Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If they used longer than 35mm they would actually have to FOCUS. Most of these guys are only there to get the shot of some poor slob and move on and a fat gob of depth of field and auto focus/exposure keeps the checks comming...Also, many people seem to think that the extreme perspective of the 20-35mm lenses up close gives an "exciting" image. They use this technique to make up for weak subject matter. Dan . > >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! > > > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com