WINNER ANNOUCNED: The Tenth Photographer's Lounge Salon Challenge: A WIDE VIEW

There are truly some beguiling images turning up in this thread. And not just that - but so many truly different ways and approaches to what it can mean to view the world - or parts of it - in a 'wide' way. I also must echo what Don said earlier: looking through the different submissions ... is making me want shoot wide more often.

I keep looking at the pictures here....and realizing I keep having to look at them again, to see more. It makes me remember the words of another great photographer, William Klein, who once said, "(I) use a wide-angle lens to get as much as possible in the frame".

Keep them coming.
 
The Wide Beach.jpg


X10 Wide Beach​
 
I do not understand the Challenge

"Your Challenge, for the Tenth Photographer's Lounge Salon, is to find, take, or create a photograph - old or new - that in some way shows us a WIDE VIEW that you could never have achieved with either a 'normal' or telephoto lens"


Is it simply an image taken with a wide angle lens??? ............. how do you define a wide angle lens, FOV?
 
Last edited:
Let me do my best to try to answer your question/s, Bill.

The goal, hopefully, is to create or find an image which is 'wider' than a 'normal' field-of-view, or FOV. Where I, and many photographers, get into trouble, is trying to define 'normal'. But, traditionally (and these definitions date back to the analog days when many photographers were shooting film on 35mm cameras) a 'normal' FOV would have been usually somewhere between 50mm and 55mm. 40mm is on the wider side of normal but is still considered by many to be within the realm of 'normal'. Another way to think of it is that normal lenses roughly match the dimensions and perspective of what the human eye normal sees or perceives.

But of course if you think about this for all of 10 seconds, it falls apart - since our human binocular vision encompasses a field of view much wider than that of a traditional 50mm lens. However the definition holds up when you start thinking about what wide angles - or at least wider angles - do. Not only do they show a wider field of view but often (though not always) they either partially or greatly distort the image.

Then of course there is a whole school of photographers, including Henri Cartier-Bresson, for whom the slightly wider FOV of a traditional 35mm lens, comes closer to a 'normal' view of the world. So where does one draw the dividing line?

For the purposes of this Challenge, I hope all entries will be made with lenses wider than the traditional normal FOV's - which basically means anything w-i-d-e-r than the so-called normal focal lengths (40-55mm). So if you were shooting with micro 4/3 gear, which has a built-in 'crop factor' of 2x - then any mu43 lens or focal length WIDER than 20mm would qualify as a 'wide angle'. When one applies the crop factor of 2x to the popular Panasonic 20mm pancake lens, you get an FOV equivalent to 40mm - which still falls within my admittedly subjective category of being a 'normal' lens. But if you used either a 17mm lens or a 14mm one - you'd have the equivalent of a 35mm lens or a 28mm lens - both of which definitely qualify as 'WIDE'.

Furthermore, wide-angles traditionally do or accomplish things that 'normal' lenses can't or don't. A wide angle should - or at least can - allow more visible space to be included in the frame. There are also tricks and effects of perspective associated w/wider angles. Usually objects closer to us or the camera lens should or may appear larger vs. those farther away which, though they may actually be the same size as the foreground objects, will appear much smaller in a wide angle shot (than they will when seen via a 'normal' lens).

Then there are technical/millimeter theories. In traditional 35mm analog film, the diagonal measurement of the negative I think is 43.3mm. Once the focal length of the lens gets shorter than this, it (supposedly) gets classified as a wide angle. 35mm, 28mm and 24mm focal lengths used to be more commonly used wide-angles; then there are the ultra-wide-angle focal lengths of 20mm or 21mm, 17mm or 18mm, or the extreme 14mm.

Whew. A person could get seriously deranged thinking too much about this. My hope is that in this Challenge, we can be creatively subjective - and find ways to use, show or create a 'wide' view of something which is wider than a more normal perspective. I know for example that I've used some of my wide angle lenses to take extreme close-up or macro photographs which, when you look at them, don't convey a feeling of 'wide' or of 'wideness' at all. So it's not just the lens or focal length; there should be a degree of creative freedom to interpret this Challenge in a way that makes sense to each of us. If one happens to be the kind of photographer who normally shoots tightly cropped portraits with moderate telephoto 'portrait' lenses, that person's wide or wider angle might be closer to another photographer's normal FOV. But in general, I would hope that most entries would make use of one of the traditional 'wider' focal lengths.

Thanks again for the question, Bill. Not an easy one to answer as, obviously, there are multiple correct or differing interpretations. But I hope this helps a little.

Miguel
 
Last edited:
Thanks Miguel

so I just use my 16 35mm with an FX Body and get close ........... whilst using a high fvalue to get as much DOF that I can

If you look at #31 ... that to me is an image that you can only take within a definition that I thought you we trying to get to ......... it is one that lacks the compression of what you consider to be a telephoto or maybe normal lens in that it is a wide angle shot that brings a foreground in that could have been taken with what you regard as a normal lens ...... it combines the two FOV aspects in one, which to me was my interpretation of what the Challenge was and NOT a shot taken with a "normal" wide angle lens or a stitch of 2 x 50mm or 2 x 75mm.

Would it have been simpler to say take an image that is equivalent to the FOV of an FX digital body and any lens under 35mm
or a film body with a lens under 35mm .. which to me seems to be what is happening ....... or is that not what you are getting at

I'm not being pedantic here, reading #1 I have just had no real idea about what you were getting at, especially using the word "normal" "wide" "telephoto" in relationship to any other camera that a conventional 35mm body

surely it is not as simple as "take a shot with a wide angled lens" ...... and it's taken for granted that you will be as creative as possible
 
Last edited:
@BillN - I've highlighted part of Miguel's post that I think is the heart of what he is after.

Whew. A person could get seriously deranged thinking too much about this. My hope is that in this Challenge, we can be creatively subjective - and find ways to use, show or create a 'wide' view of something which is wider than a more normal perspective.

And I think it can be as simple as a shot you take with a wide angle lens, or maybe just a shot that gives the viewer the feeling of W-I-D-E (although that will likely be taken with a wide angle lens as well).

I think you're overthinking it, Bill. Go have a glass of wine. :drinks:
 
Thanks Miguel

so I just use my 16 35mm with an FX Body and get close ........... whilst using a high fvalue to get as much DOF that I can

Depth of field aka DOF isn't really a necessary component of a wide view, in my opinion. Admittedly, wide-angle lenses have greater DOF at given apertures than 'normal' or telephoto lenses. But I don't think a wide view necessarily must have extreme DOF. One could have a very 'w-i-d-e' view with limited DOF I think.

If you look at #31 ... that to me is an image that you can only take within a definition that I thought you we trying to get to ......... it is one that lacks the compression of what you consider to be a telephoto or maybe normal lens in that it is a wide angle shot that brings a foreground in that could have been taken with what you regard as a normal lens ...... it combines the two FOV aspects in one, which to me was my interpretation of what the Challenge was and NOT a shot taken with a "normal" wide angle lens or a stitch of 2 x 50mm or 2 x 75mm.

Once again, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in the beginning, my hope isn't to set too specific limits in the challenge but rather to give a lot of freedom for different interpretations. One person's version or interpretation of W-I-D-E may be totally different from the next person's - and the more interpretations in this Challenge, the merrier, as far as I'm concerned.

Would it have been simpler to say take an image that is equivalent to the FOV of an FX digital body and any lens under 35mm
or a film body with a lens under 35mm .. which to me seems to be what is happening ....... or is that not what you are getting at

Yes and no. I'm assuming btw that when you are referring to an FX digital body you mean 'full frame' - which is traditionally based on the dimensions of classic 35mm film? In my own (admittedly traditional) view of things, 35mm or wider qualifies as a wide-angle. Mainly what I'm hoping for in this challenge ... is to challenge people's perceptions of what "wide" is and how to achieve it.

I'm not being pedantic here, reading #1 I have just had no real idea about what you were getting at, especially using the word "normal" "wide" "telephoto" in relationship to any other camera that a conventional 35mm body

To be honest, I'm afraid sometimes that half the time I only halfway understand what I'm getting at, so confusion is more than understandable. And I know you're not being pedantic. These are the kinds of conversations I have with fellow photographers occasionally, and they tend to get more interesting (and borderline incomprehensible, too!) after the 3rd beer :)

surely it is not as simple as "take a shot with a wide angled lens" ...... and it's taken for granted that you will be as creative as possible

In my own experience, sometimes, it can occasionally be that simple. I put a very wide angle lens on a camera body (or take a compact with a wide angle fixed lens) - and go out and try to see if the wide view .... makes me see or take pictures differently. Or, as good ole' Garry Winogrand said - "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed."
 
Thanks Miguel ... as Luke said, I'm over thinking this, but this comes from looking at photo competitions where most of the shots have, IMHO, little to do with the stated theme.

Maybe it is because I was always taught to "read the question" (two or three times), before attempting an answer ...... and of course I mainly shoot birds which are quite straightforward

Thanks again, sorry if I appear to have been annoying!!
 
Back
Top