[matthew]

Although we know that the buildings, sidewalks, and sky continue beyond the edges of this urban landscape, the world of the photograph is contained within the frame. It is not a fragment of a larger world.
- Steven Shore, The Nature of Photographs

Wide angle lenses give us a new way of seeing, but are also the most challenging lenses to use. They demand thoughtful composition and special technique, and occasionally needs the photographer to b a contortionist as well. But if their characteristics can be mastered, they are very rewarding.

For this assignment, let's look at lenses wider than a 35mm-equivalent. New photos are always encouraged, but past favourites are also welcomed. Shuttertalk has a lot of photographers with ultra-wide lenses, so let's give them some exercise.

[Kombisaurus]

I made a friend while staying for a few nights at a farmstay in Harvey.

[matthew]

I like the nose -- and you're very brave. Did you get any nose prints on your glass?

I haven't been shooting much recently, so it's hard to find UWA shots that I haven't already used for another assignment. I think this one's new:



The photo of the CN tower -- it's the tiny thing in the background -- is at the telephoto end of my wide lens, having been taken at a 28mm equivalent. Here's the wide end, straight from the camera -- crooked horizon, lens flare, and everything:



(I like that I can shoot into the sun and still not block up the shadows. This photo cleans up very nicely.)

I don't usually take my 7-14 out in the rain, since the fishbowl front element is too hard to keep dry. But last weekend I made an exception, and went for a walk in the alleyway that's famous for its graffiti. Here's a couple from that trip:





Both of these were shot at 7mm (14mm-e) and have been cropped slightly. I was disappointed that I couldn't get everything in focus for the doorway photograph, but wasn't willing to get dripped on for long enough to get it right.

[Keith Alan]

I'll be watching this Assignment to see what I'm missing.

There have been a few times that I really needed something wider than 38mm-e.
Not many, but I like to believe that if I had the capability I would find a way to use it effectively.
But what if I just don't see the world in a wide way?
The glasses I wear are rather small so even without a camera my angle of view is greatly reduced.

Kombi's pig shot reminds me of a similar one I want to do with some local cows, but with flash.
Thanks for that--I need to add it to my list.

[matthew]

I have to admit that I hadn't considered that people wouldn't be within the scope of the focal length I've asked for. Of course, it's not a hard limit if it excludes people -- just go as wide as you can. But what I've found is that there's much more difference between 14mm-e and 21mm-e than there is between 28mm-e and 36mm-e.

[Kombisaurus]

hey Keith (or anyone without a wide-angle lens)... you can always stitch a few images together to make a wide-angle panorama.

Once you start stitching images focal length doesn't really matter, just the overall field of view.
As a point of reference, my 10mm Sigma lens (16mm equiv) gets a touch over 90 degrees coverage when shooting at 10mm.

[wulinka]

Hey, I had not checked this before, as wide is not my world, but GREAT stuff!
awesome pig shot, Kombi!
And Mat, I like the third and fourth, they remind me of your subway shots. you could make a book about
Toronto from those!

uli

[matthew]

Uli, thanks, and now that I've started thinking about projects instead of (as well as) individual photos, I am starting to think more about how I put photos together and how they'll work together. So perhaps a book will exist sooner or later.

There's certainly a lot of good wide-angle stuff around here these days: for those who may have missed it, Zig's thread on very wide angles is a great resource.

Today I went on a field trip with my club to shoot architectural images, so naturally I had my 7-14 on the camera most of the time.







The shadow in the first one is one of my fellow photographers, but #2 was a self-timer setup. To create the shadow I had to stand about 15-20 feet away from the door and reach upwards. (This was as close as I could get without actually being in the frame.) It was shot at a relatively long 18mm-e, and I had to crop the right side to get rid of the tripod's shadow.

This next ones are variations on photos that I've shot before:





I've noticed that wide-angle photos don't always have the wide-angle 'look'. I'm not sure that the photo above is the best example, but considering its just a slightly cropped frame shot at 14mm-e, I think the effect is relatively subtle.



And this is the only photo that I had pre-visualized before setting out for the day. It's a war memorial that I've photographed several times, but I've never tried to take a detail photo of it with my wide-angle lens before. Shot at 28mm-e, it's the one that I like the best from my excursion, which means it's probably going to get only a luke-warm reaction from the club's judges.

[Keith Alan]

This was shot today in infrared at my lens's widest setting (38mm-e).
By getting close to something that recedes into the distance I can somewhat mimic the 'look' of truly wide lenses.

[Zig]

Excellent stuff. I've a feeling this will turn into something very profitable.
Kombi's point about stitching shots for a pano is a good move: the thing is though, that whereas the actual field of view will be wide, the spatial relationship of the objects within it will still be at the "taking" angle of your original lens.
Therefore, it'd be interesting to see shots exemplifying Matthew's point above, that "wide-angle photos don't always have the wide-angle 'look'". Some of these are already showing "width", with others working more with the relationship of objects within the frame.
Some absolute goodies so far: keith's IR shot and matthew's graffiti/textural shots are my personal faves; it's quite a revelation for me to see more "urban" style shots, as I tend to keep away from towns and cities..maybe I should venture further afield.
I'd better have a root around for ones hitherto unposted....

[Zig]

OK, as you know, architecture provides opportunities for the converging verticals, always a safe bet for wowy images. I've done these in mono so as to concentrate more on lines and textures.
The locations of these, in order= Gloucester Cathedral, Woodchester Mansion and Ebley Mill, all local to me.
All of these were shot with my 10-22mm, giving a "35mm equivalent" of 16-35.

You'll also notice within your shots, that any repeating patterns or motifs are amplified and intensified. I used a red filter to increase contrast on brickwork, thereby bringing texture more uppermost.

[Zig]

Secondly, here are examples where "width" has been increased in a manner suggested by Kombi: these are stitches of, respectively, 3 and 9 individual shots.
You''ll notice that whereas, yes, the actual ANGLE is wide, there is no real evidence of RELATIONSHIP between objects that would be the case if a true wideangle lens were used.
So, in the absence of this, we need other strengths: a good composition, or contrast of tone, or that crispness of texture that can be conveyed by the sheer pixel-power of the larger image.

[Zig]

Finally, many wonders can be achieved, with compositions ruined and made, just by thinking about the positioning of yourself when taking the shot.
The wider you are, the more any movement is translated to your composition.
If you're at the super-wide end, say, at angles greater than 21mm(yes, I know a measurement is not an angle, but you know what I mean ), you'll find that this effect becomes very pronounced.
When you move your viewpoint to very close to the ground, you can start to really "work" both the technique and your contraol of composition and depth of field.
In other words, shooting wide is one thing...working out what aperture to use to convey what you're trying to say, is another.
Here are some examples.
Note the effect the low viewpoint has: maximising foreground interest, using repeating lines and shapes, allowing for a sense of movement within your composition.
And there's the vertical format too: a feeling of "depth" to the image, as much as sheer width...

[Zig]

Finally?
Sorry, I lied: I thought I'd make another point:
Remember me saying that the wideangle "amplifies" effects, lines, etc;....well, it also does this with light itself. Try shooting the same subject from a different viewpoint, or in differing light.
These 2 shots are at differing focal lengths within the 10-22mm zoom: both are wide angle shots, but the relationship of the main subject to everything else is changed by the focal length. The differences in light allow differnces in texture, and the wideangle picks up and runs with these.
These 2 are of the same tree: one in autumn, the other in spring; note the use or absence of colour to convey a difference in mood too; both viewpoints are low, but one is lower than the other.
(You could easily make several sub-assignments here, such as seeing how many ways you can shoot the same object with the same lens...varying viewpoint, varying light, varying distance between objects within the composition...?)

[Irma]

Beautiful pictures in this assignment!

Unfortunately, nothing to add from me here at the moment.

[matthew]

OK, as you know, architecture provides opportunities for the converging verticals, always a safe bet for wowy images.

I have a thing about converging verticals -- a thing against them. Partly that's just me being me, since I like straight lines and square corners in everything I photograph, but it's also a particular result of my formative interest in Julius Shulman and his creative but very correct work with view cameras. I have to admit that even when trying to get over my own biases, the subtle tilt in #2 of this series bothers me. The figure in the door makes the shot work, but it took me a while to get over the perspective.

For #1 and #3, the perspective is skewed more, which makes me like them more. The downward view in #1 is something that I'll remember, as it gives an unusual look that's not as disturbing (to me?) as the 'building falling backward' angles. But that said, it's so extreme in #3 that it works as a photo even if it makes for a bad schematic. The extra width of the base of the image gives it enough of a base that I don't mind not seeing the ground, and it's a compelling and different view.

[matthew]

Secondly, here are examples where "width" has been increased in a manner suggested by Kombi: these are stitches of, respectively, 3 and 9 individual shots. You''ll notice that whereas, yes, the actual ANGLE is wide, there is no real evidence of RELATIONSHIP between objects that would be the case if a true wideangle lens were used.

What strikes me about the first image is the lack of a foreground -- something that wide and ultrawide shots always have plenty of, and frequently too much. Here everything is on a single plane; it looks like a photograph of a ridge line, with an overall telephoto effect. The second one includes more foreground, but perhaps too little sky? Regardless, Keith's excellent IR shot shows much more wide-angle perspective than this photo does, despite its width. It's a very interesting demonstration, as well as a pair of worthy photos in their own right.

As a test of the panorama approach, I went out this afternoon to take some myself. So far everything I've seen agrees with you, but Photoshop's still working its way through a 61-image blend of the building that I've already shot for this assignment -- the one that has the upskirt perspective on it.

So, in the absence of this, we need other strengths: a good composition, or contrast of tone, or that crispness of texture that can be conveyed by the sheer pixel-power of the larger image.

As always...

[matthew]

When you move your viewpoint to very close to the ground, you can start to really "work" both the technique and your control of composition and depth of field.

Very true, and if I can broaden the idea a bit, it's vitally important to consider the foreground and include a near centre of interest. Low-level shots are a great way of accomplishing this.

In other words, shooting wide is one thing...working out what aperture to use to convey what you're trying to say, is another.

And this is where the difference between true and 'effective focal lengths'. I'm usually at a true 7mm, which is as wide as many 1/1.8"- 2/3" sensored P&S cameras go, making the idea of selective focus is a little silly. (At 7mm and f/5.6 my hyperfocal distance is 1m, which nearly makes the whole idea of focus irrelevant.) Even at longer focal lengths on bigger sensors, the ability to highlight the subject with the use of selective focus is a strength that properly belongs to the telephoto. (...he says with just a hint of foreshadowing.)

I was looking for wide shots that don't really look wide, and found a couple more from my trip to the more colourful parts of town:





The first one is at a relatively long 28mm-e, but the second is at my typical 14mm-e (7mm true). While the composition of both shots would be impossible with a longer lens, they don't scream 'wide angle' to me. Perhaps it's the more normal camera height, or a lack of foreground-to-background lines, or the absence of a sweeping vista... but perhaps others do spot the lens and technique.

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Some really outstanding contributions here,i dont have much to show for im afraid. :/ Still adapting to this kind of photography.

Curious


My "office"


Meze food stand.

[Zig]

Matt: for some reason, reading your comments for the 1st time felt a bit akin to having my house burgled...."wrong schematic" is a phrase that pees me off as well. I maybe should have said that I spent 5 hours assembling these images in a "tutorial" format and as a resource for other learners, maybe adding the rider to "please leave unticked the box that invites deep redactive criticism" My thin skin I suppose.:/ I'm now seeing them as a little more postive. Heck, though, these are bits we stick on our cameras to have fun with, and anything goes. Sorry...that Monday morning feeling I guess....

[matthew]

Hey Zig, I'm sorry, I certainly never intended for my comments to have that effect. I absolutely recognize the time and thought that went into your photos and writing, and really appreciate your contribution to the assignment. When I wrote that the third photo in your 'perspective' message "works as a photo even if it makes for a bad schematic", I was referring to the perspective distortion that creates an artistic, rather than literal, image of the building. It certainly wasn't intended as a slight or derogatory comment in any way.

[wulinka]

Hey guys,

hadn't come by here in a while and I am AMAZED!!

Zig, I love your stuff, I am particularly impressed by the third series (beach?), the composition and
textures of these are just brilliant. the BW treatment suits them well.

The "bad schematic" is great in terms of light and composition too, I could never produce something like that.
I can see where Mat is coming from about the slight tilt in the second one of that series, it is so slight that it seems rather random than intentional, so it calls for correction, especially if one is particular about straight lines.

Mat, when is your book coming out?
I love the places you seek out in your city, and the pictures you take of them.
great job!

Uli

[matthew]

Paul, it's good to see your shots -- I like the playful image of your kids; and the food stand is really well put together. It took me a while to notice all of the detail, like the row of highlights across the front of the cans. There's a lot to see, and the corners hold up really well. (I'm extremely jealous of your desk, too. Mine's never that organized, even when I have people over to look at photos.)

Uli, thanks.

I tried out a bit of work with the panorama approach yesterday, and one of them worked well enough for a comparison. Here's a photo of the scene taken with a wide angle lens, in this case at 22mm-e. Please forgive the sharpness issues, I forgot that I had the camera set to manually focus...



Now here's the image created out of five or six photos shot as one row with a 100mm-e telephoto, and below it is the image above cropped down to match the field of view:




There's a slight difference in camera position, which (probably?) accounts for the slight difference in the stairs and garden just visible between the pillars. But where there's no comparison is in the original images - viewing the crop of a single photo is a very different from what Zig eloquently called 'the sheer pixel-power of the larger image.' It's certainly something I'm going to work on in the future.

[Zig]

Matt: you're very gracious; I've had an especially lousy time of late and allowed it to spill over into here. My apologies.
The above shots are quite revealing; not as I'd have expected; is there a just a slight bit more "acuteness" of the angles in the wide one? I'd have thought some tele-comression would have been evident, but it's not . Fascinating.
Ta Uli, encouraging as always, blessya.
Paul: yes, that desk!...So....so...umm..."Swedish"!

[wulinka]

Hey Paul,

I agree, that food store makes for an amazing shot. so much to see!
The desk... I mostly like it for the equipment on top!

With all that looking at wides angles, I am starting to see situations where I would like to do one,
mind you, this comes from someone who is most comfortable at 80+ mm

really inspiring assignment!

Uli