no
effect on perspective, so "acquire the specific kind of perspective
which only a specific focal length can give" is a false statement,
because it is only subject distance that effects perspective.

What is the "distance to the subject" in the case of a landscape
photograph ranging from near foreground to distant horizon? Is the
subject the person leaning against a tree six feet from the camera,
or the full moon rising over the horizon, some quarter of a million
miles away?

The impossibility of answering such questions, plus the theory of
perspective projection in images which began with the painters and
geometers of the Renaissance, is the reason many of us consider that
perspective is a property of the entire image, not just "the subject",
and certainly not "distance to the subject".

In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical
one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got
confused from there.

It's impossible to escape confusion if you think perspective has to do
with "distance to the subject".

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

In a nutshell, this whole argument is simply started as a technical
one based of the incorrect use of the term "Zoom" and it's kinda got
confused from there.

It's impossible to escape confusion if you think perspective has to do
with "distance to the subject".

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



It's interesting that, if you talk to 98% of the photographers and camera
sales persons, they will think about "zooming" in terms of image
magnification and not perspective. Why else does it say "4x" or "6x" or
"10x" on the front of most point and shoot cameras? Is the manufacturer
referring to a six times flattening effect of perspective as you zoom in? I
think not.

The remaining 2% of academic photographic purists seem to be confusing the
telephoto effect of compressing perspective as the most identifiable
characteristic of a "zoom" lens. True, its one characteristic, but it's
neither the only characteristic, nor the most significant.

Why is it that the 2% of academic purists must always think they are right
and the 98% of practitioners must always be wrong?

Take Care,
Dudley

Beauty isn't always found in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes, it is
found in the mind as well.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:53:14 -0500, "Rita Berkowitz"
wrote in :

Dudley Hanks wrote:

You do understand the original intent of the thread, right?

Don't be too sure, John has been struggling through life ever since the
28.8K modem was replaced. He lost his 15-minutes of fame and has been very
bitter ever since. Life moves on, John.

When someone stoops to insults, all they really accomplish is to make it
clear to others that they have nothing more meaningful to say and are
insecure about their own abilities.

These posts received a resounding, unwarranted, ridicule, and I merely
attempted to support the original two posters by defending the
proposal.

Thanks for the support, but what you describe is standard operating
procedures for Usenet.

You would of course know, as you've demonstrated in this post.

Given the high tech, mega-featured cameras we all have today, it's
easy to rely on the technology to capture a stunning image. But, how
many of today's point and shooters would even own a camera if they
had to put in the same degree of work that photographers routinely
exerted 30, 50, or more yeears ago?

You got it! I love my primes on the D3. And many of these same people
couldn't comprehend the enjoyment I had when using my Nikkors on the Mk III.
Getting back to basics can be a very amazing and rewarding experience. Some
people are simply frightened of manual focus.

Basics have nothing to do with the issue at hand. If you have a prime
long lens at hand and time to use it, then you may have no need for a
zoom (no matter how good) or to move closer to the subject (which may
not be possible).

Of course, the flip side is: if people tried the 50mm challenge and
found out that a bit of physical exertion and creative thought can
yield as much of an improvement in our current images, imagine what
could happen if a similar degree of effort and creative thought were
to be employed in using our little pocket sized cameras.

Yep!

So how exactly would you zoom with your feet in these cases:
http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1040091q8fr5.jpg
http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030792filteredcropge6.jpg
http://img107.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030774filterednt2.jpg
http://img256.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030708filteredmo8.jpg
http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1020078il3.jpg

I think the exercise at least deserves a try, and the proponents of
the concept a bit of respect.

Absolutely! Most of the people fighting the concept are nothing more than
mindless antagonists that very rarely if ever contribute images to the
group.

Again, you would know, as you've demonstrated in this post.

To suggest zooming with feet is a real substitute for lens zoom as a
general proposition is both wrongheaded and offensive.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)