In a message dated 6/27/2005 7:15:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 6/26/05, David Volkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't normally do street photography (at least I think this can be > considered street photography but the lens is a bit on the large side > and it was an event) but the opportunity presented itself today. > > http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/21768115/ > *Ist D, Sigma 135-400mm @ 135mm, F/9.5, and 1/500th Yesterday in my comments about the Porto shots, I mentioned that using a longer lens tends to get us into a sniper mood when we take to the streets. Now, I am definitely not an expert in Street Photography, and lots of what passes for that "genre" I do not get, but before you dismiss the concept, maybe you should look at the problems of using a long lens on the streets have caused in this "nearly there" shot. First of all, the horizon is tilted more than 2 degrees. When working with a long lens, it is hard to make framing judgements, as the very act of holding the glass steady is a triumph. The next problem I see is that relying on the autofocus on the two dancers has lost the focus on the foreground boy, (an important element, IMHO) and the compression brings the folks walking in the near background right up to the dancers. In the case of the smiling woman, this isn't too much of a problem, but the tall guy in the black shirt, the guy with his back to us, and the woman on the right verge become distracting elements (Ditto, the red fringe in right frame.) These elements would be no problem at all if we were shooting with, say a 50mm from lots closer. Long lenses have their place, certainly they do. Football games, air shows, birding, Olympics, auto racing, volcano eruptions, good looking bikinied women with big burley boyfriends; these are all places I would use a lens longer than 90 mm.
Regards, Sonny http://www.sonc.com Natchitoches, Louisiana Oldest continuous settlement in La Louisiane égalité, liberté, crawfish
