civilized ku # 922-23 ~ the story you are about to see is true
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 11:29AM 
Tulips • click to embiggenApropos of no burning picture making issue in particular, 2 weeks ago, as I was making a tulip picture - the 130mm (260mm - 35mm equiv.) tele variation on the left, it occurred to me to picture it again with my "normal" lens, the 20mm (40mm - 35mm equiv.) Lumix lens.
I initially pictured the tulips using a tele approach because I first noticed the tulips, picture making wise, from a "distant" perspective (from another room). Without question, the tele approach would - in fact, did - represent well what I saw from that "distant" POV. FYI, the low picturing angle also represents what I saw as well - inasmuch as I was sitting when I looked at the tulips.
After processing the picture, I felt a little squeamish in that I had "violated" my normal "normal" lens approach to making pictures ....
an aside - I must state at this point that I am not a single lens nazi. That's true even though 90% (+/- a sukoshi) of my personal / "fine art" picture making is with the same single focal length lens. However, that said, every picture in any of my specific bodies of work, is deliberately made with the same lens. That lens may vary from one body of work to another but it never varies within a given body of work.
.... so, I returned to the scene and pictured the scene from the same (approximate) low angle and line-of-sight POV. Other than the aforementioned twinge of squeamish guilt, I have no idea why I felt compelled to do this little exercise at that time.
Hindsight wise, I believe it had something to do with testing the medium's ability to picture the real with a high degree of the true. Would pictures of a given referent made with different lenses from different camera-to-referent distances impact the ability of the resultant pictures to represent and convey the real/truthful-ness of the pictured referent?
My opinion on the matter has always been that, unless the lenses in use introduce a significant amount of distortion - as an example, using an ultra-wideangle lens to make a portrait with the subject's nose touching the lens, the resultant pictures will convey a very high degree of real/truthful-ness relative to the camera's picture making POV.
In the case of the tulips, in both pictures, the tulips look like tulips. Neither lens / camera POV combination gives a viewer any reason to doubt that they are looking at realistic /truthful pictures of tulips. In both pictures, the medium and its apparatus have done a splendid job of demonstrating and confirming the medium's unique-amongst-the-visual-arts characteristic as a cohort of/with the real.
That said, there can be no denying that the closer POV + wider angle of coverage lens produces a decidedly different visual effect and a concomitantly different affect from that of the more distant POV + tele lens combination. In the case of the former, the picture evidences a more in-your-face look and feel relative to the slightly more "relaxed" look and feel of its more-distant POV + tele lens counterpart. However, to my eye and sensibilities, neither presentation detracts from the real/truthful-ness of the picture's primary referent, the tulips.
That said, for the skillful picture maker, understanding and utilizing the "in-your-face" look and feel approach vs. the more "relaxed" approach (or vice-versa) can be a great asset in conveying or, at the very least, hinting at the implied meaning(s) and idea(s) in his/her pictures.
That is why, for most of my picture making, I take the slightly wide angle approach to picturing. To my eye and sensibilities, that picture making MO puts my primary referent (in any given picture) in visual context relative to its environment. Most often, this MO conveys a slightly - at times, very - cluttered look and feel but that look and feel is exactly how I see the world - a complex and interconnected field of things, thoughts, and emotions.
I have no desire to wallow and/or revel in maudlin sentimentality and romanticism nor to give succor to those who do. In my picture making, I try to adhere to the Joe Friday MO - "All we want are the facts, ma'am" - in the hope that the facts might lead to some truths.
All of that stated, and contrary to how I set out to picture the tulips, when all was said and done, I prefer the 20mm lens variation over the 120mm version.
And, if you're wondering why there are different cameras in each picture ... each camera was on the table next to the tulips but the camera pictured in the 20mm version (on the right) already had a tele-zoom mounted on it. Even though that 4/3rd lens could be mounted (via na adapter) on the µ4/3rd camera (pictured in the 130mm version - on the left), it was easier to pick up the 4/3rd camera and make the picture.
Later, when I decided to make the 20mm version, I had to use the µ4/3rd camera because the 20mm Lumix is a µ4/3rd lens and µ4/3rd lenses can not be mounted on a 4/3rd camera. So, to have a certain amount of consistency, I put the 4/3rd camera in the frame in same place as the µ4/3rd one was in the first picture.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Martijn (no link provided) wrote: "A quote from an older post (http://tinyurl.com/stinkingevf): "I don't know about you, but I don't need no stinking EVF" ... What is it that I see on the µ4/3rd camera? ;-)"
my response: Martijn, what you see on the µ4/3rd camera is an optical viewfinder ... because I still don't need (or want) no stinkin' EVF. In any event, even if I did want one, the E-P1 doesn't accept one.
Despite your honest mistake, you do deserve special mention for trying to call me on something I wrote nearly 16 months ago. It makes think that somebody's paying attention. ;-)
Reader Comments (5)
A quote from an older post (http://tinyurl.com/stinkingevf): "I don't know about you, but I don't need no stinking EVF".
What is it that I see on the µ4/3rd camera? ;-)
OVF?
Lee Friedlander did tulips in glass. Your effort is rankly derivative, despite the color vs. his B/W.
Rankly derivative? Oh my...
Interesting post.
I found this comment about your first image (left of diptych) striking: "I felt a little squeamish...". I enjoy taking photos (and editing them) but it's largely cerebral rather than visceral. Or at least I think it is ... my loss, no doubt.
Reminds me of a dance instructor who said that dancing out-of-time made her upset (she even might have said "made her cry"). I'm a learnt dancer, rather than a natural dancer and her comment made me realise the fundamental difference between our approaches.
I also prefer the "keep it real" approach to my images. No crazy angles or colours. Let the scene speak for itself. That is, I'm just the [very selective] messenger. Perhaps "messenger" is not the right word.
I do recognise your dilemma re POV. I was walking through the botanic gardens with friends the other day and took a group shot. It's autumn here (Australia) and I wanted a picture of the gang, dappled sunlight and autumn leaves. Not cheesy, but something including all three elements.
After announcing that I was going to take a shot I realised that where I was standing [on the track] wasn't going to work, so I had a 5 second dilemma until I decided to walk a few metres up the embarkment and take a shot looking down on the group [+ leaves & dappled sunlight on the ground]. In hindsight, the picture I had in mind was conceptual rather than actual: I had to change my POV to get the actual to reflect the conceptual.
BTW, I prefer the telephoto version of the tulips: the increased DOF allows my eye to take in the vase and stalks. Further, to my mind this is how I would see the image in the real world -- I wouldn't be limited to just seeing the detail in the flower heads.