What is a "boring" focal length? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

John NYC

30-Nov-2010, 23:40

Everyone from Ansel Adams to people on this forum have talked about a particular focal length being boring or bland or too ordinary. Pick your term.

I find myself converging towards "normal" (or very wide) focal lengths more and more in all formats. As I wonder why that is, I think it is partially influenced by the fact that what is ordinary in the world has changed since Ansel talked about normal being ordinary. In his day, all these fixed lens MF cameras had a normal lens, people were shooting with a 35mm or 50mm on their Leicas, etc. Most shots were done with a normal field of view and many were done with at least some shallowness to the depth of field.

Now however, people are using tiny sensor formats with 28-ish to 35-ish mm equivalents as the norm for their snaps, giving more of a feel of a 110mm, 120mm or 135mm on 4x5 shot at f/22 or f/32. So, exactly what Ansel felt was a little different from the norm in terms of focal length and depth of field is the the "new normal."

I think this is why I am feeling that a 50mm lens on 35mm, an 80mm on MF and a 300mm lens on 8x10 stands out to me now as the "new not boring" for lengths that are not either very wide or long. Wondering if this idea resonates with others here?

Brian C. Miller

1-Dec-2010, 00:32

A boring picture? Yeah, sure. A boring focal length? Yeah, right. I think that the concept of a boring focal length is pure delusion.

What's important is what is done with the lens and camera, not what the camera and lens are. What was the average focal length on the cameras present when the Hindenburg crashed? Were any of those photographs boring? Sure, it's a case study of one, but I think it serves my point well enough. (More examples: Arthur Fellig (Weegee), Henry Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith)

I don't consider myself to be an AA sleuth, but I have read several of his books. I don't remember that he said anything about a particular focal length being boring. I remember him saying something about how he got a better picture than someone else he was with because he had a triple convertible.

I have heard more often that using one focal length is more like being a "discipline." You have to work at figuring out what goes well in the frame, because you can't just whip out another lens and create something "interesting."

Tobias Key

1-Dec-2010, 03:46

I think that as an individual photographer you can over use a particular focal length so it that sense it would be come 'boring'. An over reliance on wide-angle effects comes immediately to mind, because in that case the characteristics of the focal length becomes a replacement for creativity. On the other hand, you don't have to search to far on flickr to realise that, with some photographers, every focal length is boring in their hands!

IanG

1-Dec-2010, 05:04

Maybe a longer focal length lens is more boring, so 240mm to 300mm on a 5"x4" camera.

Yes they have a use but they also mean you don't get in close (in person) and get involved with the subject matter, I'm a bit biased as I tend to mainly use a 150mm lens or shorter, down to a 65mm.

Too long keeps you aloof from the subject.

Ian

hmf

1-Dec-2010, 05:52

Maybe a longer focal length lens is more boring, so 240mm to 300mm on a 5"x4" camera.

Yes they have a use but they also mean you don't get in close (in person) and get involved with the subject matter, I'm a bit biased as I tend to mainly use a 1500mm lens or shorter, down to a 65mm.

Too long keeps you aloof from the subject.

Ian

Nothing longer than 1500mm? That must be quite some bellows on your camera!

IanG

1-Dec-2010, 06:08

Nothing longer than 1500mm? That must be quite some bellows on your camera!

Well spotted :D N not even my 10x8 has that much bellows draw :)

Ian

rdenney

1-Dec-2010, 06:26

I suspect there are no boring lenses, only boring photographs made with whatever lens.

Some focal lengths will resonate with a photographer's vision; others won't. And vision varies, so generalizations are false.

And then there's this: Do you think that you could tell the difference between a landscape image made with, say, a 135, another made with a 150, and still another made with a 210, on 4x5? If they were the same subject shown side-by-side, of course. But with different subjects, it would be difficult to tell the difference. Thus, how could a 210 be less boring than a 135?

I personally tend to gravitate to extreme near-far relationships, and that suggests shorter lenses, and to subject isolation, which suggests longer lenses, and both for their dramatic effect. So, middling focal lengths tend to bore me. But I have seen many photos made by others using middling focal lengths that were absolutely not boring.

Rick "whose first large format lens was a 215, followed by a 121, a 90, and only then a 150" Denney

Noah A

1-Dec-2010, 06:40

I guess this is kind of a cliche--but I don't think there are any boring lenses and boring photographs can be made with any focal length on any format.

I also don't think that a lens becomes 'boring' by overuse. I generally use two lenses for pretty much all of my work (in 6x7 it was a 50mm and 80mm, in 4x5 it will probably be 90 and 150). There's something to be said for limiting your choices and getting to know them very well.

I suppose overuse of extreme lenses (ultrawides, super long with shallow dof, etc.) could get gimmicky or redundant under some circumstances. But in the end they're all tools and what matters is how you use them.

Frank Petronio

1-Dec-2010, 07:32

It's a broad, imperfect generalization but I think longer lenses tend to make more boring photos. They make it too easy to isolate the subject, eliminating background clutter. Now that usually makes a pleasing photo, but a predictable one. That clutter and noise in the background is what can tell us the story and makes the image richer.

That's why I think the best photographers, in general, use somewhat wide lenses. Like "normals" for close portraits and 28-35-40mm equivalents (on 35mm film) for most subjects. They are also the most difficult lenses to use well, I think.

Ultrawides always seem to go too far and bring the emphasis back to the center because of their foreshortening.

Of course background clutter can also ruin the shot. That's why there are good photographers and bad photographers ;-)

jvo

1-Dec-2010, 07:47

good thread john, i think frank p nailed it...

with proliferating zoom lenses it is easy to make pleasing photo's, and there are a lot around. an interesting photo takes time, work, thought and skill.

i too find myself wanting to move from the normal lens to a wide format - it does generate more consideration of what i'm doing and what i want. i end up sticking with the normal lens, and thinking more!

Steve M Hostetter

1-Dec-2010, 08:06

I think your all generalizing .. It depends on the subject matter you are shooting as to which lens you might pic.. Imagine a wildlife photographer shooting a normal lens for birds in flight?
Imagine a nature photographer using a wide lens for macro? Your forgeting that 99.99 percent of all the photos you see are not done with LF gear to begin with.
So who's to say who is a bad photographer and who is good just because a photographer doesn't shoot the tramp stamp and tree roots

Frank Petronio

1-Dec-2010, 08:17

rdenney

1-Dec-2010, 08:34

It's art, but it's not ART.

Dangerous, dangerous words, especially when the standard is what entertains you.

Rick "thinking refutation only requires the right photographer with the right vision, and that is what makes it a generalization" Denney

William Whitaker

1-Dec-2010, 08:38

Boring is as boring does...

Steve M Hostetter

1-Dec-2010, 08:43

Take Leonardo DaVinci for example.. He drew birds,bugs,horses,warriors, and water..
I'd hate to think that he wasn't an artist when he explored these subjects
why is it a group of rocks can be considered art and a quarterback running the ball for a TD can't?

Ben Syverson

1-Dec-2010, 09:47

Dude, like, what is art, you know? This thread is starting to sound like a college freshman.

John NYC

1-Dec-2010, 09:53

I don't consider myself to be an AA sleuth, but I have read several of his books. I don't remember that he said anything about a particular focal length being boring. I remember him saying something about how he got a better picture than someone else he was with because he had a triple convertible.

Ansel says on page 57 of "The Camera" ...

"In general, I do not find the normal lens especially desirable, functionally or aesthetically. The angle of view and depth of field characteristics do not seem favorable to me in interpreting space and scale. In my experience, lenses of shorter or longer focal length are usually preferable in an aesthetic sense. I frequently find the 'normal' concepts and performances are not as exciting as those that make an acceptable departure from the expected reality."

neil poulsen

1-Dec-2010, 09:55

I think that I tend to stay away from the extremes. For landscape, even a 90mm is a bit wide. But for architecture, it hits the sweet spot.

I tend not to go longer than 360 for 4x5. I have a 420mm, but I'm keeping that for 8x10.

Steve M Hostetter

1-Dec-2010, 10:28

Dude, like, what is art, you know? This thread is starting to sound like a college freshman.

ben, this site is for discussion so what part of that don't you get?

Brian K

1-Dec-2010, 10:51

The whole concept that a focal length is boring is ludicrous. What matters is what you do with an image.

John NYC

1-Dec-2010, 10:58

The whole concept that a focal length is boring is ludicrous. What matters is what you do with an image.

Boring is in quotes for a reason. See my quote of Ansel for a more tip toe-ing, less short hand manner of describing what I am referring to regarding his view.

Vaughn

1-Dec-2010, 12:35

John, thanks for the AA quote. Personally I prefer "normal" focal lengths.

Are there "boring" formats as well as focal lengths? I have heard some say that the 4x5 proportion is a bit stumpy and "boring", but I use it a lot. And some do not like the square -- another of my favorites. But then I like 4x10, too!

Don7x17

1-Dec-2010, 12:44

I rarely see very much originality, personality, or creativity in telephoto wildlife photos. And it's really hard to do with macro or sports... not that the results aren't interesting or good, but they are pretty dependent on having the right bird in the right place aren't they?

I mean come on, sitting out in a blind with a 600mm - people do it because they love nature and the challenge is getting a technically good shot. It's art, but it's not ART.

We've digressed from the OP point of lens length, into what constitutes art (and even why largeformat photography is so much better than other choices) and a digression into bird photography.

Let's reuse your point of view as a template, but take a different point of view(from a non-B&W Large format photographer) :

"I rarely see very much originality, personality, or creativity in large format art photos. And it's really hard to do with nudes, still life, or landscape ... not that the results aren't interesting or good, but they've all been done before and are pretty dependent on having a nude model, or traveling to some (distant) place that already has plenty of tripod holes and hoping that the weather is favorable?

I mean come on, taking yet another large format image - people do it because they love the format and the challenge is getting a technically good shot. It's art, but it's not ART."

So is any of bird photography, wildlife photography, nude photography, landscape photography, still life photography..etc art? Only to the beholder. The art world buys a very small number of all of these images each year, including bird photography.

Would any of us get into a MFA program with a portfolio stuffed with any/all of the above genre of images? Hardly likely. Its not art! would be the response.

But back to the points you make on bird photography -- rarely do bird photographers sit in blinds. Wildlife photographers choose longer lenses both for their reach and to blur the background.

Here's some images (not mine) made by bird photographers with very long lenses (800mm) that are art, not wildlife images. Are they any less art because they are wildlife???

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/
check Nov 30 blog entry - 2nd picture made with 500mm lens and Nov 23rd entry using a 800mm lens
check this one with 800mm lens http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?76089-Snow-Storm

Are these any less art than a well-crafted B&W large format traditional photograph?

Heroique

1-Dec-2010, 13:14

I have a three-lens kit: 110-150-240.

Every shot I take, two lenses are boring.

I hope I get better so this doesn’t keep happening.

Heroique

1-Dec-2010, 13:44

Frank Petronio

1-Dec-2010, 14:17

check this one with 800mm lens http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?76089-Snow-Storm

I can see the motivational poster now, "You Gotta Stick Your Neck Out to Get Ahead".

Steve M Hostetter

1-Dec-2010, 14:33

I can see the motivational poster now, "You Gotta Stick Your Neck Out to Get Ahead".

thats a great shot! reminds me of Reelfoot lake Tenn in jan. millions of snow geese everywhere

John NYC

1-Dec-2010, 15:10

I just noticed that AA continues in the same quote:

“…On the other hand, some photographers prefer to use only the normal lens (sometimes for reasons of economy!), and visualize all their images in reference to its properties of focal length and angle of view.”

If I’d known the man, it’d be easier to tell whether his “open-mindedness” is touched w/ gentle sarcasm.

;)

I don't understand your point. He says what he prefers, very decidedly, then acknowledges that it might not be the same for everyone else. I don't sense any sarcasm here.

Brian C. Miller

1-Dec-2010, 15:29

John NYC

1-Dec-2010, 15:53

So AA says what he prefers, then acknowledges that others prefer to use "normal" lenses.

OK, so what??

I don't see the big deal here. You use what you have to make a photograph. I use a wide-angle lens to isolate subject from the background, distorting the distance to provide emphasis. I use telephoto to isolate a subject, say a foot bridge on the other side of a pond. Most of the time I use a slightly-wide lens.

AA said that painters don't discuss paint brushes. However, they do discuss paint brushes, and do so quite a bit.

There is no "big deal", Brian.

If you re-read my original post, you can see i am just making a personal observation and wondering if others feel this same way. Obviously you do not. And i am ok with that. My point in quoting from Adams was simply to clarify that he did feel that way (at least at that time) and that i wasnt just making that up, since you were challenging that factual part of what i was saying.

Heroique

1-Dec-2010, 16:07

I don't understand your point. He says what he prefers, very decidedly, then acknowledges that it might not be the same for everyone else. I don't sense any sarcasm here.

Oh, for Heaven’s sake, let’s try to have some fun here!

(BTW, I was referring to AA’s “for reasons of economy!” exclamation.)

I think AA’s quote is super, and I’m glad you quoted it, even if some people are treating his term “boring” far too seriously, and taking it far too personally!

John NYC

1-Dec-2010, 16:21

Oh, for Heaven’s sake, let’s try to have some fun here!

(BTW, I was referring to AA’s “for reasons of economy!” exclamation.)

I think AA’s quote is super, and I’m glad you quoted it, even if some people are treating his term “boring” far too seriously, and taking it far too personally!

Gotcha. Really didn't understand is all.

Brian C. Miller

1-Dec-2010, 16:33

John: I didn't think that you were making anything up, I just didn't remember Adams using the word "boring" in reference to lenses. And, literally, I was right! :)

John NYC

1-Dec-2010, 16:53

John: I didn't think that you were making anything up, I just didn't remember Adams using the word "boring" in reference to lenses. And, literally, I was right! :)

Good Lord. I give up. Did you read the first line of my post? I didn't attribute the word boring directly to Adams at all. I said Ansel and others have blah blah blah "pick your term", meaning they all equate to about the same thing for the purposes of the discussion I was about to start. In fact I said "Ansel talked about normal being ordinary" later in the post. Which if you want to pick me apart, he actually didn't say "ordinary" either. He said "not as exciting". Does it really matter if I didn't quote him directly though and substituted "ordinary" instead?

The semantic policing here is enough to make one think this is the "Large Format Photography Forum For Lawyers".

Heroique

1-Dec-2010, 17:01

...his term “boring”...

Whoops, I think I’m about to get into big trouble here.

So I’ll just go ahead and point-out my lapse above.

AA’s correct terms are: “Do not seem favorable” & “Not as exciting.”

(But I still think “boring” is acceptable for a subject line.)

Brian C. Miller

1-Dec-2010, 17:04

Now, the real question is, can a lens, by itself, add some pizazz to a photograph?

I think it can. The Petzval and other similar lenses have distortion effects. Could someone build a Petzval filter so we are not beholden to Jim Gali? Maybe.

Of course, we have lots of filters to modify the lens image. Too much resolution on that 8x10? Slap one of the various soft filters on it. Not enough color? Enhancing filters will add something. Change the color of the sky? Polarizers and other filters will do it.

"One lens makes you larger
And one lens makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all"

Now, where did I put my LSDotar?

Nicholas Whitman

1-Dec-2010, 17:20

There is a terrific range of imagery, from microscopes to the Hubble telescope, long lens, super wide lens, time exposures and Edgerton flash. Photography expands our vision no question.

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/

But to me the photography done of our world in a human scale where the process doesn't usurp the statement - that is the field on which interesting work is done. Or for the sake of this thread non boring work is done.

My candidate for most boring format? 6x7 hands down - I can't make a picture in 6x7. If a UFO landed in front of me and I shot it 6x7 it would be boring.

Ari

1-Dec-2010, 18:17

Boring focal length?
That's like an "evil" drug, or a leprechaun.
A mythical creature, if you will.

John NYC

1-Dec-2010, 20:25

At the risk of beating this dead horse completely. Let's try another way...
***
Alan Briot from a Luminous landscape article...
"For many photographers, a normal lens is often considered “boring.” After all, why show the world the way we see it? Let’s use a wide angle or a super telephoto lens. Now that’s exiting! I agree, to some extent, and I must say that my normal lens is not the one I use the most widely. But, I am not saying I am never using it either!"
***

How about "too commonplace and/or ordinary"... let's use that phrase since "boring" seems to be setting off a bunch of over reactions and missing the point I was trying to make.

What my first post was trying to posit is this: Has "too commonplace and/or ordinary" in focal length perception shifted from the "normal" lens to the 28mm-ish lens with endless DOF that is pretty much the standard field of view on millions and millions of P&S type digitals and the pictures from same that are now published all over the web for everyone to consume? Is that wider field of view so ordinary now that someone like Briot (that was written in 2003) or Adams would have a different opinion of the "normal" lens, possibly shot with a shallower DOF? I do myself, that is why I wondered aloud. The perspective of the normal lens sticks out to me as "not ordinary" in this world now.

Ok, with that (hopefully?) clarification of what I was trying to say, I'm done. I fully expect the subsequent post to this one to be from someone who only read the title of the thread and nothing else.

Andrew O'Neill

1-Dec-2010, 20:56

There are no boring focal lengths. Just boring photographs.

John NYC

1-Dec-2010, 21:03

Ha, ha. I knew it.

Shen45

1-Dec-2010, 22:36

I had an exhibition with 5 other photographers about 2 years ago and without thinking which lens was used 7 of the images were 161mm [normal] 1 was 240mm and the remaining 2 were 300mm. I find on 5x4 because of camera movements unless an extreme lens is used lenses can look similar. I don't mean comparative images of the same subject, I mean a pile of prints shot with different lenses of different subjects. Depending how lazy I am on the day my favourite lens can well be the one on the camera. Sometimes maybe a boring lens is one that doesn't work with your vision on a given day.

John NYC

1-Dec-2010, 23:51

while (isHorseDead() == isHorseDead()) {
beat();
}

Maybe this will help... visual aids.

See attachment of off-the-cuff test shot from new-to-me normal lens taken last week. In the old days, this would be the common type of picture ANYONE might snap. I have hundreds of things like this in my family's archives of negatives. I have no idea what they are, but that is another story.

Anyway, in days gone by, this would look ordinary. In today's era, you cannot get this look no matter how hard you try with a 28mm-ish tiny sensor digital P&S, which is what millions and millions of photos are made with today. What you get with those cameras is something that looks like a 4x5 shot made with a 120mm lens shot at f/32 and done with a tripod. And that was very uncommon in those days and only done by photographers.

Ergo, what was common/ordinary in the fairly recent past has become uncommon/not ordinary (and vice versa), which might change some people's opinions about a normal lens being "boring"... or not. But that is the question. It is not, "What is a 'boring' focal length?"... but you can't fit much more than that into the title of a thread.

P.S. I feel like Roland at Art Center.

Vaughn

2-Dec-2010, 00:46

I used just normal lenses for the first 20 or so years.* I never felt bored or limited...but perhaps a little bit challenged, which can be a good thing. I suppose a normal lens gives the viewer a perspective and view that s/he takes for granted, thus the photographer must bring more into the image in other ways (line, light, contrast, composition, content).

I appreciate what my 159mm and 210mm lenses can do on my 8x10, as well as the 19". The 159mm goes a little soft and dark in the corners and allows me approach an image from a different direction. But if I were to have only one lens for the 8x10, it would be the 300mm and I would never get bored using it -- but I would have to make some 4x10's occasionally because 8x10 can be a bit boring.;)

Vaughn

* I lied. For a year or so (1981 or so) I used a 210mm on a 4x5.

John Kasaian

2-Dec-2010, 01:13

Blaming the lens for a boring print is sort of like being in denial. Just sayin'...:rolleyes:

Brian C. Miller

2-Dec-2010, 05:03

P.S. I feel like Roland at Art Center.

Who? And why? :confused:
(Maybe like Sisyphus rolling a boulder up a mountain?)

Anyways:
A 1/2" sensor with a 6mm-28mm lens (35mm-140mm 35mm format) always does that. And a fast shutter speed always gives a sharp picture. It's the physical property of the equipment. Is 35mm that much of a "wide" lens? I don't think so. Is 140mm that much of a telephoto? I don't think so. For 35mm format, a 25mm lens is "wide" for me.

IIRC, there's a fisheye photo in The Camera for illustration purposes. Pentax 6x7, 35mm lens. I have never seen another fisheye photo from Adams. Anybody know of one? Or a definitely wide angle lens photo (something showing distortion). Most of his stuff just looks not much different from a "normal" lens, despite his stated preference.

I've seen a few fisheye photos on 4x5, with a wide angle adapter mounted on the lens. The photos were made for demonstration, so like Adam's example, they were not particularly exciting.

When a lens itself adds something significant to the photograph, the lens must significantly distort perspective. This means Petzval swirlies, or fisheye, or extreme wide angle, or carefully arranged compression with a long lens length. But here's the thing: to make it obvious that a wide angle or telephoto lens is used, the perspective has to be made cliché. And once you have a cliché, then the photograph is boring.

rdenney

2-Dec-2010, 06:34

How about "too commonplace and/or ordinary"... let's use that phrase since "boring" seems to be setting off a bunch of over reactions and missing the point I was trying to make.

Stick to your guns. "Boring" is a perfectly descriptive word for something that is undesirably ordinary.

It brings up another way of looking at the question, which has come up before. But instead of "boring" versus "exciting", that question might more usefully be framed as "ordinary" versus "dramatized".

Many of us express our photographic vision in dramatic terms. We photograph clouds in black and white, using a red filter to emphasize the contrast with the background blue sky and to dramatize the brilliance of the white clouds. We choose times of day when the sun is at a low angle to emphasize shape-defining shadows and to enjoy the benefits of the warm lighting. We use films that show saturated colors to add drama to the photo. We use ancient lenses that apply a mysterious swirly blur to the scene. We use extreme selective focus or ultra-long exposure times to eliminate unnecessary or distracting detail, or to represent the drama of the fourth dimension--time--on the two-dimensional photograph. We use short lenses to emphasize the near-far relationships, or long lenses to minimize them. We do these things often for good reason--the drama of the three-dimensional scene cannot be represented in a photo, so it has to be suggested in two-dimensional ways.

But there are those for whom such dramatization is a postcard effect. They prefer a literal representation of the world, warts and all. In fact, I think they prefer the warts and avoid the non-warts. For them, the statement you quote isn't the only thing they won't like about Adams.

I think Adams's issue with normal focal lengths was that they didn't support his artistic vision of representing the three (or four)-dimensional drama of the scene on a flat surface. Many of us who are attracted to that drama have the same preferences for the same reasons. But for those whose vision is more literal, that preference represents the dominance of the dramatization that they oppose.

Ripe fodder for debate, indeed, even though it gets periodic treatment as it is. But I think the semantic argument may be masking deeper issues.

Rick "afflicted by the need for drama" Denney