Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ah, the exuberance of youth! Remember he died in 1962. People didn't use a wide-angle lens like that back then, because (A) nasty distortion at the edge of the frame (B) you would be whacked by a cane. Example: 1964 German photo annual in only 2 out of 92 photos was a wide angle used to get close, instead of for effect. The LTM and M3 were set up for 50mm as the widest frame. The later M2 sold only about one-third as many as M3. Martin Howard wrote: > > Marshall Hunt related the following: > > > "The worst enemy of the good picture is the unimportant > > feature. ...You will immediately find that wherever you can > > leave something off, the picture will always be improved, > > never suffer...Question:How much can I leave out of the > > picture...The step from the 50mm to the 90mm field of view > > leads us to the essential, to a concentration on the motif. > > The characteristic 90mm field of view to which the use of > > this lens educates us will often make us change our camera > > position, by examining the field of view through the > > viewfinder... until the picture is perfect....This is why it > > demands increased discretion from its user. This is why I > > have called it a teacher." He also mentions decreased depth > > of field, small size, ease in isolating the subject from its > > surroundings, ideal for portraits.........and then mentions > > it can be used on the Visoflex II at infinity. > > Oh, this is SUCH nonsense!! As though the ONLY reason for using the 90mm > was that it leaves out more than the 50. And as though the ONLY way to > leave out unimportant stuff in a picture was to use a longer focal length. > > The problem with "uninteresting" stuff in pictures isn't that it's there, > it's that it's TOO PROMINENT! If you've got too much uninteresting stuff in > a picture taken with a 50, the answer is probably to get closer, not > necessarily to switch focal lengths. > > Alternatively, switch to a 35mm or 28mm and get EVEN CLOSER: make the > interesting parts LARGE and the uninteresting parts small. Look at > "Workers" by Salgado. Lots of it shot with a 28mm. You'd get nowhere NEAR > the impact if it had been shot with a 90mm. Switching to a 90 cuts context > and often the interplay between the main subject and its context is what > makes a good photograph. > > The "discretion" he talks about above applies in no greater measure to the > 90mm focal length than it does to any other focal length. The whole passage > above is characteristic of someone who's gained some shallow understanding > of an issue, found a single working solution, and then proclaims that to be > a universal truth. > > Bah! > > M. (There -- feel much better now that I got *that* out of my system ;) > > -- > Martin Howard | It isn't an Information Superhighway, > Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU | it's an Information Railway. Only the > email: howard.390@osu.edu | barons control speech, not transportation. > www: http://mvhoward.i.am/ +-------------------------------------------