From: Kris Erickson (kerickso@ryerson.ca)
Date: 12/17/02-09:26:02 AM Z
What Jack says is really interesting--
I personally have always considered telephoto as a little voyeuristic (a
little too surveillance photo), but have recently seen some interesting
portraits done with a zoom lens under quite low light conditions. While
the images were, in my opinion, too motion blurry and soft focus to a
fault, I could see some real potential in where they might lead
(specifically in terms of the composition). That said, I wonder now how
they may look as gums or kallitypes.... hmmm....
In terms of telephoto landscapes, I think one of the many possibilities
for such a decision would be the ability of equating the foreground with
the background (creating layers instead of depth), again compressing
(homogenizing?) the picture plane. Interesting.
Jack: which Chinese landscapes are you referring to? When you mentioned
it, Hiroshige first came to mind--tho' Japanese, of course.
Kris
Jack Fulton wrote:
>Anti-photographic in the degree that the proportional relationships are not
>correct. i.e.: as I noted, referring to the center fielder being larger than
>the pitcher on a televised baseball game, in landscape what is real is that
>which is apparent and substantially real in appearance. By distorting the
>relative scale of near and far objects the optical belief might be
>unpleasant enough to many so though it 'looks' photographic
>(verisimilitude), it does not contain perspective reality.
>
>
>
>>"Anti-Photographic" ???
>>
>>You got to be kidding.
>>
>>As far as why people usually do not use telephoto lenses is that most
>>people when photographing the landscape want to provide a 'sense of
>>place'. This is dificult to achieve with a telephoto lens.
>>
>>Shooting telephoto is a limiting process where you exclude the
>>surroundings and focus on one specific element or area in a landscape.
>>
>>Needless to say it would be relatively easy argue that shooting with a
>>telephoto lens that the image no longer stands as a 'landscape'
>>photograph. But that doesn't remove it from being a photograph.
>>
>>Maybe you are confused by this. Since the image no longer is a landscape
>>photograph then it is no longer a photograph at all? You could not be any
>>more wrong.
>>
>>Why would how you structure an image determine whether it is photographic
>>or not. Would you do something similar in another subject matter? (no.)
>>
>>I think you need to evaluate your interpretation of what is
>>'photographic.' And if you feel you have a grasp on that, why don't you
>>try defining 'landscape.'
>>
>>Good luck.
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>
>>--- Jack Fulton <jefulton1@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>Do people ever
>>>>>>shoot landscapes with telephoto lenses? If not, why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>I like this question because I've found few DO shoot landscapes w/tele
>>>lenses. It's something I've wished to do but haven't. There are great
>>>possibilities in not only flattening the scene but with an alliance with
>>>Chinese landscapes. The idea of equivalents appeals to me here. Where
>>>the
>>>distance is similar to the near in scale. Some interesting reversals
>>>similar
>>>to viewing a pair of 3D images backwards may occur like the center
>>>fielder
>>>being larger than the pitcher on a televised baseball game. In a way I
>>>feel
>>>the structure might become virtually anti-photographic and hence does
>>>not
>>>hold good general appeal.
>>>Jack
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
>>http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:25 AM Z CST