Lens choice: creative consistency vs versatility?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suggest that everyone takes a step back and looks at the early days of photography when lens choice was severly curtailed. This did not stop a great variety of creative images being taken, some of which had the 'stamp' of their photographer's style. I would however suggest that it is difficult to adhere to the idea of creative consistency as consistency within imagery suggests a style rather than creative output. The two are easy to confuse. 

FWIW of the photographs which I have taken that I myself consider to show 'creativity', few have any consistency with regards to style or focal length or anything else come to that. They do though satisfy my intent and I like them, which is what matters to me. The reactions to them of others varies, which is probably how it should be.

Edited May 20, 2021 by pgk

[capo di tutti capi]

16 minutes ago, ianman said:

Fantastic... great trick. How is that at all relevant to the subject of the thread ("he wrote as he pulled a bunny from a hat")

The topic of the branch is consistency in the viewing angles of the lens? (what Ouroboros is talking about) One does the other's work. Or consistency in the picture created by different lenses? When they complement each other. We talked about this and that

Edited May 20, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[capo di tutti capi]

Or this topic?

Believe me. You will not be able to take a photo that is not in your style. It will still be your style. Even if they give you a lens you've never used before

To take a picture in a different way you need to get other knowledge

Edited May 20, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[Ouroboros]

28 minutes ago, pgk said:

I suggest that everyone takes a step back and looks at the early days of photography when lens choice was severly curtailed. This did not stop a great variety of creative images being taken, some of which had the 'stamp' of their photographer's style. I would however suggest that it is difficult to adhere to the idea of creative consistency as consistency within imagery suggests a style rather than creative output. The two are easy to confuse. 

FWIW of the photographs which I have taken that I myself consider to show 'creativity', few have any consistency with regards to style or focal length or anything else come to that. They do though satisfy my intent and I like them, which is what matters to me. The reactions to them of others varies, which is probably how it should be.

You seem to imply that 'style' and 'creative output' are mutually exclusive.  I believe they are not. 

Another example to back my opinion up on this; take a look at the work of another friend of mine, Trevor Yerbury.  Trevor has a definite style which is the foundation of his creative output.  

Edited May 20, 2021 by Ouroboros

[capo di tutti capi]

The difference is that big professionals use the equipment in a way that beginners don't. Therefore, their Creativity is different. It also uses a wide-angle lens to get closer, a telephoto lens to get further away. From what happens on stage. This is contrary to beginners.

You are trying to understand the conditions of beginners.

There is no point in talking about whether the lenses complement each other or work for each other until you say what for.

The lenses work differently for each one

Edited May 20, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[Masukami]

3 minutes ago, capo di tutti capi said:

The difference is that big professionals use the equipment in a way that beginners don't. Therefore, their Creativity is different. It also uses a wide-angle lens to get closer, a telephoto lens to get further away. From what happens on stage. This is contrary to beginners.

You are trying to understand the conditions of beginners. You need to understand the purpose of use

@capo di tutti capi I understand you are a professional photographer. Do you have a website where we could see your work? I’d love to read your comments in the context of what you produce - it could be really helpful to the discussion. 

[capo di tutti capi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Like I said before. If you know all the tricks and tricks of the great masters. You will stop taking pictures

[pgk]

15 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

You seem to imply that 'style' and 'creative output' are mutually exclusive.  I believe they are not. 

Whilst they are certainly not mutually exclusive, they can all too easily become so. Style in itself though does not confer creativity. And to get back to the OP, using a single, or select few, focal lengths may provide a form of consistency, but neither confers consistency nor style and has nothing to do with creativity. Personally speaking, as a photographer, I prefer versatility over style which is why I do not see myself as working within any sort of creativel consistency. I do have some preferences and yes, these can give a similarity of vision between images but I do not aim for any specific style nor indeed a particular consistency.

To add a view, Ansel Adams worked with just a few lenses and deveopled a very characteristic way of taking and printing his photographs. Many shoot in the style of Ansel Adams today, especially in the same locations and using similar equipment (even the same lenses). Whether the results are truly 'creative' is undoubtedly difficult for their viewers or creators to determine🤔.

[ianman]

7 minutes ago, capo di tutti capi said:

There is no point in talking about whether the lenses complement each other or work for each other until you say what for

The lenses work differently for each one

These two sentences are contradictory. What is the point of showing photographs or telling how we each use them, when we all have our own unique approaches. And this has nothing to do with being a "beginner" or not.

[a.noctilux]

3 minutes ago, Masukami said:

@capo di tutti capi I understand you are a professional photographer. Do you have a website where we could see your work? I’d love to read your comments in the context of what you produce - it could be really helpful to the discussion. 

@Masukami, what for ?

Just beleive what @Capo di titti capi or @capo di tutti capiwrote here and there.

That's all 😉.

[capo di tutti capi]

1 minute ago, ianman said:

These two sentences are contradictory. What is the point of showing photographs or telling how we each use them, when we all have our own unique approaches. And this has nothing to do with being a "beginner" or not.

so there's no point in talking about it at all

[capo di tutti capi]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/a9/98/e3a99858e02fa8de0367db2f9217e780.jpg

This is one of my jobs. In addition, during the isolation, I did not waste time and studied the great masters of painting, cinema, and photography

[ianman]

4 minutes ago, capo di tutti capi said:

so there's no point in talking about it at all

Of course there is. Because some of the posts - not many, I'll give you that - are replying to the OPs question:

On 5/18/2021 at 3:57 PM, Masukami said:

To what extent do you value the versatility a wide range of different lenses gives you vs the consistency of the sort of choice I have made?

 

[pgk]

I'll just wade in with a few more thoughts. I use the 21mm SEM as a landscape lens. It is an incredibly precise lens which can produce extremely detailed and punchy images. Trying to use it to produce softer and less exact images would, IMO, be a waste of my time (and I have a SA for such images). It has very definite characteristics which make its use great for the images it excels at. As a result it can create what seems to be a consistency across the succesful images produced from it. But this is for me in the way that I use it.

My 35mm Summilux Asheric (pre FLE) is my all-round lens. It is used for the majority of my photography with a Leica. Its a great lens and if it has any characteristic it is versatility. I can't say that I have noticed any degree of consistency about the images I have takn with it.

I use various 90mm lenses. Their consistency is only their slight telephoto compression.

[Ouroboros]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

Whilst they are certainly not mutually exclusive, they can all too easily become so. Style in itself though does not confer creativity. And to get back to the OP, using a single, or select few, focal lengths may provide a form of consistency, but neither confers consistency nor style and has nothing to do with creativity. Personally speaking, as a photographer, I prefer versatility over style which is why I do not see myself as working within any sort of creativel consistency. I do have some preferences and yes, these can give a similarity of vision between images but I do not aim for any specific style nor indeed a particular consistency.

To add a view, Ansel Adams worked with just a few lenses and deveopled a very characteristic way of taking and printing his photographs. Many shoot in the style of Ansel Adams today, especially in the same locations and using similar equipment (even the same lenses). Whether the results are truly 'creative' is undoubtedly difficult for their viewers or creators to determine🤔.

It can do

That's the purpose behind the thread (I think)

That's possibly influenced by your personal approach (style?) to your subject matter

A few years ago I was exhibiting at the Spring Fair at the NEC, hooking interior decor suppliers, calendar and book publishers.  Behind my stand was a young marine photographer (Ben someone-or -other, I think.  You may know who he is through your own business). 

His display consisted of 3 or 4  2x1 metre backlit acrylic panels of fish in coral reef settings.  It was impressive in it's simplicity and showed his work as a signature style.   One lens, one camera and flash.  It comes back to the very first point I made in this thread, about experience.

Btw, I don't think there's any need to raise the point about Adams.  It could cause a diversion to really spoil someone's day!  

 

[capo di tutti capi]

11 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

It can do

That's the purpose behind the thread (I think)

That's possibly influenced by your personal approach (style?) to your subject matter

A few years ago I was exhibiting at the Spring Fair at the NEC, hooking interior decor suppliers, calendar and book publishers.  Behind my stand was a young marine photographer (Ben someone-or -other, I think.  You may know who he is through your own business). 

His display consisted of 3 or 4  2x1 metre backlit acrylic panels of fish in coral reef settings.  It was impressive in it's simplicity and showed his work as a signature style.   One lens, one camera and flash.  It comes back to the very first point I made in this thread, about experience.

Btw, I don't think there's any need to raise the point about Adams.  It could cause a diversion to really spoil someone's day!  

 

Yes, you don't need to take the topic to the lab test. it is better to shoot standard landscapes

Edited May 20, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[pgk]

9 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

It was impressive in it's simplicity and showed his work as a signature style.  One lens, one camera and flash.  It comes back to the very first point I made in this thread, about experience.

Underwater photography is lens limited. You go down with either macro or wide and are stuck with the cosen lens for the dive (although Doubilet of Nat Geo used to have assistants carry spare housed cameras around for him I believe - not many are able to do so). Some of us prefer one flash, others two. So I suppose there is an inevitable consistency🙂.

[ianman]

23 minutes ago, capo di tutti capi said:

Have you noticed the similarity of styles in between portrait photography and clock photography?

Certainly can't see any "story", or tricks, or creativity. Both shoots have been seen thousands of times before. I don't wish to be rude, really.

[capo di tutti capi]

7 minutes ago, ianman said:

Certainly can't see any "story", or tricks, or creativity. Both shoots have been seen thousands of times before. I don't wish to be rude, really.

Before you post your photos, look in Google. I mentioned this above. A few people laughed about it

This is the truth of modern photography

All shoot standard and banal pictures

One of the reasons why I stopped taking photos for the Internet. I shoot for myself and my family

Edited May 20, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ouroboros]

Just now, pgk said:

Underwater photography is lens limited. You go down with either macro or wide and are stuck with the cosen lens for the dive (although Doubilet of Nat Geo used to have assistants carry spare housed cameras around for him I believe - not many are able to do so). Some of us prefer one flash, others two. So I suppose there is an inevitable consistency🙂.

Until someone else refines their style within those constraints to seperate their work from the also-rans.  This is what I saw in Ben's work at the Spring Fair.

During my time as a judge for professional awards and qualifications I've seen it happen across many different genres of photography from newborn, wedding, portrait, landscape, event, industrial, product photography etc.