man & nature # 46 ~ outside lies magic redux
Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 11:58AM 
Leafy fence • click to embiggenIn his (now, a much venerated classic) book The Photographer's Eye, John Szarkowski wrote that the act picturing concerned itself with 5 intrinsic and crucial characteristics:
1) The thing itself
2) The detail
3) The frame
4) Time
5) Vantage point
IMO, there isn't much to argue about with those 5 characteristics. He might have added something like Intent to cover the personal point of view of the photographer - he does write that a "photographer must find new ways to make his meanings clear" and of the challenge that photographers faced (and still face) in order to address the fact of how "this mechanical and mindless process [can] be made to produce pictures meaningful in human terms".
That challenge arose from the difference between painting and photography - painting were made but photographs were taken. Photography was "a process based not on synthesis but on selection". Without a doubt, a selection made obvious by the picture "taker's" use of the frame.
As I mentioned yesterday, Stilgoe wrote that:
... exploring means sharpening all the senses, especially sight. See intently means scrutinizing, staring, narrowing the eyes ... and he went on to state, ...even putting one's hands across the forehead to shade the eyes ... [T]he hand over the yes shields them from some sideways, incident light, and cupping the hands around the eyes works even better ... cupping the hands around the eyes makes possible more precise scrutinizing of even distant things ...
IMO, cupping the eyes to better scrutinize something (near or far) is basically the same idea as Szarkowski's notion of photography as a process of selection that utilizes the frame.
Regarding the process of selection, Szarkowski wrote:
One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing," adding, "It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others."
All of that said, today's picture utilizes a particular process of selection that I have been thinking about for a while - the use of "long" telephoto lenses, 200mm and up (35mm equivalent).
My vision runs heavily in favor of detail, in most cases, lots of detail. I like complexity. As I am sure most of you have noticed, I really don't have any trouble selecting and isolating lots of detail with my lens of first choice, a 21mm (35mm equiv.), or there about, wide angle lens. But, long lenses have been on my mind of late because of one particular characteristic they have - narrow DOF (depth of field).
In a very real sense, narrow DOF provides another level of selection within and in addition to the frame itself. This is a characteristic that I want to explore in more depth (pun). Today's picture is from some picturing I did this AM. I came back with 6 pictures that I really like, all "taken" on an "exploration" within a half a block of my house.
I left the house with just my 100-400mm f2.8/3.5 (35mm equiv.) attached to my camera. My intention was to picture at the long end of that range with a nearly wide open aperture in order to achieve maximum narrow DOF. For the most part, that's what I did although some picture were "taken" with as "short" a focal length as 250mm (35mm equiv.).
My question for you - do you ever play with long lenses? Have you ever considered making a body of work with just a long lens?
Reader Comments (9)
I tried shooting with just a 70-200mm zoom for awhile just to test myself. I just don't see that way. If I had to have one lens it'd be a 24mm (in 35mm format). The longest lens I own is an 85mm. I prefer the feeling of being up close by actually being up close, to the feeling of being up close by using a long lens.
I do it all the time. With digital as well as the large format work in my series from the edge. I like the way the compression creates a 2d flat plane, as my fight against the 3d near to far wide angle practitioners.
I always seem to produce my best landscape work (and most other stuff too) with a longer lens. I like the 70-200 (112-320mm 35mm equiv). I think the greatest sense of discovery comes from seeing & picturing the details that aren't obvious, the stuff that those around you are missing.
Back in the 70's and 80's I used whatever normal lens came with the camera along with a 35mm and a 135mm and was happy. A few years ago I purchased a Sigma 28 to 300 and used it all the time and for some reason I developed a hate for that lens, now I use my favorite a Nikon 18to135 all the time and love it.
I tend to look out ie far so longer lens are "normal" for me. Trouble is I like to shoot handheld and I can't seem to hold an 85mm steady. So now I want to go the other direction!
I work with a Pentax 67ii and own three fixed focus lenes - 45mm, 105mm and 200mm (equiv to 22mm, 50mm and 100mm respectively on a 35mm camera). The 45mm and 105 mm gets used most of the time, while the 200mm seldom sees any action. However, for my FRACTURES series, I exclusively used the 200mm lens. I suppose I can say that I did use just one long lens for an entire project. :)
I use long lenses for short depth of field, but on MF and LF so I retain a "short-tele" field of view. Like Jim, I enjoy the flattening of perspective, and the way it encourages the viewer to see patterns and relationships in the plane. Contrariwise though, I find a short DOF makes tangled undergrowth more comprehensible than getting everything in focus: it must appeal to our monkey brains in some way.
This past weekend when we went out exploring the burgeoning fall colors, I only used my 70-200mm (mostly at the 200mm end) for the whole shoot. I even used it for the "close-ups" that I shot (flowers, ferns, etc.). It just felt "right" for some reason and I hardly ever take it out.
Currently I am really enjoying "light on my feet" photography. I find that I am happiest and most productive when my gear burden is next to nothing. (That means the camera and lens around my neck and whatever else I can fit in one cargo pants pocket--memory cards and extra batteries). There are lots of interesting possibilities working with a long lens for sure but, for the time being at least, the extra poundage isn't it worth it for me.