Very interesting point of view. I used wide angle lenses whenever I can to shoot arquictecture and urban landscapes, so I can crop them to a panorama-like format. One question: is the sensor of your camera APSC or full frame? It makes a whole world of difference for me, since I don't have any full frame cameras.
James, I just would like to say that I've been OBSESSED with your channel lately. Don't know about others but the algorithm has been feeding me your content so much lately that I couldn't not subscribe. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge with beginners (such as myself). Your advices have been shedding light in this uncharted area for me which is photography. Cheers
My old mentor always said that wide angles are for photographing the foreground. If you want to photograph a wide landscape use a pano. That's why, although I do carry a wide-angle, it's the least used lens in my bag. Even my macro lens gets more use!
I’m guessing the sign was saying “this bridge is so narrow that you may have to jump over the edge if a vehicle approaches”. I SOMEWHAT agree with the wide angle thing. Back in the day when I got a Samyang 14mm for my D700, I loved it! Then over the years I realized that I don’t like having everything in the frame. Subject photography is much more fun. The widest lens I genuinely like now is a 33mm lens for Fuji, which is about 50mm on full frame. But the big difference between you and me, I think, is that I genuinely like making photos that don’t look like what you would see with your eyes in real life. I agree that some aspects of photos (long focal length, wide focal length for example) makes the viewer realize they’re looking at a photo. It doesn’t look “normal”. But for me the thing is, we already DO look at the world with our eyes. So I would much rather make photos that show something that you can’t see with your own eyes. Edit: great video btw. I appreciate your hard work! :D
Photographing what you don't normally see is deffinitly what pulled me to astrophotography and now Infrared/full spectrum photography, it adds a neat extra layer of mystery and exploration to what you might find when you start capturing those images
Wide angle is such a weird one - there are times when you think you need wider but when you start out wide you realise how close you need to be to subjects to make them really work. I'm a fan of telephoto crops in landscape, so I'm with you on the wide-angle-a-phobia !
I do a lot of wildlife photography and therefore I usually always have a telephoto mounted. Instead of switching to a wide angle, I try to find ways to get my landscape shots at a longer focal length usually around 100mm. Started to enjoy the different perspective, and the compression is pretty beautiful at times. Cheers.
James, one of the things I appreciate about your videos is they present alternate viewpoints which challenge us to reconsider our own approaches to landscape photography. Thank you.
I went from wide angle to telephoto and never looked back. I even like to stitch telephoto pictures into panoramas. Such level of detail, so many megapixels in one image.
I like your approach to being as true to life as possible, so people can feel like they are in the places in your photos. I usually want the opposite. I want the people who look at my photo to know it's not real. My images are my attempt to transmit my idea of a feeling or an ambiance using something that exists as a starting point. My images are not a representation of something you can go and see for yourself and I want the viewers to know that.
95% of my photos are taken between 24-100mm. I gravitate to that range for exactly the reason you said, that's the range that looks most natural to our own perspective of the world. 24-50mm I use for things where I want to include the environment around the subject, that range looks most like our whole field of view. 50-100mm I use for isolating subjects, this range is more like only focusing on the detailed centre part of your vision. I find if I go wider than 24mm or longer than 100mm things start to look off, especially at the wide angle end
Thank you so much for the wonderful images and the tips. I perfectly understand what you said about photographs taken with long exposure, wide or long tele lenses. The uneasiness in viewing them.
Interesting points James and I'm with you on the wide angle. Just one point though. There are 'rules' for bike photos. From Velominati - Keepers of the Cog Rule 26 - Make your bike photogenic When photographing your bike, gussy her up properly for the camera. Some parameters are firm: valve stems at 6 o’clock. Cranks never at 90 or 180 degrees. Others are at your discretion, though the accepted practices include putting the chain on the big dog, and no bidons in the cages.
Love the photos you showed us. Think you could have had another good one with the bike propped up against the wall toward the end, with you next to it. Thank you, James!
Interesting comments and point of view. I consider 24mm wide angle but I get what your trying to say. I sold my 14-30mm for that very reason. That's the beauty of focal lengths and exposure times as you can convey the feeling you are looking for either in realism so the viewer gets lost in the story, or throwing them off with a unique perspective that tells a different type of story. That's what makes this hobby/profession so much fun.
I feel the exact same way when it comes to wide-angle. I rarely shoot in that range, though I like when others do it well. Makes me want to do it too but I rarely vibe with the result. The art of exclusion is easier to do well than cramming in as much as possible. Especially when you have so little control over what shows up in a landscape. Not having a wide angle also means less gear to haul, less time thinking about alternative compositions, a more cohesive portfolio/vision, and less fussing around in post.
Then again, you could keep something like a canon 24mm f2.8 EFS pancake lens in your bag just in case without adding much weight or bulk, course, I can't afford fancy lenses so the little cheaper ones like that dominate my collection anyway lol
I really like shooting with long lenses. I shoot mainly with my 70-300 on my Fuji X-T3 and even use the 1.4x teleconverter quite often as well. Living in the Rocky Mountains of the US I enjoy zooming in on distant peaks and vistas that would otherwise be lost with wider lenses.
Totally agree wide angles hard and should be used sparingly. However, you begin to realise they are not a tool to cram as much in as possible these images always fail, instead it’s a perspective tool very much the opposite of telephoto compressed landscapes. I think when we all start landscape photography it’s our most poorly used lens.
We should always shoot what feels right to us. As long as you grow. It's great to see your progress and you touch a certain portion of those that see your work.
I really like your opinion. I find it very challenging to compose with wide angles. I try to find an interesting foreground, which makes those pictures look the same and as if it is about the foreground not the background. I know photographers like Felix Roeser shoot exclusively with wide or super wide and get a special look. I think it depends on how you like to communicate through a photo. I prefer 24 to 100 mm, because it is then more about the image itself, not about a "special effect" to get that wow. And I might add: I really like your natural viewpoints and simplistic composition, which makes a strong impact on me!
A couple of years ago I went with my wife , our dog and my camera for a walk in a local park in forest along the beach. I thought I would take out my 8 mm on an apsc sensor. I loved the effect and the distortion. The douglas fir were tall and everything curved in a surrealistic way. The beach shots really emphasized the curvature on the horizon. I love that lens but I need more opportunities to use it.
I agree with you with regard to long exposure and very wide angle lenses. I also have a problem with super sharp focus from front to far distance for the same reason, it's not how our eyes view a landscape scene
I read in Ansel Adam's _The Camera_ that he prefers either wide or long focal lengths for a more interesting look, so I bought a really fancy ultrawide. But in retrospect when calculating equivalent focal lengths from large format, his idea of both wide and long fits in your standard 24-70 zoom lens, and my work in the field confirms his advice.
Yes, wider than 24mm is challenging because of the foreground effect - the square law of perspective - and one really needs to learn to adapt viewpoint, angle, and perspective in order to have foregrounds that complement the composition. In many cases you could use a 35mm or 50mm vertically and shoot a single row panorama - if you haven't figured the foreground out. Or still use a, say, 20mm and crop foreground away.
Not a photography guy so to speak, but I have a keen interest in the incorporation of video work for my woodworking and I get that "preachy"commentary at the end of the video. Loved the video, thanks for sharing!
I can say I happy stand along with the "loads of other photographers" 😂 That's what makes photography fun, seeing and showing the world in a different way than the human eye.
Ultrawide angle can be stunning when done right, but it's hard to do it right, and as a result it's overused in landscape photography IMO. I think there are too many pictures of boring rocks and plants with mountains that look tiny in the background because the photographer decided he/she had to use ultrawide.
Just sold my 20mm 1.8 G to upgrade to a 50mm 1.2 GM. I felt guilty but truth is, I've never really used the 20mm that much and I could never really point to the exact reason why. You've just helped me figure that out, so thanks a lot! Also, that intro with the polarizer is actually pretty informative, most dedicated videos do not show such huge difference with and without the filter. Great video as always.
I can certainly see your point about a wide angle lens. I bought one, but I don't use it. I think that I'm more likely to use it for a close up with a broad background. -E
Funny you should bring this up, but I agree with your points on wide angle. I find myself hardly ever wider than 24mm even though I have some nice wide angle lenses.
Try an old type cut throat razor. They are usuall quite good.. I normally use prime lenses. 500mm does most things or a 24mm if wider. Or 100mm for more tighter shots.
Went there a few years ago. We had lunch in a cafe, which was fine except the floor was on a slope and the rain had made the floor wet. The upshot was that our table kept sliding downhill.
I love your videos and your "ramblings." I only shoot extremely wide about 10% of the time, but I love that option when the occasion arises. I actually think great stories can be told with the wide angle lens. Bottomline, the cool thing about photography is the variety of options to get the shot you've envisioned. I never go wider than 18mm and never longer than 200mm...my old age may contribute to that decision. Not being a wildlife photographer, that range works wonderfully for me.
Back in the day (won't say how far back but it was film and I used a Pentax KXMD.......) 28mm was my standard lens. Loved it. Fast forward, got a D500 and among other lenses, a 12-24mm zoom. Also loved it. Used it a lot. Went mirrorless, eagerly picked up the 14-30mm, using old habits as my motivation - and I rarely use it. Meh. What happened?! I do like using it when the occasion calls for it (and I remembered to pack it which is hardly ever). Guess my use case has changed.
I own the Nikon 14-24 2.8/g and it barely gets used any more. I am replacing my old 80-200 2.8/d (can't be autofocused on my Z7II) with a 100-400mm Z before I replace my 14-24 because I've evolved past wanting to shoot with the 14-24 all the time. I know that it's not the same reason as using something that isn't immediately distinguishable as a photo due to being telephoto rather than a standard, but for some reason, I really enjoy the abstract portions of landscapes. I still enjoy the grand landscape from the 14-24, but they can be very hard to shoot with, require you to be in the middle of the photo, and I just love the abstracts of mountainsides, hillsides, trees, atmospheric layering, etc.
I wanted to do some landscape photography and did some "Google research" and ended up buying the Sigma 16mm f1.4 for my Sony a6000. I used that lens for only one day and I did not like a single picture (the angle of view). The lens is still sitting in one of my bags :). I started using the Canon 80D and Canon 55-250mm and that lens became my favorite lens for landscape photography. Now I use the ARiii and Tamron 28-200mm and love the combo. So, the wide angle is not for everyone and Internet "pros" should stop pushing the wide angle lenses for newbies.
I was that location in May. Every photo I took was with a telephot lens. Granted I'm still learning, but I just can't imagine going wide in place like that, because it's difficult to tell the story. Weirdly it did not rain when I was there
I hope you get your 200.000 subscribers, I am already one and I am so glad to be able to watch your videos, you have a great way about you in how you explain your thoughts, I hope I can learn something from that as well as the photography. Thanks for sharing this with us James, it was great as usual 😁👍
I'm finding the same. I really do like 35 and 50. And I really like wide angle when other's do it because to my brain it just doesn't compute. But as fate and RUclips would have it, in the sidebar up pops your 'How to Master Wide Angle Photography', dated 3 years ago. We all morph through experience- at least we are morphing in the same direction...
I sold my DX 12-24mm F4. I use the 18-55mm on my Fuji instead because I like its flexibility for black & white urban and for small scenes. What I have left is the old Nikkor 17-210mm f4, the 50 f1.8G, and the 40mm f2.8 macro (for photographing paintings). I would invest in the Tokina 11-16mm if I could get away to the sea, otherwise I will stick with what I have got.
Virtually all of my scenic pictures are taken in the focal range of 35 to 200mm or its equivalent. The majority of those in the range 35 to 90mm. Anything wider or longer is for specific purposes which rarely occur to me. Mostly I am happy with 40 to 70mm.
Interesting perspective on focal lengths. I tend to lean the other direction I suppose, whereas ultrawide/telephoto images provide a perspective not typical of the everyday human visual perception - Love your content!
The lens I use the most is the EF-M 22mm (for APS-C). It is considered as a wide angle optic. The lens I use the least is the even wider angle EF-M 11-22mm which has such a wide angle at 11mm that it is only useful for taking pictures of big buildings such as churches (many of those over here) or other wide buildings in narrow streets. Wales is huge but Malta is so tiny that wide angle lenses are a necessity.
LoL! I forgot about the video subject! I kind of understand what you're on about, but then, theoretically, a great image kind of frames itself, so an ultra wide angle makes that more and more difficult to achieve. My main lens zooms out to 18mm, so 24 isn't a prob, but I might consider a 24mm anyway to get the better f number.
Ultra wide angle lenses became a fad. In my older books on landscape photography there are very few if any images at less than 24mm on 35mm film format. The fad with ultrawide lenses was to photograph a big rock in the foreground that dominates the image, with the lake or mountain appearing very small way back in the background. I always thought the lake or mountain was more important than the rock. If you want to photograph rocks then make rocks the primary subject and don't have lakes or mountains in the photograph to compete with the rocks.
I'm allergic to long exposures because they make me think of the pictures you see in hotel rooms, or in some cases even worse, those "things" (I don't know what to call them) on the walls of Chinese restaurants that have a moving waterfall on them. OK, maybe that is pushing it a bit, there ARE of course good photos taken with long exposures, but in general I'm not a fan.
If I should be limited to just a one lens for the rest of my shooting days then my 20mm Lumix G becomes my eternal companionship. James I like the wise colour choice of your biking gear .
I think the sign means there's not enough room for a truck and a pedestrian on the bridge or causeway. With the current shipping issues, the driver will knock you off the road instead of simply stopping and offering you a ride. At least that's my theory.
I find myself currently falling out of love with anything tighter than a 35. Mostly, because it doesn't require working a scene. I like the fiddly little framing of wide angles. It feels quite rewarding to me to get it right. I'll always keep my 85, because sometimes I want to bring something as close as my eye actually saw it, but I live mostly around 24 or 28 nowadays. Thinking about going wider. 😂
I think Josef Koudelka is one of the greatest photographic storytellers. His preferred lens for much of his career was a 25mm, which he often used to create a really compelling dynamic between his main subject and the environment/secondary subjects. The focal length opens an unresolved space between them. 24mm or 25mm may be a harder length to get right than 35mm or 50mm for storytelling, but when you do, it has a unique magic.
My least-used lenses are the widest-angled, but there are times when nothing else will do. Also, why not mount use the mounting bolts on the seat tube for your second bidon (or use a hydration pack)? I'm surprised you can even mount one on the front of the down tube--yeech!
I restarted cycling 4 years ago as well! New Alpha Shooter... Orange bike... I see what you did lol! Now you just need to do some Zwift commercial work! Btw, check out Zwift, you might really enjoy it with your unpredictable weather. It's helped me lose 80lbs (not sure what that is in Stones :D ).
Gotta agree with you. Wide angle feels like essentially a "special effect" for my style. I shoot around NYC and you want to talk "too much detail in the shot" haha. I used to need 24mm and while I still want it sometimes... 35mm is my new 24mm. It's still possible to get "wide shots" but they are composed with the feet instead of with the distortion- know what I mean? But yeah, I felt this video. The frustration in watching the shot you wanted disappear. The elation that you've finally acted on ditching a focal length which was not helpful. Real talk! haha
This is what I love about photography, I'm at the other end of the spectrum, I pretty much shoot 98% of the time with a 15mm wide angle lens and would probably cry if I couldn't 😂
I have been avoiding getting the 14-24mm lens for awhile. Every once and a while I see a scene where I think something wider than a 24mm would work/look great, but since I have a 24-70mm and not a 14-24, I just move around to find a composition that works for the lens I have! I guess you can say it saves me money. 😋
I shoot Olympus because of the 8-25mm f4 lens. It does 16mm to 50mm in full frame equivalent. Nothing else like it, and when I'm shooting landscapes I don't even bother taking other lenses with me. Most of my landscapes are in the 24-50mm range anyway, but it's nice to have the ability because sometimes you do need to go wider to capture a scene and tell a story properly. I both do not want to carry around multiple lenses, or miss a shot because I don't have the right focal length :)
I think I like wide angle photography with a smartphone. You get that distortion to give a particular type of image. But with a camera I just got a 30mm lens and I feel that's just right for me. I'm very much an amateur with all this. 30mm is a very versatile size to use
Capel Curig is the rainiest place in Wales ;-) The sign is for HGV drivers to warn them that if they open their doors, whilst on the dam, they will be over the side .
me: studying the 16-35 lens hoping it to be my first lens option to learn how to tell stories through photos and videos James: I sold my 16-35 months ago and not missed it once :')
Arhhhh I've just bought a Canon rf 16mm f/2.8. I'm gonna be experimenting on the hills with it, but I do prefer the 70mm and upwards, but at £300 if it doesn't work out no big loss. I also visit a lot of National Trust properties so it'll be idea in the dark small rooms there.
Hey James. This post grew a little - want you to know that I don't want to appear as a troll, and would actually love to discuss some of your points from today with you. I rarely use wide-angle lenses, but have been using them a bit more recently - because I realized I was not that great with them. I think what people get wrong about them is that they think it is about getting lots of stuff in the frame... but it's not. You can't really walk up to a vista with a wide-angle lens and take a good picture.... because it makes whatever you are taking a picture of seem really far away and small. Wide angle lenses are all about finding something really cool in the foreground, making it the subject, but showing the environment it is in. Wide angles make close objects feel bigger. It's about getting close to a subject and helping to create a feeling of inclusion. I totally agree with you about water.... I don't want to smooth things out....that is a cheap trick that was overused. I do, however, want some movement (because water moves and seeing it frozen does not make me feel like I am experiencing it). When it comes to wide and long - I don't really feel the same way. Any "non standard" lens is designed to make people FEEL things. Do you want the viewer to feel close (wide angle), do you want them to feel like everything is close (telephono), do you want them to feel small (macro).... etc, etc. They let you tell different stories and experience them a bit different! I think if you are limiting yourself to normal focal lengths because "it makes it look unreal/ more like a photo" ... I think it leaves a lot on the table in terms of viewers feeling and storytelling. We all need creative constraints... but I wonder if you are limiting yourself because it is easier? I wonder what happens when that "human" elements you like to include in your photo becomes the foreground or the majority of the image, etc. Would a viewer feel they are staying at the croft rather than just seeing it? Just thoughts to put out there. I also think it is funny that you don't have the same standard for video - your video is shot at wide-angle. You specifically use a wide angle to make us FEEL like we are there and having a conversation with you...
Yep not a fan of anything wider than 24mm myself. Everything in the distance is way too small for me personally. That road and the scenery is totally majestic too, I think I remember you going there your in your old video. The short beard looks alright, makes you look younger, but we all know it’s up to Emily mate 😁
Good to see you up on your bike. How many times did you ride parts of this hill up and down for this video? That's a real workout. I would have added a bearded emotion to this but can't find one 😞
Find wide angle photos look weird when the lens FOV isn't close to the viewed image FOV. Many wide angle photos are resized(not cropped) to a tele lens FOV. Even getting closer to the screen doesn't help much, before it starts to look weird for other reasons.
What? A landscape/outdoors photographer complaining about the light? Who would have expected that? 😉 🤣 PS: The main thing I like to do with my wide-angle lens is close-ups of objects with the (blurred?) wide background giving context to the object being photographed.
I've been on the same boat about super wide angle lenses (anything above 24 for me) for quite a while myself. happy to hear my photographer guru sensei feels the sameish now. And I fully subscribe to the "being instantly aware you're looking at a photo" being a bad thing.
I really enjoyed this, so don't be worried that you thought it was 'A random upload.' You deserve to get to 200K subscribers long before the end of this year. Also, I have cancelled my website and am changing over to Squarespace - via your code. You advertise it so well.
I think there's a typo on your gear page, it says: "Sony 20mm f1.8 G Usually my go to vlogging lens, but it’s fantastic for astro and general low light stuff too. I’m not a fan of going wider than 24mm as I don’t like the look, but 24mm looks great and this is super sharp!" The "24mm looks great" part has me confused.
I like your tendency to want some man-made things in most of your photos. It definitely adds to the story line. The big mystery, though, is: what . . . is . . . that . . . gear . . . ratio ? You should be able to climb walls with that!
Wide angle is too often used in the wrong way, usually due to how common they are on smartphones, most people seem to think that they're for capturing as much of the landscape as possible, while where they really excel is in 1) tight spaces where the distortion can give interesting lines and effects 2) closeups(think plants, rocks etc) 3) astrophotography, this is the one scenario where you really do want to cram in as much as possible imo
Sorry for the random upload time - thought I'd try it!
Antarctica 2024 Workshop: geni.us/Antarctica2024
I dig it! upload whenever you feel like it :D
Very interesting point of view. I used wide angle lenses whenever I can to shoot arquictecture and urban landscapes, so I can crop them to a panorama-like format. One question: is the sensor of your camera APSC or full frame? It makes a whole world of difference for me, since I don't have any full frame cameras.
Seriously, my goal is to do one of your Antarctica excursions when I retire. Sooooooo, make sure you plan another Antarctica trip in 2029 or 2030. 🙄🫣😉
You do realise that now you have lost your beard, all your magical photography powers will be gone until it grows back! 😉
James, I just would like to say that I've been OBSESSED with your channel lately. Don't know about others but the algorithm has been feeding me your content so much lately that I couldn't not subscribe. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge with beginners (such as myself). Your advices have been shedding light in this uncharted area for me which is photography. Cheers
Your bike in the middle of that gate, with the lake in the background and the mountains with a little sky, perfect shot!!!
My old mentor always said that wide angles are for photographing the foreground. If you want to photograph a wide landscape use a pano. That's why, although I do carry a wide-angle, it's the least used lens in my bag. Even my macro lens gets more use!
I’m guessing the sign was saying “this bridge is so narrow that you may have to jump over the edge if a vehicle approaches”. I SOMEWHAT agree with the wide angle thing. Back in the day when I got a Samyang 14mm for my D700, I loved it! Then over the years I realized that I don’t like having everything in the frame. Subject photography is much more fun. The widest lens I genuinely like now is a 33mm lens for Fuji, which is about 50mm on full frame.
But the big difference between you and me, I think, is that I genuinely like making photos that don’t look like what you would see with your eyes in real life. I agree that some aspects of photos (long focal length, wide focal length for example) makes the viewer realize they’re looking at a photo. It doesn’t look “normal”. But for me the thing is, we already DO look at the world with our eyes. So I would much rather make photos that show something that you can’t see with your own eyes.
Edit: great video btw. I appreciate your hard work! :D
Really great insight. Thanks for putting that so well.
Photographing what you don't normally see is deffinitly what pulled me to astrophotography and now Infrared/full spectrum photography, it adds a neat extra layer of mystery and exploration to what you might find when you start capturing those images
Wide angle is such a weird one - there are times when you think you need wider but when you start out wide you realise how close you need to be to subjects to make them really work. I'm a fan of telephoto crops in landscape, so I'm with you on the wide-angle-a-phobia !
I do a lot of wildlife photography and therefore I usually always have a telephoto mounted. Instead of switching to a wide angle, I try to find ways to get my landscape shots at a longer focal length usually around 100mm. Started to enjoy the different perspective, and the compression is pretty beautiful at times.
Cheers.
James, one of the things I appreciate about your videos is they present alternate viewpoints which challenge us to reconsider our own approaches to landscape photography. Thank you.
Always enjoy hanging out with you, James. Like the 50mm focal length, your content has a lovely natural feel to it.
I went from wide angle to telephoto and never looked back. I even like to stitch telephoto pictures into panoramas. Such level of detail, so many megapixels in one image.
Are you me?
Also it’s a good way of partial pixel binning with lenses that are soft on the edges
I like your approach to being as true to life as possible, so people can feel like they are in the places in your photos. I usually want the opposite. I want the people who look at my photo to know it's not real. My images are my attempt to transmit my idea of a feeling or an ambiance using something that exists as a starting point. My images are not a representation of something you can go and see for yourself and I want the viewers to know that.
95% of my photos are taken between 24-100mm. I gravitate to that range for exactly the reason you said, that's the range that looks most natural to our own perspective of the world. 24-50mm I use for things where I want to include the environment around the subject, that range looks most like our whole field of view. 50-100mm I use for isolating subjects, this range is more like only focusing on the detailed centre part of your vision. I find if I go wider than 24mm or longer than 100mm things start to look off, especially at the wide angle end
Awesome to see in the opening, the dam behind you being painted with steel scaffolding - that's for Star Wars show Andor.
I like hearing the perspective of serious photographers on their thought process, so yes, I enjoyed the video.
I enjoy this channel and I enjoy your perspective on photography that you don't find on a lot of channels.
This channel is just perfect to put on after a long day and relax
Thank you for your continued efforts and your photos. Well done.
Thank you so much for the wonderful images and the tips. I perfectly understand what you said about photographs taken with long exposure, wide or long tele lenses. The uneasiness in viewing them.
Interesting points James and I'm with you on the wide angle.
Just one point though. There are 'rules' for bike photos.
From Velominati - Keepers of the Cog
Rule 26 - Make your bike photogenic
When photographing your bike, gussy her up properly for the camera. Some parameters are firm: valve stems at 6 o’clock. Cranks never at 90 or 180 degrees. Others are at your discretion, though the accepted practices include putting the chain on the big dog, and no bidons in the cages.
i actually love wide angle lenses, even super wide. they have such a quirky funny feeling to them, and they're very challenging - which i love!
Love the photos you showed us. Think you could have had another good one with the bike propped up against the wall toward the end, with you next to it. Thank you, James!
Interesting comments and point of view. I consider 24mm wide angle but I get what your trying to say. I sold my 14-30mm for that very reason. That's the beauty of focal lengths and exposure times as you can convey the feeling you are looking for either in realism so the viewer gets lost in the story, or throwing them off with a unique perspective that tells a different type of story. That's what makes this hobby/profession so much fun.
I feel the exact same way when it comes to wide-angle. I rarely shoot in that range, though I like when others do it well. Makes me want to do it too but I rarely vibe with the result. The art of exclusion is easier to do well than cramming in as much as possible. Especially when you have so little control over what shows up in a landscape. Not having a wide angle also means less gear to haul, less time thinking about alternative compositions, a more cohesive portfolio/vision, and less fussing around in post.
Then again, you could keep something like a canon 24mm f2.8 EFS pancake lens in your bag just in case without adding much weight or bulk, course, I can't afford fancy lenses so the little cheaper ones like that dominate my collection anyway lol
I really like shooting with long lenses. I shoot mainly with my 70-300 on my Fuji X-T3 and even use the 1.4x teleconverter quite often as well. Living in the Rocky Mountains of the US I enjoy zooming in on distant peaks and vistas that would otherwise be lost with wider lenses.
Totally agree wide angles hard and should be used sparingly. However, you begin to realise they are not a tool to cram as much in as possible these images always fail, instead it’s a perspective tool very much the opposite of telephoto compressed landscapes. I think when we all start landscape photography it’s our most poorly used lens.
We should always shoot what feels right to us. As long as you grow. It's great to see your progress and you touch a certain portion of those that see your work.
"Photography is a process of elimination"...well said. and thumbs up for the bike!
Thanks for the video, always learn something from you, your photos and your "rambling" which I think is always great info. Enjoy your day! 🙂
I really like your opinion. I find it very challenging to compose with wide angles. I try to find an interesting foreground, which makes those pictures look the same and as if it is about the foreground not the background.
I know photographers like Felix Roeser shoot exclusively with wide or super wide and get a special look. I think it depends on how you like to communicate through a photo. I prefer 24 to 100 mm, because it is then more about the image itself, not about a "special effect" to get that wow.
And I might add: I really like your natural viewpoints and simplistic composition, which makes a strong impact on me!
A couple of years ago I went with my wife , our dog and my camera for a walk in a local park in forest along the beach. I thought I would take out my 8 mm on an apsc sensor. I loved the effect and the distortion. The douglas fir were tall and everything curved in a surrealistic way. The beach shots really emphasized the curvature on the horizon. I love that lens but I need more opportunities to use it.
I agree with you with regard to long exposure and very wide angle lenses.
I also have a problem with super sharp focus from front to far distance for the same reason, it's not how our eyes view a landscape scene
so fun getting around by bike in nature. I often mount my gopro on the chest harness upside down too! Great POV! Fantastic shots. You've inspired me
I read in Ansel Adam's _The Camera_ that he prefers either wide or long focal lengths for a more interesting look, so I bought a really fancy ultrawide. But in retrospect when calculating equivalent focal lengths from large format, his idea of both wide and long fits in your standard 24-70 zoom lens, and my work in the field confirms his advice.
Yes, wider than 24mm is challenging because of the foreground effect - the square law of perspective - and one really needs to learn to adapt viewpoint, angle, and perspective in order to have foregrounds that complement the composition.
In many cases you could use a 35mm or 50mm vertically and shoot a single row panorama - if you haven't figured the foreground out. Or still use a, say, 20mm and crop foreground away.
Not a photography guy so to speak, but I have a keen interest in the incorporation of video work for my woodworking and I get that "preachy"commentary at the end of the video. Loved the video, thanks for sharing!
Love the cycling images! Makes for a little bit of a change to all the landscape videos I watch.
Loved that beginning drone sequence 👍
I can say I happy stand along with the "loads of other photographers" 😂 That's what makes photography fun, seeing and showing the world in a different way than the human eye.
Ultrawide angle can be stunning when done right, but it's hard to do it right, and as a result it's overused in landscape photography IMO. I think there are too many pictures of boring rocks and plants with mountains that look tiny in the background because the photographer decided he/she had to use ultrawide.
Just sold my 20mm 1.8 G to upgrade to a 50mm 1.2 GM. I felt guilty but truth is, I've never really used the 20mm that much and I could never really point to the exact reason why. You've just helped me figure that out, so thanks a lot! Also, that intro with the polarizer is actually pretty informative, most dedicated videos do not show such huge difference with and without the filter. Great video as always.
I can certainly see your point about a wide angle lens. I bought one, but I don't use it. I think that I'm more likely to use it for a close up with a broad background. -E
James…you need to do what I did recently….bought an E Bike. Makes all the difference on hills.
Too true! Would never manage these steep Welsh hills without my trusty e-bike.
Funny you should bring this up, but I agree with your points on wide angle. I find myself hardly ever wider than 24mm even though I have some nice wide angle lenses.
Try an old type cut throat razor. They are usuall quite good..
I normally use prime lenses.
500mm does most things or a 24mm if wider. Or 100mm for more tighter shots.
Went there a few years ago. We had lunch in a cafe, which was fine except the floor was on a slope and the rain had made the floor wet. The upshot was that our table kept sliding downhill.
I like making panoramic pictures with a 35mm lens as you feel you are there when viewing the print. Thanks for your work 😎
I love your videos and your "ramblings." I only shoot extremely wide about 10% of the time, but I love that option when the occasion arises. I actually think great stories can be told with the wide angle lens. Bottomline, the cool thing about photography is the variety of options to get the shot you've envisioned. I never go wider than 18mm and never longer than 200mm...my old age may contribute to that decision. Not being a wildlife photographer, that range works wonderfully for me.
Back in the day (won't say how far back but it was film and I used a Pentax KXMD.......) 28mm was my standard lens. Loved it. Fast forward, got a D500 and among other lenses, a 12-24mm zoom. Also loved it. Used it a lot. Went mirrorless, eagerly picked up the 14-30mm, using old habits as my motivation - and I rarely use it. Meh. What happened?! I do like using it when the occasion calls for it (and I remembered to pack it which is hardly ever). Guess my use case has changed.
Can only say your first mistake James, was picking up shaver at all.
As for the sign, Be careful on narrow viaducts.
Stay safe 🇦🇺
Your vids are about your journey so don't mind whatever that may be, always interesting.
I own the Nikon 14-24 2.8/g and it barely gets used any more. I am replacing my old 80-200 2.8/d (can't be autofocused on my Z7II) with a 100-400mm Z before I replace my 14-24 because I've evolved past wanting to shoot with the 14-24 all the time. I know that it's not the same reason as using something that isn't immediately distinguishable as a photo due to being telephoto rather than a standard, but for some reason, I really enjoy the abstract portions of landscapes. I still enjoy the grand landscape from the 14-24, but they can be very hard to shoot with, require you to be in the middle of the photo, and I just love the abstracts of mountainsides, hillsides, trees, atmospheric layering, etc.
I wanted to do some landscape photography and did some "Google research" and ended up buying the Sigma 16mm f1.4 for my Sony a6000. I used that lens for only one day and I did not like a single picture (the angle of view). The lens is still sitting in one of my bags :). I started using the Canon 80D and Canon 55-250mm and that lens became my favorite lens for landscape photography. Now I use the ARiii and Tamron 28-200mm and love the combo. So, the wide angle is not for everyone and Internet "pros" should stop pushing the wide angle lenses for newbies.
I was that location in May. Every photo I took was with a telephot lens. Granted I'm still learning, but I just can't imagine going wide in place like that, because it's difficult to tell the story. Weirdly it did not rain when I was there
Completely agree with not needing a wide angle. If you do need you that badly you can always stitch shots together. Loving the bike content!
I hope you get your 200.000 subscribers, I am already one and I am so glad to be able to watch your videos, you have a great way about you in how you explain your thoughts, I hope I can learn something from that as well as the photography. Thanks for sharing this with us James, it was great as usual 😁👍
I'm finding the same. I really do like 35 and 50. And I really like wide angle when other's do it because to my brain it just doesn't compute. But as fate and RUclips would have it, in the sidebar up pops your 'How to Master Wide Angle Photography', dated 3 years ago. We all morph through experience- at least we are morphing in the same direction...
I sold my DX 12-24mm F4. I use the 18-55mm on my Fuji instead because I like its flexibility for black & white urban and for small scenes. What I have left is the old Nikkor 17-210mm f4, the 50 f1.8G, and the 40mm f2.8 macro (for photographing paintings). I would invest in the Tokina 11-16mm if I could get away to the sea, otherwise I will stick with what I have got.
Virtually all of my scenic pictures are taken in the focal range of 35 to 200mm or its equivalent. The majority of those in the range 35 to 90mm. Anything wider or longer is for specific purposes which rarely occur to me. Mostly I am happy with 40 to 70mm.
Interesting perspective on focal lengths. I tend to lean the other direction I suppose, whereas ultrawide/telephoto images provide a perspective not typical of the everyday human visual perception - Love your content!
The lens I use the most is the EF-M 22mm (for APS-C). It is considered as a wide angle optic. The lens I use the least is the even wider angle EF-M 11-22mm which has such a wide angle at 11mm that it is only useful for taking pictures of big buildings such as churches (many of those over here) or other wide buildings in narrow streets. Wales is huge but Malta is so tiny that wide angle lenses are a necessity.
LoL! I forgot about the video subject! I kind of understand what you're on about, but then, theoretically, a great image kind of frames itself, so an ultra wide angle makes that more and more difficult to achieve. My main lens zooms out to 18mm, so 24 isn't a prob, but I might consider a 24mm anyway to get the better f number.
Sold my Tamron 17-28mm. Bought a cheap Samyang 18mm in case I ever want to shoot wide but I barely use it. I much prefer telephoto as well.
Ultra wide angle lenses became a fad. In my older books on landscape photography there are very few if any images at less than 24mm on 35mm film format. The fad with ultrawide lenses was to photograph a big rock in the foreground that dominates the image, with the lake or mountain appearing very small way back in the background. I always thought the lake or mountain was more important than the rock. If you want to photograph rocks then make rocks the primary subject and don't have lakes or mountains in the photograph to compete with the rocks.
I'm allergic to long exposures because they make me think of the pictures you see in hotel rooms, or in some cases even worse, those "things" (I don't know what to call them) on the walls of Chinese restaurants that have a moving waterfall on them.
OK, maybe that is pushing it a bit, there ARE of course good photos taken with long exposures, but in general I'm not a fan.
never saw long exposure photo in a hotel room like ever
@@serz1885 we don't seem to go to the same hotels then...
If I should be limited to just a one lens for the rest of my shooting days then my 20mm Lumix G becomes my eternal companionship. James I like the wise colour choice of your biking gear .
I think the sign means there's not enough room for a truck and a pedestrian on the bridge or causeway. With the current shipping issues, the driver will knock you off the road instead of simply stopping and offering you a ride. At least that's my theory.
I find myself currently falling out of love with anything tighter than a 35. Mostly, because it doesn't require working a scene. I like the fiddly little framing of wide angles. It feels quite rewarding to me to get it right. I'll always keep my 85, because sometimes I want to bring something as close as my eye actually saw it, but I live mostly around 24 or 28 nowadays. Thinking about going wider. 😂
I think Josef Koudelka is one of the greatest photographic storytellers. His preferred lens for much of his career was a 25mm, which he often used to create a really compelling dynamic between his main subject and the environment/secondary subjects. The focal length opens an unresolved space between them. 24mm or 25mm may be a harder length to get right than 35mm or 50mm for storytelling, but when you do, it has a unique magic.
My least-used lenses are the widest-angled, but there are times when nothing else will do. Also, why not mount use the mounting bolts on the seat tube for your second bidon (or use a hydration pack)? I'm surprised you can even mount one on the front of the down tube--yeech!
I restarted cycling 4 years ago as well! New Alpha Shooter... Orange bike... I see what you did lol! Now you just need to do some Zwift commercial work! Btw, check out Zwift, you might really enjoy it with your unpredictable weather. It's helped me lose 80lbs (not sure what that is in Stones :D ).
Gotta agree with you. Wide angle feels like essentially a "special effect" for my style. I shoot around NYC and you want to talk "too much detail in the shot" haha. I used to need 24mm and while I still want it sometimes... 35mm is my new 24mm. It's still possible to get "wide shots" but they are composed with the feet instead of with the distortion- know what I mean?
But yeah, I felt this video. The frustration in watching the shot you wanted disappear. The elation that you've finally acted on ditching a focal length which was not helpful. Real talk! haha
This is what I love about photography, I'm at the other end of the spectrum, I pretty much shoot 98% of the time with a 15mm wide angle lens and would probably cry if I couldn't 😂
Yes I agree. I shoot mostly in vertical mode CFWA
With my 14-24mm
More videos plz really enjoy the content keep up the great work 👍
Dude, you like man made objects in your shots. My suggestion is do the railway to the top of snowdon, keep up the good work.
Love taking landscape photos with my 100-400
I have been avoiding getting the 14-24mm lens for awhile. Every once and a while I see a scene where I think something wider than a 24mm would work/look great, but since I have a 24-70mm and not a 14-24, I just move around to find a composition that works for the lens I have! I guess you can say it saves me money. 😋
I shoot Olympus because of the 8-25mm f4 lens. It does 16mm to 50mm in full frame equivalent. Nothing else like it, and when I'm shooting landscapes I don't even bother taking other lenses with me. Most of my landscapes are in the 24-50mm range anyway, but it's nice to have the ability because sometimes you do need to go wider to capture a scene and tell a story properly. I both do not want to carry around multiple lenses, or miss a shot because I don't have the right focal length :)
I think I like wide angle photography with a smartphone. You get that distortion to give a particular type of image.
But with a camera I just got a 30mm lens and I feel that's just right for me.
I'm very much an amateur with all this.
30mm is a very versatile size to use
Capel Curig is the rainiest place in Wales ;-) The sign is for HGV drivers to warn them that if they open their doors, whilst on the dam, they will be over the side .
me: studying the 16-35 lens hoping it to be my first lens option to learn how to tell stories through photos and videos
James: I sold my 16-35 months ago and not missed it once
:')
Arhhhh I've just bought a Canon rf 16mm f/2.8. I'm gonna be experimenting on the hills with it, but I do prefer the 70mm and upwards, but at £300 if it doesn't work out no big loss. I also visit a lot of National Trust properties so it'll be idea in the dark small rooms there.
"It's taken me about 20 minutes to recover from that climb!" 🤣🤣It'd take me about 3 days!
Hey James. This post grew a little - want you to know that I don't want to appear as a troll, and would actually love to discuss some of your points from today with you. I rarely use wide-angle lenses, but have been using them a bit more recently - because I realized I was not that great with them. I think what people get wrong about them is that they think it is about getting lots of stuff in the frame... but it's not. You can't really walk up to a vista with a wide-angle lens and take a good picture.... because it makes whatever you are taking a picture of seem really far away and small. Wide angle lenses are all about finding something really cool in the foreground, making it the subject, but showing the environment it is in. Wide angles make close objects feel bigger. It's about getting close to a subject and helping to create a feeling of inclusion. I totally agree with you about water.... I don't want to smooth things out....that is a cheap trick that was overused. I do, however, want some movement (because water moves and seeing it frozen does not make me feel like I am experiencing it). When it comes to wide and long - I don't really feel the same way. Any "non standard" lens is designed to make people FEEL things. Do you want the viewer to feel close (wide angle), do you want them to feel like everything is close (telephono), do you want them to feel small (macro).... etc, etc. They let you tell different stories and experience them a bit different! I think if you are limiting yourself to normal focal lengths because "it makes it look unreal/ more like a photo" ... I think it leaves a lot on the table in terms of viewers feeling and storytelling. We all need creative constraints... but I wonder if you are limiting yourself because it is easier? I wonder what happens when that "human" elements you like to include in your photo becomes the foreground or the majority of the image, etc. Would a viewer feel they are staying at the croft rather than just seeing it? Just thoughts to put out there. I also think it is funny that you don't have the same standard for video - your video is shot at wide-angle. You specifically use a wide angle to make us FEEL like we are there and having a conversation with you...
I loved this video James. I don't know why
Yep not a fan of anything wider than 24mm myself. Everything in the distance is way too small for me personally. That road and the scenery is totally majestic too, I think I remember you going there your in your old video. The short beard looks alright, makes you look younger, but we all know it’s up to Emily mate 😁
I absolutely agree. It's the wide angle photo trickery that makes many landscape photos look unreal. They tell a story, but it's a fantasy.
What you said about long exposure, someone could say about shallow deep of field and bokeh.
Good to see you up on your bike. How many times did you ride parts of this hill up and down for this video? That's a real workout. I would have added a bearded emotion to this but can't find one 😞
Find wide angle photos look weird when the lens FOV isn't close to the viewed image FOV. Many wide angle photos are resized(not cropped) to a tele lens FOV. Even getting closer to the screen doesn't help much, before it starts to look weird for other reasons.
I think the sign at 7:48 means to be careful cross the bridge because it's narrow and if a truck comes through you'll have to jump in the river 😬
This is not exactly the video I needed to see after buying my first ever wide angle lens, but you've got great insight! 😂
What? A landscape/outdoors photographer complaining about the light? Who would have expected that? 😉 🤣
PS: The main thing I like to do with my wide-angle lens is close-ups of objects with the (blurred?) wide background giving context to the object being photographed.
I don't dislike superwides but I find them hard to use. Decided to sell the 16-35 and spend the money on a prime or two - 35mm and 85mm
I've been on the same boat about super wide angle lenses (anything above 24 for me) for quite a while myself. happy to hear my photographer guru sensei feels the sameish now. And I fully subscribe to the "being instantly aware you're looking at a photo" being a bad thing.
I really enjoyed this, so don't be worried that you thought it was 'A random upload.' You deserve to get to 200K subscribers long before the end of this year. Also, I have cancelled my website and am changing over to Squarespace - via your code. You advertise it so well.
I think there's a typo on your gear page, it says:
"Sony 20mm f1.8 G
Usually my go to vlogging lens, but it’s fantastic for astro and general low light stuff too. I’m not a fan of going wider than 24mm as I don’t like the look, but 24mm looks great and this is super sharp!"
The "24mm looks great" part has me confused.
You could make a video about taking photos of yourself on a bike. I'd watch it for sure!
I like your tendency to want some man-made things in most of your photos. It definitely adds to the story line. The big mystery, though, is: what . . . is . . . that . . . gear . . . ratio ? You should be able to climb walls with that!
I think the less bead look suites you.
Do you have any recent videos about how you use SS?
Wide angle is too often used in the wrong way, usually due to how common they are on smartphones, most people seem to think that they're for capturing as much of the landscape as possible, while where they really excel is in 1) tight spaces where the distortion can give interesting lines and effects 2) closeups(think plants, rocks etc) 3) astrophotography, this is the one scenario where you really do want to cram in as much as possible imo