Why zooms allow for greater creative control than primes

tkbslc wrote in post #17111381
I would say it is a bit ignorant and arrogant to assume "better" or more modern equipment produces better photos.

That to.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17111372
I'm saying you are wrong and couldn't be more and it's a pretty arrogant statement to say you know what's best for me and the way I work. Better equipment. There is nothing better for B&W landscape photography than an 8X10 view camera and the zone system. And again the best focal length is what is the F/L that works with the way the see. There are a million different ways to shoot a scene. One way might be A and fine for a zoom but it could be just as great with a 21mm lens to. Just different. There is more than one way to look at anything but if you are in some way saying I'm not creative or are limiting my creative choices either that state is either very arrogant or extremely ignorant. I would never tell anyone if they are clearly getting their vision captured that what they are using in getting that is limiting them in any way. Again the best F/L is the one that matches the way you see.

No one said you weren't creative. I said if given additional knobs you could turn, you would have the ability to capture better photographs. It's not going to give you a better photograph just because that knob is available to you.

An arrogant statement is saying that a particular camera is the best system there will ever be. I never said there was anything wrong with their equipment. I said that there was the possibility for improvement. The absolute height of ignorance is thinking there isn't a possibly for improvement.

I didn't get too far past the title. Skimmed through two pages of comments (my preferences allow me to view 50 comments per page).

Anyway... Yes, zooms allow you more control. On the other hand, people who argue that primes force one's creativity say so because primes provide one less control: focal length. When you have less control, you're forced to work with what you have and you might be forced to be a little more creative.

Either way... zoom or prime... doesn't matter. What matters is the image at the end.

tkbslc wrote in post #17111381
I would say it is a bit ignorant and arrogant to assume "better" or more modern equipment produces better photos.

I never said modern equipment produced better photos. That's like saying a modern stove would can cook a great meal. However, saying that a photographer would be less limited by better equipment is hardly arrogant. Saying that a photographer didn't have some limits based upon his gear, means he was limited by his skill. Are you really wanting to make the argument that Ansel Adams was limited by his skills?

vengence wrote in post #17111402
I never said modern equipment produced better photos. That's like saying a modern stove would can cook a great meal. However, saying that a photographer would be less limited by better equipment is hardly arrogant. Saying that a photographer didn't have some limits based upon his gear, means he was limited by his skill. Are you really wanting to make the argument that Ansel Adams was limited by his skills?

So you telling someone that clearly has found exactly what works for them and the way they see and are not in anyway limited in their creativity and they clearly know what works for them through a lot of experience and their work(Ralph Gibson would come to mind. He has said he shoots with a normal F/L lens because thats the way he sees)and that because they don't shoot with a zoom they are limiting their creativity, though their work would show something very different, and you don't think saying that is arrogant and ignorant? Arrogant because you think you know more about how they should create than the ones actually creating and ignorant because you know little of how they create and why.

By the way over the years I have turned all those knob and I fully know what works best for me and the I see.

Nathan wrote in post #17111399
I didn't get too far past the title. Skimmed through two pages of comments (my preferences allow me to view 50 comments per page).

Anyway... Yes, zooms allow you more control. On the other hand, people who argue that primes force one's creativity say so because primes provide one less control: focal length. When you have less control, you're forced to work with what you have and you might be forced to be a little more creative.

Either way... zoom or prime... doesn't matter. What matters is the image at the end.

Agree with almost everything but I don't find zooms give me more control. If I did I would have a bag full of them.

I chose the wording of my thread title very carefully. I said that zooms allow for more creative control than primes. They do.
Now, there will certainly be photographers who do not want, or need, all of the flexibility/control that zooms can provide. But just because that flexibility/control is not wanted does not mean that the lenses do not allow for it. The semantics here are very important to me, and that is why I chose the wording I did.

Nonetheless, I do admit to leaving out the fact that today's fast primes are faster than today's zooms. And the effects that the larger maximum aperture have on DOF do allow for more creative control in that area.
However, I do no think of that as an essential shortcoming of zoom lenses, but rather I think of it as a shortcoming of the current philosophy concerning the manufacture, marketing, and use of zoom lenses. Hopefully, in 20, 30, or 40 years, people won't care so much about size & weight anymore, and we will have fast zoom lenses such as, say, a 35-150mm f1.8, 24mm-70mm f1.4, etc.

Another thing I wonder about. Some here have discussed how some people "see" only at one focal length, and that is why primes work better for them. Well, if you happen to "see" at 35mm, or 50mm, or 135mm, great! You would be one of the very, very lucky ones. But what about those who "see" at 32mm, or 34mm, or 37mm, or 53mm, or 124mm? What do they do? Unless they are able to find some rare, off-beat prime in these odd focal lengths, they would have to use a zoom lens. Why? Because, if they "see" at, say, 37mm, and use a 35mm lens, then all of their images will be a bit off, in regards to the relative size of the various elements in the frame. Either that, or they will have to frame the image in a way that isn't a perfect fit with their vision.

Also, regarding the frog photos, they're really nothing that special; it just happened to be what I found to shoot that day, and so that is what I used as an example for the point I was making. The 173mm version is infinitesimally better than those taken at other focal lengths; the difference is something that would only be noticeable if one was comparing all of the images side-by-side on the same monitor at the same time. But those minute, almost-too-subtle-to-even-notice differences are important to me.

I will add the image to one of the galleries on my website sometime soon, and provide a link to it, if anyone is really interested in seeing it. But I promise you, it is just a simple image of a frog sittin' on a sun-bleached log with some blurred out mud, leaf debris, and spruce needles behind/under it.

I love these "why what works best for me should work best for you, too" threads.

Tom if they gave me more creative control for the way I see and work I would use them They don't. They CLEARLY don't. The proof is always in the work.

If they work for you fine. I don't expect anyone to follow my path. But that road is a two way street and anyone that thinks that any of those photographers we mentioned or myself were in anyway limited buy their equipment choices are just wrong. I and all of those other photographers used what they did because it made their creative process flawless. The equipment they chose as with me are just an extension of their vision and are things that get out of the way and let them create. And if what you have does that for you then great but don't think that just because someone has made different choices that those choices are limiting them. They made those choices for the same reason you made choice. They found what works best for them and allows them to seamlessly create.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17111441
I chose the wording of my thread title very carefully. I said that zooms allow for more creative control than primes. They do.

Zooms can't do f1.2 or f1.4. Controlling depth of field over a wider range brings much more creativity to the table than does setting up in one position and zooming in and out. Your title should have read "Zooms offer more versatility than do primes when framing a composition". I have a lot more creative options shooting with fast primes than I have ever had shooting with zooms.

WhyFi wrote in post #17111470
I love these "why what works best for me should work best for you, too" threads.

Yeah they can be fun. If a Holga is working best for you then ROCK ON......Who is anyone to tell you different if it is clearly working.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17111372
There are a million different ways to shoot a scene.

Yes, exactly!
And a really, really incredible photographer with completely unlimited vision would come away from that scene with one million unique, world-class images.

But I don't think there has ever been such a photographer. Everyone has limitations as to how they "see".

All photographers, even the "greats", fail to see everything that is there to be seen. If somebody ever did come along who had completely unlimited vision, don't you think he/she would feel very limited by their gear? They would be seeing these one million images in their mind's eye, but they would only be able to capture a fraction of them, because today's photographic gear has limitations. I bet, if such a person ever lived, that they would want a zoom lens instead of a prime, because I do feel that it would allow them to produce a greater quantity of awesome images, and capture a greater proportion of the images the see in their mind's eye.

No one sees everything. What's important is what YOU see and your vision. That's really all that matters and if you KNOW your vision and make images that look like your images you should certainly know the tools that work best for capturing that. I do. Some see at certain F/Ls. I do A 35mm prime on a FF camera gives me more creative freedom because it matches the way I see and the way I work. I would never tell anyone else that is the way they should work but it clearly works for me. IF we were to go out and shoot in the same area we would come back with very different photographs (hopefully) and that's what this is all about. My way is not your way and your way is not right for me but I'll bet we both come back with at least a few really good photographs. And thats OK to. Thats what I meant by more than one way but I know my work will look like my work.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17111473
The proof is always in the work.

No it isn't. Because you can't prove that the work couldn't have been even one step better with the ability to do something a bit differently.

Never ever update "good enough for me" into "proof".

I don't think you are correct here. I think a number of them would have used different equipment if that equipment had been at their disposal.

They might have selected the best equipment they knew about or that was available to them. But that doesn't say much about what they would have wanted to use if given a choice.

There was a time when your Leica wasn't available. So you just had to use something else. And there will come a time when something else is available.

Worked best from them at that point in time.

Ok you're right we all need to shoot with this swedish guys approved list of equipment because we don't know and our work doesn't clearly show what is best for us...The ignorant statements keep hitting new highs and just keep on coming LoL.

My adice find what works for you and quit trying to convince those that have found what works for them that they are wrong for making thier choices. Better yet go out and make some interesting photographs.