I agree with Ansel and find 'normal' maybe the least pleasing. I 'see' (I think) very good with telephotos and super wides so that is what I generally use. I need a 150 for 8x10.
I agree with Ansel and find 'normal' maybe the least pleasing. I 'see' (I think) very good with telephotos and super wides so that is what I generally use. I need a 150 for 8x10.
My website Flickr
"There is little or no ‘reality’ in the blacks, grays and whites of either the informational or expressive black-and-white image" -Ansel Adams
"...you yourself have now the answer to your original question at your fingertip"
Yes, thanks. I like the slight sense of compression. Like James Bond: "shaken, not stirred"
I can see why 210mm is so popular for 4x5.
Here's one made with a 300mm lens on 5x7 (cropped to 11x14 ratio), which amounts to the same thing as 200mm on 4x5 similarly cropped. I made this before taking up the question.
Sure. In fact, the perspective in itself is not a content of a picture. It's just like a style. And one style in itself is hardly any more pleasing than the other, it all depends on the content. A poem or a novel is not in itself more pleasing than the other, it's all in what you put into them. Stay cool.
"perspective in itself is not a content of a picture."
You may be right, but one can also see that perspective, just like aspect ratio, tonality, composition, chiaroscuro, etc. is an element of a photo. If it's there, it's an element of the photograph.
Perspective may be a less important element to some people, but that is a matter of personal preference. Hence the basic question entertained in this thread.
You are right. Thank you very much for your insight. This thread is now closed.
Bookmarks