Mixing
How to compose a street story with an ultra wide angle lens?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/12707/5205
The wider the lens you use, the closer you probably should be to the nearest thing in your scene. And there should be a nearest thing in your scene! The classic landscape shot is something like: near flower, middle lake, far peak. How far do you think the photographer is from the flower? The lake? The peak? How about 1 foot, 10 feet, 1 mile+? Yep, there's almost a logarithmic nature to near/middle/far in most pro landscape shots. In most amateur shots, it's more like middle/far/far (10 feet, 100 yards, 1 mile). And the image feels "flatter" when hung on the wall in a frame because of that.
I tried:
People on online fora have told me:
It looks to me like two separate photos, one stuck on top of the other. Neither half says anything interesting to me. Together they are just confusing.
your perspective on the foreground child is unflattering.
..
What are you showing us? What do you want us to see? Because right now, we don't see it.
..
The first thing I call the atancion is the cut of the boy's head, this does not look good in the photo, for my taste it should be seen whole.
I also do not find the objective that you have used the most appropriate for this photo, but if you did not have something else the time was worth it.
My intention was to show that poor sleep on the footpath. I believe that the sleeping kid is quite close to the camera, mother is in the center and her gaze leads us to the crawling kid which is far.
So, this satisfies the requirements of a wide angle composition as shown in the first quote of that thread.
Do the rules differ in street life? What could I have done better?
composition wide-angle street-photography ultra-wide
asked 3 hours ago
Aquarius_Girl
2,304125096
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/12707/5205
The wider the lens you use, the closer you probably should be to the nearest thing in your scene. And there should be a nearest thing in your scene! The classic landscape shot is something like: near flower, middle lake, far peak. How far do you think the photographer is from the flower? The lake? The peak? How about 1 foot, 10 feet, 1 mile+? Yep, there's almost a logarithmic nature to near/middle/far in most pro landscape shots. In most amateur shots, it's more like middle/far/far (10 feet, 100 yards, 1 mile). And the image feels "flatter" when hung on the wall in a frame because of that.
I tried:
People on online fora have told me:
It looks to me like two separate photos, one stuck on top of the other. Neither half says anything interesting to me. Together they are just confusing.
your perspective on the foreground child is unflattering.
..
What are you showing us? What do you want us to see? Because right now, we don't see it.
..
The first thing I call the atancion is the cut of the boy's head, this does not look good in the photo, for my taste it should be seen whole.
I also do not find the objective that you have used the most appropriate for this photo, but if you did not have something else the time was worth it.
My intention was to show that poor sleep on the footpath. I believe that the sleeping kid is quite close to the camera, mother is in the center and her gaze leads us to the crawling kid which is far.
So, this satisfies the requirements of a wide angle composition as shown in the first quote of that thread.
Do the rules differ in street life? What could I have done better?
composition wide-angle street-photography ultra-wide
asked 3 hours ago
Aquarius_Girl
2,304125096
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/12707/5205
The wider the lens you use, the closer you probably should be to the nearest thing in your scene. And there should be a nearest thing in your scene! The classic landscape shot is something like: near flower, middle lake, far peak. How far do you think the photographer is from the flower? The lake? The peak? How about 1 foot, 10 feet, 1 mile+? Yep, there's almost a logarithmic nature to near/middle/far in most pro landscape shots. In most amateur shots, it's more like middle/far/far (10 feet, 100 yards, 1 mile). And the image feels "flatter" when hung on the wall in a frame because of that.
I tried:
People on online fora have told me:
It looks to me like two separate photos, one stuck on top of the other. Neither half says anything interesting to me. Together they are just confusing.
your perspective on the foreground child is unflattering.
..
What are you showing us? What do you want us to see? Because right now, we don't see it.
..
The first thing I call the atancion is the cut of the boy's head, this does not look good in the photo, for my taste it should be seen whole.
I also do not find the objective that you have used the most appropriate for this photo, but if you did not have something else the time was worth it.
My intention was to show that poor sleep on the footpath. I believe that the sleeping kid is quite close to the camera, mother is in the center and her gaze leads us to the crawling kid which is far.
So, this satisfies the requirements of a wide angle composition as shown in the first quote of that thread.
Do the rules differ in street life? What could I have done better?
composition wide-angle street-photography ultra-wide
asked 3 hours ago
Aquarius_Girl
2,304125096
https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/12707/5205
The wider the lens you use, the closer you probably should be to the nearest thing in your scene. And there should be a nearest thing in your scene! The classic landscape shot is something like: near flower, middle lake, far peak. How far do you think the photographer is from the flower? The lake? The peak? How about 1 foot, 10 feet, 1 mile+? Yep, there's almost a logarithmic nature to near/middle/far in most pro landscape shots. In most amateur shots, it's more like middle/far/far (10 feet, 100 yards, 1 mile). And the image feels "flatter" when hung on the wall in a frame because of that.
I tried:
People on online fora have told me:
It looks to me like two separate photos, one stuck on top of the other. Neither half says anything interesting to me. Together they are just confusing.
your perspective on the foreground child is unflattering.
..
What are you showing us? What do you want us to see? Because right now, we don't see it.
..
The first thing I call the atancion is the cut of the boy's head, this does not look good in the photo, for my taste it should be seen whole.
I also do not find the objective that you have used the most appropriate for this photo, but if you did not have something else the time was worth it.
My intention was to show that poor sleep on the footpath. I believe that the sleeping kid is quite close to the camera, mother is in the center and her gaze leads us to the crawling kid which is far.
So, this satisfies the requirements of a wide angle composition as shown in the first quote of that thread.
Do the rules differ in street life? What could I have done better?
composition wide-angle street-photography ultra-wide
composition wide-angle street-photography ultra-wide
asked 3 hours ago
Aquarius_Girl
2,304125096
asked 3 hours ago
Aquarius_Girl
2,304125096
asked 3 hours ago
Aquarius_Girl
2,304125096
asked 3 hours ago
Aquarius_Girl
2,304125096
asked 3 hours ago
Aquarius_Girl
2,304125096
2,304125096
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Faces do not go well with ultra-wide angled (UWA) lenses - especially if they are not in the middle of the frame, and thus will be distorted. It is by no means a hard rule to not use UWA lenses for portraits - but most people will find the effect very unpleasing.
The composition as a whole feels like you wanted to photograph the sleeping boy, but then you found that including his mother and sister would be a good idea - and recomposed a bit. The angle is top-down, which also looks to me as if you did a sort of a compromise here. UWA is bad for compromises in my experience.
To me, the image lacks some sort of "context" - to see that they are living on the street, I have to look behind the boy and behind his mother.
Also, this top-down approach makes it hard to see where I should look. My look path was: boy's shoulder - boy's head - blanket - shoulder - mother - tree - mother - sister - street. I would try to get (close to) level, maybe even a bottom-up angle with a bit of street in front.
Do UWA lenses and street photography go well together?
That depends. Most people try to not use UWA lenses for portraits, though as I said, that is not a hard rule by any means.
UWA lenses can give some spectacular insights - but they are not meant to be "always-on" lenses to spare you to walk away 2 metres to get everything in your framing.
answered 8 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,94911232
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Faces do not go well with ultra-wide angled (UWA) lenses - especially if they are not in the middle of the frame, and thus will be distorted. It is by no means a hard rule to not use UWA lenses for portraits - but most people will find the effect very unpleasing.
The composition as a whole feels like you wanted to photograph the sleeping boy, but then you found that including his mother and sister would be a good idea - and recomposed a bit. The angle is top-down, which also looks to me as if you did a sort of a compromise here. UWA is bad for compromises in my experience.
To me, the image lacks some sort of "context" - to see that they are living on the street, I have to look behind the boy and behind his mother.
Also, this top-down approach makes it hard to see where I should look. My look path was: boy's shoulder - boy's head - blanket - shoulder - mother - tree - mother - sister - street. I would try to get (close to) level, maybe even a bottom-up angle with a bit of street in front.
Do UWA lenses and street photography go well together?
That depends. Most people try to not use UWA lenses for portraits, though as I said, that is not a hard rule by any means.
UWA lenses can give some spectacular insights - but they are not meant to be "always-on" lenses to spare you to walk away 2 metres to get everything in your framing.
answered 8 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,94911232
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Faces do not go well with ultra-wide angled (UWA) lenses - especially if they are not in the middle of the frame, and thus will be distorted. It is by no means a hard rule to not use UWA lenses for portraits - but most people will find the effect very unpleasing.
The composition as a whole feels like you wanted to photograph the sleeping boy, but then you found that including his mother and sister would be a good idea - and recomposed a bit. The angle is top-down, which also looks to me as if you did a sort of a compromise here. UWA is bad for compromises in my experience.
To me, the image lacks some sort of "context" - to see that they are living on the street, I have to look behind the boy and behind his mother.
Also, this top-down approach makes it hard to see where I should look. My look path was: boy's shoulder - boy's head - blanket - shoulder - mother - tree - mother - sister - street. I would try to get (close to) level, maybe even a bottom-up angle with a bit of street in front.
Do UWA lenses and street photography go well together?
That depends. Most people try to not use UWA lenses for portraits, though as I said, that is not a hard rule by any means.
UWA lenses can give some spectacular insights - but they are not meant to be "always-on" lenses to spare you to walk away 2 metres to get everything in your framing.
answered 8 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,94911232
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Faces do not go well with ultra-wide angled (UWA) lenses - especially if they are not in the middle of the frame, and thus will be distorted. It is by no means a hard rule to not use UWA lenses for portraits - but most people will find the effect very unpleasing.
The composition as a whole feels like you wanted to photograph the sleeping boy, but then you found that including his mother and sister would be a good idea - and recomposed a bit. The angle is top-down, which also looks to me as if you did a sort of a compromise here. UWA is bad for compromises in my experience.
To me, the image lacks some sort of "context" - to see that they are living on the street, I have to look behind the boy and behind his mother.
Also, this top-down approach makes it hard to see where I should look. My look path was: boy's shoulder - boy's head - blanket - shoulder - mother - tree - mother - sister - street. I would try to get (close to) level, maybe even a bottom-up angle with a bit of street in front.
Do UWA lenses and street photography go well together?
That depends. Most people try to not use UWA lenses for portraits, though as I said, that is not a hard rule by any means.
UWA lenses can give some spectacular insights - but they are not meant to be "always-on" lenses to spare you to walk away 2 metres to get everything in your framing.
answered 8 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,94911232
Faces do not go well with ultra-wide angled (UWA) lenses - especially if they are not in the middle of the frame, and thus will be distorted. It is by no means a hard rule to not use UWA lenses for portraits - but most people will find the effect very unpleasing.
The composition as a whole feels like you wanted to photograph the sleeping boy, but then you found that including his mother and sister would be a good idea - and recomposed a bit. The angle is top-down, which also looks to me as if you did a sort of a compromise here. UWA is bad for compromises in my experience.
To me, the image lacks some sort of "context" - to see that they are living on the street, I have to look behind the boy and behind his mother.
Also, this top-down approach makes it hard to see where I should look. My look path was: boy's shoulder - boy's head - blanket - shoulder - mother - tree - mother - sister - street. I would try to get (close to) level, maybe even a bottom-up angle with a bit of street in front.
Do UWA lenses and street photography go well together?
That depends. Most people try to not use UWA lenses for portraits, though as I said, that is not a hard rule by any means.
UWA lenses can give some spectacular insights - but they are not meant to be "always-on" lenses to spare you to walk away 2 metres to get everything in your framing.
answered 8 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,94911232
answered 8 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,94911232
answered 8 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,94911232
answered 8 mins ago
flolilolilo
3,94911232
3,94911232
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f102137%2fhow-to-compose-a-street-story-with-an-ultra-wide-angle-lens%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
