Hooked on Primes

[Derrel]

Oh, Schwetty, do you have anything to add? Anything of value at all?

How about you Derrel? Next we are going to get the story of how you walked 40 miles through 3 feet deep snow to get to school in the middle of summer...

Give us all a break or I'm going to tell you the stories of WW2 I heard all my fooking life!

And we'll have to listen to your tedious c.clownwalker stories about Life in "Europe", and your uber-costly Broncolor flash system, and your "life as a photojournalist" and your "I was a war photographer!" stories...

Let's bring some information about PRIME LENSES to bear, here, not just personal attacks, okay c.clownwalker? The OP is trying to learn about using PRIME lenses...you know, single focal length lenses...as a newbie, he is missing something very critical, and that is that when a guy starts off shooting with a zoom lens and a d-slr, there is damned little incentive to evaluate photos or compositions because each frame comes so cheap with a d-slr. AND, having cut his teeth with a zoom lens camera, he is unaware of the major differences that a prime lens ******imposes upon the photographer******. But then, a big-time European, commercial photog, former world-class Photojournalist, former war photographer like yourself knows all about that stuff, right? ( place smiley face emoticon here> X )

 

[subscuck]

Wow, Derrel, I'm impressed. I'm being serious, no snark. That was a very well thought out, controlled, and most of all, informative response. Is this a kinder, gentler, Derrel? OP, you should read, re-read, and re-read again, Derrel's response. Photographic conventions exist for a reason, and Derrel is well versed in them. While I may often disagree with Derell's approach, in this case he's spot on. All of the reasons he gave you are the reasons I tend to avoid C&Cing newbies pics. It's usually not worth my time to look at a pic and point out the obvious just to have the OP say "I like it like that", or "It's my style" or "It was intentional". Learn the conventions, then learn how to effectively deviate from them. Derrel, you just earned a "like"..

 

[bennielou]

Personally, I'm a HUGE fan of negative space. But I'll sidestep the battle (FIRST!!!!!!!)

I love primes too. Lovelovelovelove primes. My husband laughs at me when I use a zoom, and still run back and forth like it's a prime.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I dont want to get in an argument again with derrel about negative space and I am not worthy enough to add anything about primes since I picked up my first prime like 15 months ago and my first camera 16 months ago.

 

[Neiby]

Derrel, I acknowledged your points. I have no problem admitting to be a noob. It was the tone of your comments that was off-putting, not the content. Besides, I don't agree that there is too much open space in the first image. You could be completely correct about it from a technical perspective, but it still "feels" balanced to me. Maybe I will feel differently as I gain more experience. But you asked why I framed them the way I did and I told you. You mentioned the ugly pole and I admitted that if you only see that photo and not the entire series, the pole she's standing next to has no context, so I need to do a better job making sure my photos stand on their own without additional context. I was simply telling you why I made those decisions at the time. I like the way the first one is balanced and I like the complementary colors and contrast in the second.

Regarding the first photo, perhaps you could have said something like, "I think you may want to watch your use of space in the first one. With a portrait, it can be helpful to cut down some of that empty space and focus more on the subject, and be careful about accidentally including stuff in the background that you didn't intend." Instead, you went on about how it was completely ruined by the car and the empty space.

Regarding the second photo, perhaps you could have said, "The pole seems unnecessary and out of place. If this is supposed to be a portrait of the woman, focusing more on a single subject in the photo is usually preferable. In this case, the pole is almost as much of a subject as the woman."

You could have said any number of things that didn't sound snarky. I think what you said was right on and needed to be said, and I took your comments to heart, but the tone didn't come across as being all that friendly and helpful.

 

[bennielou]

I dont want to get in an argument again with derrel about negative space and I am not worthy enough to add anything about primes since I picked up my first prime like 15 months ago and my first camera 16 months ago.

Don't feel down. CLIENTS LOVE NEGATIVE SPACE. At least in my experience. And so does PPA, WPPI, WPJA, and any other body of "pros". Some photogs hate it. I hate selective color and refuse to do it. Different Strokes and all that.

 

[Neiby]

Oh, Schwetty, do you have anything to add? Anything of value at all?

How about you Derrel? Next we are going to get the story of how you walked 40 miles through 3 feet deep snow to get to school in the middle of summer...

Give us all a break or I'm going to tell you the stories of WW2 I heard all my fooking life!

And we'll have to listen to your tedious c.clownwalker stories about Life in "Europe", and your uber-costly Broncolor flash system, and your "life as a photojournalist" and your "I was a war photographer!" stories...

Let's bring some information about PRIME LENSES to bear, here, not just personal attacks, okay c.clownwalker? The OP is trying to learn about using PRIME lenses...you know, single focal length lenses...as a newbie, he is missing something very critical, and that is that when a guy starts off shooting with a zoom lens and a d-slr, there is damned little incentive to evaluate photos or compositions because each frame comes so cheap with a d-slr. AND, having cut his teeth with a zoom lens camera, he is unaware of the major differences that a prime lens ******imposes upon the photographer******. But then, a big-time European, commercial photog, former world-class Photojournalist, former war photographer like yourself knows all about that stuff, right? ( place smiley face emoticon here> X )

So much tension on this forum. I see your point, Derrel. Composition still continues to be my weakest point, although I've improved quite a bit recently. I was Mr. Zoom for a while, but I'm really trying to get a handle on this prime lens. It does impose quite a bit. Thanks for the tips.

 

[Ron Evers]

love my minolta 50mm f1.7. love it, love it, love it!!!! best $100 I ever spent.

Got one too but I prefer the Minolta 50/1.4, beats the Canon FD 50/1.4 I have.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I dont want to get in an argument again with derrel about negative space and I am not worthy enough to add anything about primes since I picked up my first prime like 15 months ago and my first camera 16 months ago.

Don't feel down. CLIENTS LOVE NEGATIVE SPACE. At least in my experience. And so does PPA, WPPI, WPJA, and any other body of "pros". Some photogs hate it. I hate selective color and refuse to do it. Different Strokes and all that.

"Different Strokes and all that." No such thing in Derrel's world. More like his way or the highway...

And the louder he talks, the more newbies listen and get led astray from any possible creativity and into the ultimate WalyWorld mold. But maybe they'll get to experience photography the ultimate way, by breaking copyright laws when copying a 1oo year old book to ultimately keep in their safe...

 

[Neiby]

Here is an example of the sort of feel I was going for in that first shot. It's quite different and far better than my composition, but maybe it will give you an idea of what I had in mind when I got to the park for the shoot. We had a chance to do a shot very similar to this, but the light changed too quickly and we had to move on.

Tessa - Before & After | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

This guy's photos are FAR better than mine, but this one will give you an idea of the sense of space that I like.

Here's another one by the same guy.

Smookie | Flickr - Photo Sharing!ome people might hate the composition, but I like the overall feel of it. This guy is a prime master, at least compared to me! I'm learning even now just going through his photostream. He has a FF camera, which does change things a little bit. I'm trying to get similar shots with the same lens on a 1.6x crop sensor. Definitely doable, but different.

 

[LiquidGrace]

I splurged a little and picked up a 50mm f/1.4 lens and it has hardly come off my camera since. This thing is delectably sharp. It's a little cramped at times on my crop sensor, though. I'd love to pick up a 35mm f/1.4L, but it's a bit expensive at the moment! Here's a new shot from my new prime.
20110917-IMG_4234 by jneiberger2002, on Flickr

I did the same as you A fellow photographer introduced me to the idea. I was very hesitant because I was so used to using zoom capabilities once I got used to the fixed length I feel in love. Needless to say like you, this is where I'll be looking to invest my money when it comes to lens'. While it's a pain to switch especially at a wedding (during a ceremony) I feel the overall outcome is great. Congrats on your new lens

 

[bennielou]

Hey Cloud, there are a LOT of highways. If everyone was the same, there would be no choices in this world. Breaking rules can be great for business.

 

[Neiby]

Maybe I should point out that this woman was doing this shoot for me as a favor. It was purely for me to get more experience shooting people. So....mission accomplished. I learned a ton that day, as well as the next day when I did a shorter photo shoot with someone else indoors. Again, they did it as a favor to me. They were my guinea pigs. lol

That these pictures turned out even as well as they did despite my mistakes is because of the great advice and direction I've gotten here and in other forums. Thanks to all.

 

[MTVision]

All of the reasons he gave you are the reasons I tend to avoid C&Cing newbies pics. It's usually not worth my time to look at a pic and point out the obvious just to have the OP say "I like it like that", or "It's my style" or "It was intentional"...

Hey - I take offense to that statement! Not ALL newbies are like that!

 

[Neiby]

Wow, Derrel, I'm impressed. I'm being serious, no snark. That was a very well thought out, controlled, and most of all, informative response. Is this a kinder, gentler, Derrel? OP, you should read, re-read, and re-read again, Derrel's response. Photographic conventions exist for a reason, and Derrel is well versed in them. While I may often disagree with Derell's approach, in this case he's spot on. All of the reasons he gave you are the reasons I tend to avoid C&Cing newbies pics. It's usually not worth my time to look at a pic and point out the obvious just to have the OP say "I like it like that", or "It's my style" or "It was intentional". Learn the conventions, then learn how to effectively deviate from them. Derrel, you just earned a "like"..

I didn't say he was wrong. In fact, I've twice said that I appreciate the content of his message. And to characterize my response to him as a simple, "I like it that way" minimizes what I actually meant. For example, in the first pic, is it technically wrong to have that space there? No, it's not. Some people don't like it, others do like it. In that particular case, that was what I was going for. I chose to have space because I wanted a feeling of space. I fail to see how this is objectively wrong. The biggest mistake in that picture was not paying enough attention to the background. That was certainly a mistake. I don't agree that the use of space is an objective mistake. It seems as if some here are making subjective style decisions into hard-and-fast rules.

On the other hand, even I think I tend to use too much space in portraits. I didn't post any shots from my other shoot, but this problem became very apparent to me later when I had to time to view those pictures with fresh eyes. I was too focused on one set of issues and didn't see the glaring composition issue in front of me. I was treating portrait photography the same way I was treating architectural photography where I tend to balance elements against each other in the frame. That works great for architecture, but it moves the main subject too far off to the side in portraits. It was just a habit that worked well in one context but wasn't working at all in a different context, and it took a while to spot the problem.