Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/01/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]2010-01-02-19:04:41 Mark Rabiner: > Here's 87 best pix from 2009 from the NYTimes. > > Looks to me like half of them were shot with ultrawides. > The other half with something between a 180 and 300. > Not much in between > > http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/photo/2009-year-in-pictures/ I see long lenses being used in situations where the photographer probably just couldn't practically or safely get closer. I see ultrawides being used quite effectively to give a sense of a primary subject's surroundings, but with the main subject near center-frame and far enough away to be rendered with about the perspective of... oh, a moderate wide or normal. And that sort of thing I'd like to learn to do better. I can't speak for LZ, but what I have a problem with is how things look when you're close enough to fill a decent chunk of the frame with a person, and you're using an ultrawide. Kind of gets that Silly Putty look. Although there are of course exceptions. The Tyler Hicks photo of the Gaza City funeral uses a wide nicely for drama and a sense of place. A wide lens stuck among the Pakistani refu... Internally Displaced Persons trying to get their hands on some food was effective. And others, obviously. But I also saw some pictures in there I think would've been just as good or better if less-wide glass had been used. People have gotten used to having super-duper-wide glass on the camera. It can't be beat if you need to cover a broad sweep of territory. But once it's there on the camera... well, when all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. [Who originally said that?] -J