Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?

RichA wrote:
Ultrawide angle shots don't need
compositional thought in order to have an impact.
That's an hilariously ignorant statement.

On 2010-07-25 19:57:59 -0700, Ryan McGinnis said:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, Me wrote:
RichA wrote:
Ultrawide angle shots don't need
compositional thought in order to have an impact.

That's an hilariously ignorant statement.

Seconded. Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.

- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/se...=Ryan+McGinnis

OK, the storm chasing work is fascinating. You have given us an
impressive sample of your work, and a demonstration of your skills as a
photographer, and with PP.
Now as a matter of curiosity, what equipment, are you/have you been using?
Somewhere in that mix of lenses I sense there is at least one fairly
wide lens you have used to create a less than "boring-as-crap"
ultrawide shot.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In rec.photo.digital Ryan McGinnis wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, Me wrote:
RichA wrote:
Ultrawide angle shots don't need
compositional thought in order to have an impact.

That's an hilariously ignorant statement.

Seconded. Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.

Thirded. It's easy enough to take weird shots with an ultra wide, if
that's what the OT meant by "imapct". I find ultra wides the most
difficult lenses to take *good* shots with, however, and they need a
lot more compositional thought and experience than any other kind of
lens. Sounds like the OT hasn't much experience with them, probably
just looked at other people's photographs.

--
Chris Malcolm
Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.

"Ryan McGinnis" wrote in message
...

I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
compose a shot in ultrawide.
- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/se...=Ryan+McGinnis

I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
not help.
--DR

On 7/25/10 9:45 PM, in article , "Me"
wrote:

RichA wrote:
Ultrawide angle shots don't need
compositional thought in order to have an impact.
That's an hilariously ignorant statement.

Consider the source.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether"
wrote:
"Ryan McGinnis" wrote in message
. ..

I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
compose a shot in ultrawide.
- --
- -Ryan McGinnis

I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
not help.

It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
irrelevant.

Correct, and a good point. Also, associating "WA distortion" etc. with
specific FLs can result in odd results, as in a rectangular-perspective
10mm can be a super-wide on some formats (with the associated
"distortions" ;-), and it can also be a "distortionless" long FL on other
formats. 'Course, a rotating-slit camera or a stitched digital panorama
with their altered effective sensor shapes can also affect the perspective
type of the system (in this case, the perspective type is "cylindrical").
Understanding perspective can be fun! 8^)
--DR

In article ,
Bruce wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether"
wrote:
"Ryan McGinnis" wrote in message
.. .

I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
compose a shot in ultrawide.
- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/se...=Ryan+McGinnis

I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
not help.


It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
irrelevant.

In "Photographic Lenses: Photographer's Guide to Characteristics,
Quality, Use and Design" Ernst Wildi has two sets of photographs using
progressively longer lenses from 38mm to 500mm Hasselblad lenses (20mm
to 255mm equivalentin 35mm film format).

The first sequence, one shot per lens, is taken standing in the same
spot looking at the same scene. The second sequence is of a lovely lady
on the beach and he moved the camera to keep her the same size in each
image.

It does a great job of showing how focal length and distance affect
perspective

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether"
wrote:
"Ryan McGinnis" wrote in message
...

I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
compose a shot in ultrawide.
- --
- -Ryan McGinnis

I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
not help.

It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
irrelevant.

Correct, and a good point. Also, associating "WA distortion" etc. with
specific FLs can result in odd results, as in a rectangular-perspective
10mm can be a super-wide on some formats (with the associated
"distortions" ;-), and it can also be a "distortionless" long FL on other
formats. 'Course, a rotating-slit camera or a stitched digital panorama
with their altered effective sensor shapes can also affect the perspective
type of the system (in this case, the perspective type is "cylindrical").
Understanding perspective can be fun! 8^)
--DR

Ooops! I let slip by, "Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and
its relationship with the subject." "Perspective" is also a function of the
specific perspective type the lens/sensor-shape renders when making
the image...
--DR

RichA wrote:
On Jul 25, 10:57 pm, Ryan wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Jul 25, 9:45 pm, wrote:

RichA wrote:
Ultrawide angle shots don't need
compositional thought in order to have an impact.

That's an hilariously ignorant statement.

Seconded. Ultrawide makes finding lines and shapes a bit easier,
but it's pretty easy to take a boring-as-crap ultrawide shot, just as
it's pretty easy to take boring photos at most other focal lengths.

Not really. The distortion provided by UW shots automatically conveys
a dyanamism that non-ultrawide shots don't have, so even if no thought
has gone into them, they are going to have an emotional impact on most
viewers.

Yeah but a poorly composed ultra wide shot is likely to invoke disgust
rather than the boredom of a poorly composed normal view g. So it's
not exactly a safe shortcut to fame. The exception is an ultra wide shot
at the beach with no foreground, which will indeed look boring. Fisheye
lenses are really tough to make good photos with because it usually just
looks weird and bad.

In rec.photo.digital David Ruether wrote:

"Ryan McGinnis" wrote in message
...

I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
compose a shot in ultrawide.

I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
not help.

I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
excellent!

Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
calling it "distortion".

--
Chris Malcolm
Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.