New Foto Tip by Mark Alberhasy - A Perspective on Lenses

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...
"Herb Ludwig" wrote in message
...
When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the condensed
perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My personal taste
for
landscape images goes rather in the opposite, wide-angle direction, where
the foreground subject is emphazised and the feeling of depth enhanced.
Therefore my preference and reliance on the 17-40 f4 Zoom.
Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate:
http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350

Funny then that that shot has little foreground detail. Whilst it's quite
an
OK shot, why would you have to "strive" to emulate it? Are you suggesting
you could not do as well, in the same location, for some reason?

MrT.


This beautiful wide-angle shot documents exactly the characteristics and
qualities alluded to. Namely, foreground emphasized and the feeling of depth
enhanced. A true masterpiece of composition, light and perspective!
I guess, if you can't see this, any more worde are wasted.

















;

"Hanna Lahy" wrote in message
...
This beautiful wide-angle shot documents exactly the characteristics and
qualities alluded to. Namely, foreground emphasized and the feeling of
depth
enhanced. A true masterpiece of composition, light and perspective!
I guess, if you can't see this, any more worde are wasted.

Yes, since art is very much a personal thing. To my mind some real
foreground detail (say if the rocks were closer for example) *would*
emphasize the feeling of depth, which IMO it is not in this picture. But as
I already stated, it is quite OK as is, and you are welcome to prefer it
even. What is not apparent to me though, is why you couldn't do as well from
the same location, or think that I can't?

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote
(SNIP)
But as I already stated, it is quite OK as is, and you are welcome to
prefer it
even. What is not apparent to me though, is why you couldn't do as well
from
the same location, or think that I can't?
MrT.



Where do you get this notion from? Actually, Herb Ludwig says the opposite
of what you are saying he says! You seem to be confused about the meaning of
the word "emulate".
My dictionary (Merriam-Webster Unabridged, Vers2.5_2000) defines it this
way:

EMULATE
transitive verb
1 a : to strive to equal or excel : with the intention of equaling or
outdoing

In article , MrT@home
says...
What is not apparent to me though, is why you couldn't do as well from
the same location, or think that I can't?


Finding the right location is almost half the art. A step or two
backwards or to the right, is a different location and a different
photo.

Finding the right time is also almost half the art.

Some people are waaay better at this than others and I am desperately
envious of them.

--
Alan LeHun

"Hanna Lahy" wrote in message
...
(SNIP)
But as I already stated, it is quite OK as is, and you are welcome to
prefer it
even. What is not apparent to me though, is why you couldn't do as well
from
the same location, or think that I can't?


Where do you get this notion from? Actually, Herb Ludwig says the opposite
of what you are saying he says! You seem to be confused about the meaning
of
the word "emulate".
My dictionary (Merriam-Webster Unabridged, Vers2.5_2000) defines it this
way:

EMULATE
transitive verb
1 a : to strive to equal or excel : with the intention of equaling or
outdoing

What the hell are you on about? The word used was "strive" in the first
place. Where have I said any different?

MrT.

"Alan LeHun" wrote in message
...
Finding the right location is almost half the art. A step or two
backwards or to the right, is a different location and a different
photo.

Finding the right time is also almost half the art.

Some people are waaay better at this than others and I am desperately
envious of them.

Exactly, being in the right place at the right time is part of the art
(combined with a degree of luck). However I am not envious at all. Being
able to do it depends to a large extent on how much you desire that shot.
Being able to pay all the expenses, hike for miles, buy and carry the
necessary equipment, get out of bed early, spend the necessary number of
days etc. is a measure of your desire and commitment, not of your
photographic ability.
Naturally the best photo's require both skill and commitment, and usually a
fair amount of luck. And even skill is part artistic ability, and part
technical ability.
Of course some people have no ability whatsoever, but I do not include them
in this discussion. And remember there is far more to photography than
landscapes.

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote
Exactly, being in the right place at the right time is part of the art
(combined with a degree of luck). However I am not envious at all. Being
able to do it depends to a large extent on how much you desire that shot.
Being able to pay all the expenses, hike for miles, buy and carry the
necessary equipment, get out of bed early, spend the necessary number of
days etc. is a measure of your desire and commitment, not of your
photographic ability.
Naturally the best photo's require both skill and commitment, and usually
a
fair amount of luck. And even skill is part artistic ability, and part
technical ability.
Of course some people have no ability whatsoever, but I do not include
them
in this discussion. And remember there is far more to photography than
landscapes.

MrT.



Hmmm, now you made me curious. Do you care to provide a link or post one of
your photos here so that we know what you are talking so cogently about ?

Herb Ludwig wrote:
"Mike Fields" spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet wrote:

I have seen more people bitten with the foreground/background
thing. Out in the open country somewhere with a beautiful
mountain backdrop, they shoot the picture of someone from
up close with the wide angle then notice when they get home
the "magnificent mountain scenery" that was there when they
took the picture is just a couple of little bumps behind their
subject. Always the same comment "gee I don't understand,
the mountains looked so much bigger when we were there".
Step back even 10 feet, zoom in a bit to frame the subject
and voila - the mountains are there !! (unless you live in
Kansas, in which case, there is no hope for mountains .. )



When one wants to enhance the size of distant mountains, the condensed
perspective of a tele lens is certainly the way to go. My personal taste for
landscape images goes rather in the opposite, wide-angle direction, where
the foreground subject is emphazised and the feeling of depth enhanced.
Therefore my preference and reliance on the 17-40 f4 Zoom.
Here is an example of the kind of image I strive to emulate:
http://www.pbase.com/paskuk/image/65952350

Cheers,
Hank



Hank - I just have to suck up a little here... awesome scenery and
beautiful shots. I never would have guessed Heather was so pretty. I
have got to start traveling. -Guy