I wouldn't call HCB names... Even if I felt his opinion was a little damning of my own personal approach to anything.
I'd listen, or re-read what he said. He speaks from a lot of experience making a lot of significant photographs.
If his comment is hyperbole, then take it as an opinion worth hearing. He spoke from experience with a view towards helping.
I am sure he wasn't just mad that he would have to use an M-2 to see the framelines.
Documentary evidence from Vietnam and a 1000 other places pretty much nullifies what he says though. He liked his focal lengths and approach and framed what he said around those dispositions. I do not think photographers capturing raw environment and emotions with a wide angle lens are somehow falling back to shouting because they're incapable of making good photographs with a longer lens. If anything they're letting the photograph do the shouting by it's sheer immersion.
in the 1980s it was skate fashion to wear your pants low and your boxers UP .. didn't much have to do with much
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
else but to say FU to the posers who were wearing briefs LOL a lot of the skate punks i knew / hung out with were just that ... punks. but this is the 90s you are talking about, maybe it was different then ...
nowadays it is a "pants are hanging low, pockets full of doe" sort of aesthetic
i don't mind wide angle lenses at all, used them a bit when i shot for a newspaper, and i kind of like the effect.
:laugh: I like that, Dale!
Originally Posted by ic-racer
Missed seeing you on Sunday, btw.
With regard to HCB or any photographer, I try to judge them by their images, rather than what they say.
And its not like there are any objectively correct answers here.
If you like the look that a wide angle lens gives you, then go for it. If you don't, then use something else.
Its all "Ginger" vs "Mary Ann".
I can't make up my mind. I would say Mary Ann but my wife's a redhead...
MY opinion is many shots are wide simply because that's the focal length the lens starts out with... I would wish lenses started normal and you had to choose wide or telephoto deliberately. Meanwhile, it might be time to pick up prime lenses and set the lens you intend to use onto the camera. If you choose wide, fine. My 24mm does not see much use. I gravitate towards 40mm on 35mm cameras.
I was lamenting the loss of "normal" in common photography until I realized that the most common photography these days is done using single-focal-length lenses.
As for what lens needs to be on the camera at all times, you should see the picture I took when I got between a mother bear and her cub in Paradise Valley. I had a 35mm lens on at the time. I got nothing.
I didn't intend for that quote to be controversial... I just think it's interesting how this thread seams to be about excessive use of really wide lenses, and to HCB, "wide" was a 35mm lens. Most of my students don't seem to see the perspective effect with a lens of that focal length, and to me it does seem a bit subtle. I often use a 28mm for walk-around-and-see-what-I-can-find street photography, and I do love that wide-angle-close-up perspective effect that puts a person or group in their environment so well sometimes:
Hardly a wonderful image, but I love how the artist is the only one smiling... she was on a mission to spread joy. I doubt this picture would look as good if it was done with a 50mm from ten feet away. It was taken with a 28mm f/2.8 Tamron on my F3 (film was probably HP5 but I'd have to go look to be sure, I was shooting a lot of different films in 2011). I think Bill is onto something about starting with a normal view; I was taught to carry a framing device (an empty slide mount), and use it to determine what lens to use, somewhat like a very inexpensive director's viewfinder.