the photoshooter's journey from taking to making

ADVENTURES IN INNER SPACE

By MICHAEL PERKINS

PHOTOGRAPHERS CHOOSE LENSES BASED ON LOTS OF CRITERIA, depending on what kind of “reality” they seek to visualize. In recent years, there has been a solid return to so-called “normal” or prime lenses, glass with focal lengths of 35-85mm which produce a perspective most like human vision, fairly free of the spatial distortion seen in ulta-wide lenses. At the same time, the use of ultra-wides in television and film, even for scenes in which a dramatic viewing angle is not particularly appropriate, is on the rise as well, and the widest consumer-level wides, including various types of fisheye lenses, are becoming sharper and cheaper than ever before.

I mention cinema here because it’s only after the emergence of 1950’s-era wide-screen processes like Panavision and Cinemascope that such lenses began to sell in larger numbers to amateur photographers, becoming an active part of the hobby. By the ’60’s, ultra-wides created stunning mutations of space in films like Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove and Orson Welles’ The Trial, but, in such cases, the idea was still to deliberately distort reality for dramatic effect. Today, the most common “kit lens” accompanying a new DSLR is the 18-55mm, which at its widest, can make vertical lines bend inward in a way that is dramatic, but not a true measure of natural distance relationships. And, yes, they allow you to stand closer to your subject and “get it all in frame”, but, at that point, you’re also making a decision about whether your image is to be interpretive of reality, or reflective of it.

This mall escalator is nowhere near as high as a 13mm fisheye lens makes it appear.

This mall escalator is nowhere near as high as a 13mm fisheye lens makes it appear.

Extreme wides, including fisheyes, can widen to 8 or 9mm, making the bending of lines so severe that the image elements seem to form a circle, with all lines arching sharply toward the center. And depending on what your image’s particular “reality” is to be, the distances of objects from front to back within the frame are also intensely exaggerated. Things which, in a “prime” lens image, appear just ten feet apart, can, in a fisheye shot, seem half a football field from each other. TV and film shooters exploit this big-time. If you’re shooting within a cramped interior and need to balloon its scope to suggest a larger scale, an ultra-wide really opens the place up. Medium-sized studios used in political debates now appear cavernous: ordinary city buildings shot wide for a crime drama take on intimidating height and depth, appearing to occupy entire blocks.

In the above image, if I want to make the viewer a little dizzy and daunted at the top of this rather modest escalator, I must use an ultra-wide to cheat, to trick the eye into concluding that it’s actually standing at the top of a sky-high ski jump. The tricky thing about ultra-wides, however, is that they mutate everything in the frame. And if part of that “everything” includes humans, your subjects can be taffy-twisted into some very alarming dimensions. Anything wider than about 24mm is downright uglifying for portraiture, unless a stylized effect is part of your interpretation. Lenses are not mere recording equipment. Their limits, biases, and faults can be exploited based on whatever kind of world you’re trying to conjure.

Advertisements

4 responses

  1. Interesting, disturbing but somewhat enjoyable. Does that say something about the viewer?

    March 4, 2016 at 11:43 PM

    • I got the same reaction from my wife, in that she experienced a little vertigo when reading the article. Maybe I should have stayed on terra firma!

      March 6, 2016 at 3:25 PM

  2. Thank You!!! Lens articles tend to be too technically dense or too basic. As a moderately experienced photographer who has never branched out much in buying lenses its nice to see an article that is not targeted at either gearheads or beginners but at achieving a desired vision whatever that might be. http://www.lookingwithalens.wordpress.com

    March 6, 2016 at 2:43 PM

  3. Thanks RoseB! The aim of THE NORMAL EYE has always been to share the experience of picture-making, not to conduct a class in arcane techno-trivia. Besides the fact that there are so many people in the world better equipped (?) to do such teaching, I want to simply tap into the joy that comes from “little miracles”, those gradually more comfortable skills that come chiefly from trial-and-error. As we like to say, TNE is not so much a “how to” as a “why do we do it”-type forum. I really appreciate your kind feedback.

    March 6, 2016 at 3:24 PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s