I've had a number of zoom lenses since my interest in photography began. I started out with an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. I then sold my 55-200 to get a Tamron 70-300, which I then sold for a Tamron 70-200mm 2.8. At some point I also picked up a Nikon 18-70mm, which I also sold while in Moab.
The first lens I ever bought for myself, though, was a Nikon 35mm 1.8G prime lens for a measly $200. It only took me a few minutes to fall in love with this cheap lens. For those of you who don't know, a prime lens is a lens that doesn't move. These lenses are generally fast, sharp, and relatively cheap. The reason these lenses are so sharp is because they don't have as many moving parts as a zoom lens, which also is the reason they're cheaper. Zoom lenses require a lot of precision in order for the lens to be able to stay sharp while also being able to zoom; all of the lenses need to line up perfectly. This is why constant aperture lenses are also more expensive than a lens that is, for instance, f/4-5.6; these lenses don't need to be as precise as an f/4 or f/2.8 lens.
Anyway, I ended up selling my Tamron 70-200mm a week or two ago for a number of reasons. This lens performed fine optically, especially for the price of around $700 new, but the auto focus was a joke and couldn't keep up with things such as sports. With the money I got for the Tamron, I picked up a Nikon 180mm 2.8 and I just ordered a Nikon 105mm 2.5 AI with money to spare. I've used the Nikon 180mm 2.8 on two shoots so far, and I couldn't be happier. The biggest criticism of prime lenses is they don't zoom. People don't realize that they do zoom though, unless your legs don't work. The biggest defense against the "prime lenses don't zoom" criticism is that zoom lenses make you lazy. I never really understood this argument, but after being "limited" to prime lenses now, I am beginning to understand what people mean.
I will admit that, at times, prime lenses can be somewhat limiting. Since my 105mm hasn't arrived yet, I have a giant gap in my range from 50mm to 180mm. On one shoot, 50mm was too wide, and I thought 180mm was too close. I ended up using both. The results I got from my 50mm were certainly useable, but the shots I got from the 180mm were amazing. I thought that there was no way I would get anything decent with a lens that was so tight on the subject, but I love the results. The 180mm has forced me to think more about my composition, and wait for things to fall into place, instead of zooming out, taking the photo, and then cropping in post production. The 180mm has also changed the way I take photos, and given me different results than I would have with a zoom lens. Results that I'm actually a lot happier with. If you have a dSLR and are still tied down with your zoom lenses, I would highly suggest going out and buying a prime lens. I've seen some prime lenses selling for $40 used, so that's always an option if you don't have a lot of money to spend. I can almost promise, though, that once you have a prime lens, that lens will quickly become your favorite.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Street Photography could become illegal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9R3th3JA1k
I saw this video while checking my YouTube subscriptions, and the title made my heart stop.
I was originally attracted to photography because of Adam Colton and the work he was able to create with his camera. After learning a few things about photography, I then fell in love with the idea of street photography. I felt street photography had the ability to turn everyday happenings into art and images that I could feel myself, as well as capture those rare moments that no one seems to notice. There were some great street shots that I would stare at for long periods of time, getting lost in the photographs. There is a very famous photo of a sailor kissing a woman after World War II ended. This photo would fall into the category of street photography, which is solid proof that street photography, like all types of photography, isn't just an art form, but a way to document history.
I also feel that photography is a way for many to express themselves, which I feel would fall under the right to free speech. Pornography is also considered to be protected under the right to free speech, and if pornography is protected under this right, then there is no reason photography shouldn't be as well.
When I'm walking around and taking street photos, I tend to only take photos of things or people I find doing interesting things. If you don't want your photo to be taken by someone like me, then just go about your business. Chances are you won't end up being the subject of my photograph. If you were to happen to do something interesting, under current laws, there isn't much you can do anyway. I'm almost positive I can take a photo of you if you're out in public and over the age of 18. However, the only way I can profit from this photo is if I have you sign a model release. After I take that photo, under current copyright laws, I own that photo, and I can do whatever I would like with it as long as it is for personal or educational, including news, use.
I really hope that this law doesn't pass. I feel this law is too broad to pass. What if someone is taking a photo of their family member or friend, and a person they don't know happens to stray into the background. Is the person with the camera going to be sent to jail? I also feel this law is taking away not only our right to free speech, but also taking away a valuable and irreplaceable form of recording history. Think of all of the famous photos you've ever seen in your life, and now think of how many of those people gave permission to the photographer to take their photos. The most powerful images are often the ones that catch people in their element, acting as they normally would without being directed. This is what makes street photography so valuable, and this is why we can't let laws like these pass.
I saw this video while checking my YouTube subscriptions, and the title made my heart stop.
I was originally attracted to photography because of Adam Colton and the work he was able to create with his camera. After learning a few things about photography, I then fell in love with the idea of street photography. I felt street photography had the ability to turn everyday happenings into art and images that I could feel myself, as well as capture those rare moments that no one seems to notice. There were some great street shots that I would stare at for long periods of time, getting lost in the photographs. There is a very famous photo of a sailor kissing a woman after World War II ended. This photo would fall into the category of street photography, which is solid proof that street photography, like all types of photography, isn't just an art form, but a way to document history.
I also feel that photography is a way for many to express themselves, which I feel would fall under the right to free speech. Pornography is also considered to be protected under the right to free speech, and if pornography is protected under this right, then there is no reason photography shouldn't be as well.
When I'm walking around and taking street photos, I tend to only take photos of things or people I find doing interesting things. If you don't want your photo to be taken by someone like me, then just go about your business. Chances are you won't end up being the subject of my photograph. If you were to happen to do something interesting, under current laws, there isn't much you can do anyway. I'm almost positive I can take a photo of you if you're out in public and over the age of 18. However, the only way I can profit from this photo is if I have you sign a model release. After I take that photo, under current copyright laws, I own that photo, and I can do whatever I would like with it as long as it is for personal or educational, including news, use.
I really hope that this law doesn't pass. I feel this law is too broad to pass. What if someone is taking a photo of their family member or friend, and a person they don't know happens to stray into the background. Is the person with the camera going to be sent to jail? I also feel this law is taking away not only our right to free speech, but also taking away a valuable and irreplaceable form of recording history. Think of all of the famous photos you've ever seen in your life, and now think of how many of those people gave permission to the photographer to take their photos. The most powerful images are often the ones that catch people in their element, acting as they normally would without being directed. This is what makes street photography so valuable, and this is why we can't let laws like these pass.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Post 41
I recently got back from a road trip to Moab, Utah. Of course I took photos while I was there; a few of which I shared with a group I belong to on Facebook.
There was one member, who is planning on going to Moab this summer, who posted a comment on the photo I shared asking about how much hiking was involved to take photos like mine.
I'm probably over thinking this a little too much, and this probably isn't what the poster meant when they asked the question, but I couldn't help but wonder, "why do you want to take photos like mine?"
As a photographer, I try to get the most unique photos I can in order to stand out from all the other "photographers" out there. If everyone took photos that looked like everyone else's, why even bother taking photos? I think it's important to be able to look at someone's photos and figure out how they positioned their flash, or how they got the background to blur a certain way, but I think trying to copy someone else's style is going to leave other photographers frustrated and angry. Every photographer's style is unique in one way or another, and it's important to realize this.
There was one member, who is planning on going to Moab this summer, who posted a comment on the photo I shared asking about how much hiking was involved to take photos like mine.
I'm probably over thinking this a little too much, and this probably isn't what the poster meant when they asked the question, but I couldn't help but wonder, "why do you want to take photos like mine?"
As a photographer, I try to get the most unique photos I can in order to stand out from all the other "photographers" out there. If everyone took photos that looked like everyone else's, why even bother taking photos? I think it's important to be able to look at someone's photos and figure out how they positioned their flash, or how they got the background to blur a certain way, but I think trying to copy someone else's style is going to leave other photographers frustrated and angry. Every photographer's style is unique in one way or another, and it's important to realize this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)