Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My take on this is that with a mob of reporters, if you used a 90, or even a 50, all you would get is the back of other reporter's heads, hence, to get the picture, at all, you have to be first and close, ergo, wide angle. And those that get the picture, get paid. IMHO, but I could very well be wrong... Jim At 09:58 PM 6/24/99 -0400, you wrote: > >Well, no, but I've damned near punched several "photo-journalists" out with >their verkakte wide-angle lenses. We have had these discussions ad nauseam >on this List, but I do NOT see why these morons cannot use a 90mm lens and >remain at a decent distance. > >We have several present and former PJ's and editors on the List, and, >probably, I will be publicly or privately pilloried by them for posting >this, as I often am, but I do NOT understand why a 90mm head-and-shoulder >shot at ten feet is not as good as a 35mm shot at 3 feet. But, apparently, >editors have some psychological reflex need for wide-angle shots, so the >PJ's are ordered to use 35mm or 28mm lenses to cover every press conference >they attend. > >Sheezh! I am a photographer, friends. I do my own dark-room work. I use >MF and miniature-format gear (35mm for the youngsters in our crew). And I >simply fail to understand the frantic love for wide-angle lenses, other >than that they radically distort the background. > >I guess I'm just not psychedelic enough for today's newspapers! > >Marc > >msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 >Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! >