50mm perspective/angle of view is considered to be more or less how our eyes see the world around us.

Oh yeah? I’d heard that it produces a 1:1 sized image on the sensor, but that’s really not the same thing. Our eyes don’t perceive the world anything like the same way as a camera captures it and then subsequently our eyes view the printed image. It’s a completely different concept. Looking at the world through a 50mm prime is like having tunnel vision. If you want to capture the essence of being in a particular place on camera, you have to figure out what your brain is actually focusing on and capture that impression. It’s not simply a case of recording the photons accurately. The printed picture and the real 3D environment infiltrate our higher consciousness through different mechanisms. All IMO, of course.

It’s about having an authentic answer to the question ‘why did you take that photograph’ other than ‘oh I just liked it’.

Is that not a good enough answer on its own?

And I’m trying to think of one of my favourite photographs which would have been taken through a zoom.

Ah. Don’t mis-understand. I’ve nothing against primes, what I’m suggesting is that the OP does not limit himself to ONE focal length. Your favourite pics may have been taken with a variety of different primes. Unless you mean all your favourite pics are taken at 50mm or equivalent?

That would be a good question to ask the OP – pick some photos you like, then find out what focal length they were taken at. If you find they are all at 50mm, then that could be the lens for you.

so the quality of the glass focusing the light has a huge impact on the end result.

Characteristics not quality. It’s not always about money.

I think within the photographic community as a whole (not just on here), then the general acceptance is that primes are superior to zooms, because yes, you are getting the more ‘authentic’ picture and by choosing a prime, you are probably thinking more about the image you want to capture and the process of achieving it.

I don’t think that’s the case at all. In fact you could argue the opposite – that you “think” about what image you want, and then use the focal length required to get it. Modern zooms (not cheapo kit zooms) are often optically better than primes (not Leica), so the argument for primes gets smaller as time goes by.

Having said that, my personal favourite lens is my 85/1.4 🙂

Here’s one for you pixel peepers that I rather liked:

For me, captures what it was like to be there, with the sun belting in through a big tall window. Even if it’s just a little on the soft side 🙂

Back when film ruled, most cameras came with a 35 or a 50mm lens which arguably give a very similar perspective to what the eye sees, so its a place where we might feel is most natural based on what we already know. Zooms although are handy, which is a plus, does very little for your understanding of photography – what i mean is – what tends to happen is you look through the viewfinder and you start to manhandle the zoom ring, going in and out until you get something which pleases your eye. However, you become divorced from understanding the differences between focal length and how a particular lens behaves – everyhting from bokeh to distortion. Some people use a 24mm-28mm for portraits like Bruce Gilden, who instead of stepping back with a 50mm, he steps forward with a 24-28mm, because he prefers the effect a wide has on his portraits. It also depends what youre using your camera for – i know a lot of photographers who have expensive Nikons or Canons with the best and most expensive lenses who arent photographers, they simply capture images digitally – there is a difference. It all depends on what you want to do – if you want to leanr the craft, and save money to boot, get a DSLR with a 35 or 50mm lens. If you simply want to capture events in your life or document then by all means get a zoom. The 50mm f/1.8 from Canon and Nikon can be had for £90 and its a very good lens, 17-50 f/2.8 from Sigma is not the sharpest but its Ok and can be had second hand for £200. the 24-70 from Nikon and Canon are both fantastic and can be had for between £600-£800

That said, one of my favourite ever kayaking shots (that being what I probably shoot the most of) was taken on a 50mm f/1.8 on a crop sensor body:

Can’t be. Everyone knows you can’t use a 50mm prime lens for sports photography :lol:[/quote]
No-one told me that before I took it, I guess sometimes ignorance is bliss.

I promise not to do it again, though 😉

Unless you mean all your favourite pics are taken at 50mm or equivalent?

Well probably not all and probably not just at 50mm. But if I leaf through the pages of my favourite photographers, I’m reasonably sure that either 35mm or 50mm would come out on top as by far the most frequent. I would be very surprised if there was anything taken at a focal length longer than 100mm, maybe even 85mm.

I mean of course a field of view equivalent to that focal length on a 35mm frame. I adore the Richard Avedon portraits for example but they are all made on large format cameras probably with a focal lenght of around 200mm?

Is that not a good enough answer on its own?

Well it’s good enough if the only person your asking is yourself. If you want to start sharing your work and asking other people what they think then no, it’s not really a good answer.

because he prefers the effect a wide has on his portraits.

I have his recent book ‘Face’. It is deeply uncomfortable viewing. I’m not judging Bruce but at the same time I do wonder about his honesty and authenticity. His work is a great example of why the question ‘why did you take that picture?’ so important.

If you look at the images in Face, as a collection, then to us as an observer it’s very apparent why he took that particular person’s portrait. He isn’t the first to select people on the fringes of society as being the choice of subject. But his images, as you say, are right in your face. He cannot have taken them without permission so one does wonder, when the subject asked him ‘why me?’, what did he say.

if you want to leanr the craft, and save money to boot, get a DSLR with a 35 or 50mm lens

But you’ll only learn how to take photos at those focal lengths. Wide angle photos and Tele photos are different things, and not inherently inferior.

if you want to leanr the craft, and save money to boot, get a DSLR with a 35 or 50mm lens

Get that tongue out of your cheek and say something sensible. 😀
“Learn the craft.” 😆

Sorry I’m not sure what is wrong with that statement?

The only time it would be wrong is if the person didn’t care about what pictures they took, they just wanted to take pictures. Otherwise, I think calling photography a craft that can be learnt is fairly reasonable.

Sorry I’m not sure what is wrong with that statement?

It was serious? Sorry. 😕 It just sounds so awfully pretentious.
It’s also wrong. I’ve never had a 35mm lens and the 50mm was sold after never being used. Never did me any harm whatsoever.
I’d say the “craft” is more about learning about light and not which lens you have.
But hey. What do I know?

It’s a mechanical process based on physics/optics that’s easy to lean.
Visual awareness is not something you can glean from watching a you-tube tutorial.

Visual awareness is not something you can glean from watching a you-tube tutorial.

Which is precisely why lens choice is secondary, imeho, not everyone is an artist.

But you’ll only learn how to take photos at those focal lengths.

Refer to my comment on variation through consistency. It’s not an absolute statement, rather a window into an idea. You sort of have to take a walk down that perspective to understand it, and at the moment you’re just blatantly refusing to do so. You’ve never tried it, so how can you argue against it? You’re not even trying to understand the school of thought that revolves around that flat perspective. And to be clear, I don’t think that anyone here has said never to use anything else but a 35-50mm lens.

That’s an interesting abstraction you’ve posted. Do you remember what you were thinking or how you were feeling when you took it?

28mm 1.8 for me

and at the moment you’re just blatantly refusing to do so. You’ve never tried it, so how can you argue against it?

Hang on – you think I’ve never tried using only a prime?

You’re not even trying to understand the school of thought that revolves around that flat perspective.

Oh don’t get me wrong. I love ideas, but the original post, if we can all remember that far back, was a relative beginner asking what lens he should get if he only wanted one.

That’s an interesting abstraction you’ve posted.

Thanks for not ripping the piss.. posted it as counterpoint to people going on about sharpness 🙂 I rather like it. It was in a relatively cold room on a cold day with so much sun pouring in through the windows it felt warm. My daughter was standing watching the street below, and I was feeling very chilled and mellow.

My daughter was standing watching the street below, and I was feeling very chilled and mellow.

I can’t make out what is being shown, can you explain it (other than you have above). What is it we are looking at?

I agree though that sometimes less is more or maybe impressionism works across all mediums not just painting.

In the middle is a girl, she has a red jumper tied round her waist. Two armchairs either side of her, backs facing to the centre. Big white square is the window.

Bruce Gilden, who instead of stepping back with a 50mm, he steps forward with a 24-28mm,

[url=https://flic.kr/p/NKgS2F]L1002390[/url] by Paul Whitehead, on Flickr

Bruce Gilden at Photokina. Massive portraits, amazing.
(Taken on 50mm prime!)

(Taken on 50mm prime!)

Are you sure? I always thought he used a Leica M rangefinder camera and a 28mm lens.

Yes I thought they were 28mm as well but I could be wrong.

It is deeply uncomfortable viewing though, not because of how the people look but because you know why they were selected to be part of the group.

Guardian Review

At the risk of sounding alarmingly sensible and mildly antithetical to normal STW etiquette: I don’t think it matters what lens you use, as long as you learn that lens, its advantages and disadvantages, and if it works for you.

I’ve got a small selection of lenses over a small selection of film and digital bodies. I have a couple – the ones listed in a previous post plus my 50mm – that I feel like I know well, and can produce fairly consistent, fairly decent work with, because I use them a lot and know them pretty well. I have others – a 16-35mm f/4 and a 24-85mm – that I struggle with a bit more. Whether that’s related to personal style, preference, whatever, it doesn’t matter. But I know which lenses work best and most naturally for me and which I really have to think about, concentrate on to get decent results out of.

That’s got absolutely nothing to do with the lens itself, they’re all more than capable of producing very good images. It’s got lots to do with the squishy thing pushing the buttons, and the brain and eyes within.

Lenses? Pfft!! I use a pinhole. It’s the only way to get sufficiently authentic images.

geetee1972 – Member

Yes I thought they were 28mm as well but I could be wrong.

It is deeply uncomfortable viewing though, not because of how the people look but because you know why they were selected to be part of the group.

Guardian Review That review misses the mark by a mile for me. Everything he says it doesn’t do, is exactly what it does for me.

That review misses the mark by a mile for me. Everything he says it doesn’t do, is exactly what it does for me.

Yours and the Guardian review miss the mark by a mile for me. Wait, are we the subjective object? Or the objective subject? The voyeur or the viewer? The foot or the shoe? The polish or the poo? Are we gazing into the void or is the void gazing into us? Is it art or cynical self-promotion? Exploitative or expositive? Did I just make that word up? Do I really like toast or simply the sound of toast? Is toast merely an ambulatory device for butter and Marmite? What is the square root of a circle? Vegan cheese? Discuss?

Talking of subjects – back to the OP (please, let it be) – intended subject? Or shall we continue to investigate the sometimes rectal viewfinders through which camera/photography enthusiasts are framing the subject of photography*?

*Sphincter is currently set at f.11 @ ISO 100. Still feels over-exposed despite low sensitivity 🙂

That review misses the mark by a mile for me. Everything he says it doesn’t do, is exactly what it does for me.

That is genuinely very interesting. Tell us more about what you see and what you think.

Gilden has always been the marmite of the photography world. His approach is both brilliant and controversial and always confrontational. That’s what he is most famous for but it’s also how he has captured some brilliant images.

I’m in two minds about this collection (I have the book and paid good money for it so I must approve on some level) and it does leave me feeling very conflicted. The negative aspects I experience as captured very well by that review in the following statement:

not because of the poverty or abuse etched on to the landscapes of these faces, but because their perceived ugliness is paraded as a kind of latter-day freak show.

You cannot call this curation anything other than a burlesque. The commonality between the subjects is not their disenfranchisement because that can still be captured and represented without selecting the individuals that he has.

No, the review is right that the commonality between these subjects is the grotesqueness of their features.

Now, that statement in itself is hugely worthy of investigation; I’m being forced to acknolwedge my own prejudices and aesthetic judgements. I try, very hard, to be non-judgemental and accepting but I’m human and fall far from being perfect at that. This set of faces forces to acknowledge that I still see these people as ugly and by feeling discomfort in that, am forced to question what other sub conscious biases I may hold towards them.

But more than anything I suppose I feel pity. Perhaps that is a good response but perhaps it is a bad response. I just still wonder what he told them (since he clearly asked and gained permission) and how ‘authentic’ and honest he was.

This is what we mean by being authentic in your photography (as that was a question posed above).

*woah – synchro marmite edit! As you were. (Genuinely impressed by the Universe) 😀

Seems all a bit Emperor’s New Clothes ish to me. Just a lot of close ups of ugly people! 🙂

Seems all a bit Emperor’s New Clothes ish to me. Just a lot of close ups of ugly people!

Damn, now I’m hooked. What kind of subjects are genuinely artistic/worthy in your estimation?

PS OP, subject matter, what’s main intended subject matter? Bit of everything? Family snaps? Wildlife? Sports? Travel? Journalism? Art degree?

Damn, now I’m hooked. What kind of subjects are genuinely artistic/worthy in your estimation?

Well, I’d say subjects that the average person would find very difficult to catch….be it a rare occurence for example.

Well, I’d say subjects that the average person would find very difficult to catch….be it a rare occurence for example.

So, say, Monet is out, ‘cos he just painted stuff about folk lying around by rivers and other subjects that are not exactly earth shattering?

So, say, Monet is out, ‘cos he just painted stuff about folk lying around by rivers and other subjects that are not exactly earth shattering?

Well, that’s one for the Monet……. 😉

Well for me (and as I’m not an art critic, that’s all I’ve got) it’s not about the ugliness, it’s about the feeling of repulsion. Putting people that I might otherwise cross the street to avoid right inside my personal space forces me to have a conversation with them, asks me to find out more about them, discover their story and consider my initial prejudices.

be it a rare occurence for example.

Given that a photograph of a person is moment in time and given that no two moments in time are ever the same, any photograph of a person is thus a rare occurence.

Canon 15-85mm EFS, but isn’t the 60D a full frame? Full frame, my Zeiss 50/1.7. But you can’t have it.

60D is crop sensor (think 6D is the cheapest full frame in the range?).

would be 24-70 for me, or something along those lines. plus a 50mm toy lens.

Personally speaking I find that ‘honest’ portraiture* is (and has been) a rare thing in itself – ever since the advent of photography. From the romance and starchiness of the Victorians through to retouched/airbrushed/’shopped Hollywood eras. We seem to be stuck for a while now with the cult of youth, celebrity and artificially posed selfies. Give or take a few ‘perfectly gritty’ monochrome chiaroscuro portraits for balance. Western popular culture has become so comfortable (enamoured) with the lens at this point that the ‘direct gaze’ is the norm. The sitter is often engaged not in their work or surroundings or even the photographer. They are engaged with their own ego. An idealised and aesthetically considered ‘celebrity’ version of themselves.

How far is too far? At the beginning point of the sitter’s self-absorption? Or the end point, where the photographer retoucher/effectively erases the subject and replaces with something more befitting the Age?

But which lens?

*Candid portraiture is often an exception, although the photographer may still stylise their output to the nth degree until it becomes a reflection of their own vision/aesthetic rather than deft observation/capture of a subject.

But which lens?

the biggest fastest dick swinging one you can find.

So Gary what’s your view on Gilden’s ‘Face’ portraits?

TBH they are of no interest to me. If I want to look at the oversize and slightly grotesque i would pay to look at a Ron Mueck exhibition which deals with the 2 main themes of scale and forcing your gaze on the disconcerting far better than any photograph
(My opinion, I’m not interested in making it everybody else’s)

Ron Mueck

WOW!

Not come across him before but lord his work is quite something. Thankyou for sharing.

So which photographers do you like/admire/feel influenced by Gary; is photography purely work for you or do you also pursue it for artistic expression?