home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.photo
- Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!mothost!lmpsbbs!comm.mot.com!dougb
- From: dougb@comm.mot.com (Doug Bank)
- Subject: Re: candids
- Reply-To: dougb@ecs.comm.mot.com
- Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:54:38 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Nov18.135438.18725@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
- References: <27544@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <22437@drutx.ATT.COM> <BxuGv9.I23@cs.dal.ca> <1992Nov17.154543.23535@PacBell.COM>
- Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: 145.1.146.35
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1992Nov17.154543.23535@PacBell.COM>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
-
- |> IMHO, why does it necessiate purchasing a long lens for candids?
- |> You state you are part of the yearbook staff, which should give you
- |> some type of "license" to freely take pictures. I personally find
- |> the regular, standard, 35mm lens ideal for candids. You not only
- |> will get superb depth-of-field, but you can use the lens in
- |> tighter quarters. The 300mm lens will require a tripod, so it
- |> seems, plus you lose depth-of-field. If you want "nice close-ups",
- |> then I would opt for a plain old 100-135mm range lens, and
- |> preferrably a zoom lens at that.
-
- Actually, in my experience as a yearbook photographer, many candids
- look better when there is little depth of field. It makes the picture
- and the subject stand out from the page. Often times candids taken with
- a wide angle (35mm is wide angle, not normal) lens will suffer becuase
- the viewer can't always figure out what the subject was.
-
- --
- Doug Bank Private Systems Division
- dougb@ecs.comm.mot.com Motorola Communications Sector
- dougb@nwu.edu Schaumburg, Illinois
- dougb@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 708-576-8207
-