10-22mm

People say that 10-22 is good for landscaping and architecture. I understand
the aspect of doing architecture shots, being close to the object standing
on narrow city roads.

When comes to landscaping. I do landscaping using say 18mm and everything
looks so distant. I'm talking about open spaces with distant mountain. Now
when I think to make the same shot with 10mm it seams to me that everything
will be even more distant. Perhaps my way of thinking is wrong. Any thoughts
here?

thanks

"jazu" wrote:

People say that 10-22 is good for landscaping and architecture. I understand
the aspect of doing architecture shots, being close to the object standing
on narrow city roads.

When comes to landscaping. I do landscaping using say 18mm and everything
looks so distant. I'm talking about open spaces with distant mountain. Now
when I think to make the same shot with 10mm it seams to me that everything
will be even more distant. Perhaps my way of thinking is wrong. Any thoughts
here?


If you treat a 10mm focal length merely as a means of getting more
into the picture, you will end up with some pretty dull landscapes.
Possibly the best way to improve them is to include a foreground
subject and use the wide angle lens to set it in the context of its
background.

The most successful ultra-wide landscapes seem to follow this formula.
I'm not usually a fan of "formula photography". However, in the
specific case of ultra-wide lenses used for landscape photography I
find it difficult to provide an alternative.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:18:01 GMT, "jazu"
wrote:

People say that 10-22 is good for landscaping and architecture. I understand
the aspect of doing architecture shots, being close to the object standing
on narrow city roads.

When comes to landscaping. I do landscaping using say 18mm and everything
looks so distant. I'm talking about open spaces with distant mountain. Now
when I think to make the same shot with 10mm it seams to me that everything
will be even more distant. Perhaps my way of thinking is wrong. Any thoughts
here?

thanks


You are right about everything you say.

The solution? Panorama attachment for your tripod, so you can stitch
together sequential photos as you rotate the tripod through calibrated
degrees/increments. BUT, do not move the Axis of Rotation, which must
be, the nodal focal point of the lens, or, you will end up with image
distortion.

The panoramic mount is going to cost $$$ if you get a GOOD one, which
is warranted only if you do a Lot of this kind of work.

Lg

Lawrence Glickman wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:18:01 GMT, "jazu"
wrote:

People say that 10-22 is good for landscaping and architecture. I
understand the aspect of doing architecture shots, being close to
the object standing on narrow city roads.

When comes to landscaping. I do landscaping using say 18mm and
everything looks so distant. I'm talking about open spaces with
distant mountain. Now when I think to make the same shot with 10mm
it seams to me that everything will be even more distant. Perhaps my
way of thinking is wrong. Any thoughts here?

thanks


You are right about everything you say.

The solution? Panorama attachment for your tripod, so you can stitch
together sequential photos as you rotate the tripod through calibrated
degrees/increments. BUT, do not move the Axis of Rotation, which must
be, the nodal focal point of the lens, or, you will end up with image
distortion.

The panoramic mount is going to cost $$$ if you get a GOOD one, which
is warranted only if you do a Lot of this kind of work.

Lg

... or experiment with an easy-to-use program like the free autostitch.

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

For panos involving relatively distant scenery I have never found a need
for expensive tripod attachments or calibration of the rotation. If the
OP takes a fancy to panos, he can consider the more expensive add-ons
later.

Cheers,
David

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:57:11 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

Lawrence Glickman wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:18:01 GMT, "jazu"
wrote:

People say that 10-22 is good for landscaping and architecture. I
understand the aspect of doing architecture shots, being close to
the object standing on narrow city roads.

When comes to landscaping. I do landscaping using say 18mm and
everything looks so distant. I'm talking about open spaces with
distant mountain. Now when I think to make the same shot with 10mm
it seams to me that everything will be even more distant. Perhaps my
way of thinking is wrong. Any thoughts here?

thanks


You are right about everything you say.

The solution? Panorama attachment for your tripod, so you can stitch
together sequential photos as you rotate the tripod through calibrated
degrees/increments. BUT, do not move the Axis of Rotation, which must
be, the nodal focal point of the lens, or, you will end up with image
distortion.

The panoramic mount is going to cost $$$ if you get a GOOD one, which
is warranted only if you do a Lot of this kind of work.

Lg

.. or experiment with an easy-to-use program like the free autostitch.

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

For panos involving relatively distant scenery I have never found a need
for expensive tripod attachments or calibration of the rotation. If the
OP takes a fancy to panos, he can consider the more expensive add-ons
later.

Cheers,
David

And I didn't even know such a software program exists. Thank you for
bringing it to my attention. I will check the URL. Again, thanks
very much.

Lg

10-20 mm lenses are difficult to learn to use for all the reasons cited. You
also have to learn to work with the distortion that is inherent to these
lens designs.
With practice, and software, you can make excellent hand-held panoramas.
Results improve, for obvious reasons, with a tripod.
While ideal it it entirely overkill for most users to get a device to offset
the axis of rotation to that of the lens.

jazu wrote:
People say that 10-22 is good for landscaping and architecture. I understand
the aspect of doing architecture shots, being close to the object standing
on narrow city roads.

When comes to landscaping. I do landscaping using say 18mm and everything
looks so distant. I'm talking about open spaces with distant mountain. Now
when I think to make the same shot with 10mm it seams to me that everything
will be even more distant. Perhaps my way of thinking is wrong. Any thoughts
here?

You really need a strong foreground object to anchor a scene and make a
lens super-wide-angle lens work. If you're just taking a picture of a
mountain in the distance, I would take a series of photos and stitch.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:37:15 GMT, "flaming-o"
wrote:

While ideal it it entirely overkill for most users to get a device to offset
the axis of rotation to that of the lens.

Maybe for most users, but if you're going on an assignment for
National Geographic, if they don't supply you with this instrument,
you had best rent one from a Photo Supply. Think 2-page layout, side
by side.

Some publishers are fussy about this stuff. If you're taking photos
for your own enjoyment only, that is a different matter completely.

Lg

"flaming-o" wrote:

10-20 mm lenses are difficult to learn to use for all the reasons cited. You
also have to learn to work with the distortion that is inherent to these
lens designs.
With practice, and software, you can make excellent hand-held panoramas.
Results improve, for obvious reasons, with a tripod.
While ideal it it entirely overkill for most users to get a device to offset
the axis of rotation to that of the lens.


I wonder why several responses have suggested ways of making panoramic
shots when the original poster didn't even mention panoramas?

Lawrence Glickman wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:57:11 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

Lawrence Glickman wrote:
Lg
.. or experiment with an easy-to-use program like the free autostitch.

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

For panos involving relatively distant scenery I have never found a need
for expensive tripod attachments or calibration of the rotation. If the
OP takes a fancy to panos, he can consider the more expensive add-ons
later.


And I didn't even know such a software program exists. Thank you for
bringing it to my attention. I will check the URL. Again, thanks
very much.

If you're doing close up panos, you need the special head designed for
such. Otherwise, good panos can be done on any sturdy tripod, or even
handheld in decent light.

Photoshop 10 (CS3) has quite good stitching, improved over v2, itself
better than v1.

--
John McWilliams