Why zooms allow for greater creative control than primes

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17108392
For many it's not about having all the F/Ls only the one or ones that work with the way the see.

I do agree with this. But the thing is, not all of us see in any given focal length.

Sometimes I "see" in 173mm. A moment later, I may see in 164mm. A minute or two after that, I may "see" a different way to capture the same scene, and that capture may best be accomplished by using a focal length of 522mm. Then later that day I may see something else that would best be captured at 300mm. Then I reposition myself to get a bit different angle, and the best way to capture the subject from that position might be 455mm. Then I see another way to shoot that subject, and it would most effectively be done at 118mm. This is typically how any day of photography goes for me. Gazillions of different types of images, all best made at different focal lengths.

I have trouble understanding the concept of "seeing" at just one focal length. I do not doubt that there are those who see that way, it's just that I cannot understand how that would not limit the total number of quality, marketable images one is able to create in any given time period.

When I am shooting subjects that allow me to position and reposition myself as much as I want, and really "work" the composition, I will often end up with many images, and those images typically cover a great range of focal lengths.

If one "sees" in dozens (if not hundreds) of different focal lengths, I just don't see how the use of prime lenses will not at some point, lead to some compromises, and put limitations on the way the photographer is able to capture his/her compositions.

Numenorean wrote in post #17108156
You can't compose in the camera and shoot 5-10 shots and you're offering advice here?

What makes you think I can't compose in the camera and shoot 5-10 shots, and get a very effective image? I most certainly can. But I am often not satisfied with that. I want to make sure I get the very best image that is possible.

Let me make a parallel illustration to better explain:

When I need to buy two 2x4 studs at Home Depot, I could walk up to the lumber rack, look over a dozen studs, and pick two that are quite good; studs that have no noticeable twist, bow, or crown. Studs that have only small, tight knots, and no knots whatsoever at the ends.

But I am not satisfied with that; I am the guy who has to make sure he gets the two studs that are the very best. This means that I spend over half an hour pulling out every single 2x4 in the entire lumber rack. I will take a straight edge to every side of every stud, if need be. I will lay all the "keepers" in one pile, and put all the rest back on the rack. So now I have reduced the stack to, say, about 50 studs with no real flaws. But I know, deep down, that not all of these 50 keepers are exactly equal; there will be very minute differences - differences which will make two of them the best two - better than all the rest. I must have the very best two boards - so I will spend the next 20 to 30 minutes closely examining every board, and little by little narrowing down the pile of keepers. Eventually I will find the two boards that are a tiny little bit better than any of the others. These are the two studs that I want, and I will take them to the checkout and purchase them.

So, could I have picked out two really good 2x4 studs in 3 minutes? Of course I could. But that is not good enough for me - I usually insist on having the very, very best, even if it makes no practical difference whatsoever.

I am the same way with my photography - I could get very good, quality, marketable captures in just a few minutes, only taking a few frames. But I want to have more nit-picky control over every single detail of my images than that approach will allow, and therefore prefer to shoot a subject ad nauseam in the hopes that one of the hundreds of images will be infinitesimally better than any of the others.

But my point is for those that do see at a particular F/L, and there are a lot of us out there, a zoom is not more creative than a prime. Leaning to see in a personal way is what is truly creative however that may be. Compromise? I never compromise. There is no one right way to photograph a scene. What is right a500mm could also be right at 35mm. It would just be a lot different and thats OK. I have shot with formats from Minox to 8X10 Deardorff and have shot with just about ever type lens and F/L both professionally and with my personally work and I know what works best for me and the way I see. Whether anyone understands that or not is their issue. My work clearly shows what works for me because thats all that matters in the end. Finding the F/L that matches my vision for me has been just the opposite of limiting. For me it has been liberating. As it has been for many photographers like sjones and the great photographers we both mentioned.

No over heating brain with prime , and i don't stay stuck from just one point of view ...
it please me, i take the shot, it does not please me, i change the point of view.
BTW i use zoom also, (prime or zoom, i use what i brought with me)
but over all, i'm thinking that you are thinking too much but worse than that you are focusing too much on only one point of view which have a side effect >> you got a narrow vision which cannot let you see the ensemble/the whole part IMO, and affect directly what you call "creativity"

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17108047
I have found zooms to be a huge creative advantage. Why? Because they allow me to create the exact composition I want to create, often times in situations where no prime would do the job just as precisely.

No argument on the composition. But all you really loose compared to using a prime with the nearest focal length are a few pixels, i.e. when you crop from 150mm to the equivalent of 173mm. It can be an advantage not having to crop, and a convenience not having to carry and change primes. But I'd hardy regard these as a "huge creative advantage".

I think the creative control of a zoom actually hinders me. To me, if a can pick almost any focal length I end up taking a long time to decide and think about whether i want to get closer or zoom further, which can be good. But with primes I do what I can with the focal length I have and I end up with more interesting shots usually.

I say this with regard to my own profession - architecture - as well as to photography: for creative people limitations serve to stimulate very creative solutions. Working with a fixed focal length is a limiting factor when working a composition. I like it; it gives me something fixed to work from.

I appreciate the value of a zoom. I own one and plan to add another in the near term. But, I am happiest with my primes. To each his own. I did enjoy your write-up Tom.

And one more note. Tom's nice write-up appears to focus solely on compositional creativity. Of course that is of utmost importance, but what if, for creative reasons you wish to capture a composition at f/1.4? A zoom doesn't provide that added creative control. And even at f/2.8 a great zoom, such as the fine EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, will only have a decent bokeh. Nothing on the order of the elegant bokeh from an 85mm f/1.2, or 135mm f/2, or 200mm f/2.

You were very lucky to find a frog with that amount of patience.
I doubt if a human model would sit still long enough to allow for such an extensive shoot.

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17108593
but over all, i'm thinking that you are thinking too much but worse than that you are focusing too much on only one point of view which have a side effect >> you got a narrow vision which cannot let you see the ensemble/the whole part IMO, and affect directly what you call "creativity"

Reservior Dog,

I am surprised at what you said there about me only focusing on one point of view, and having a "narrow vision". Why am I surprised at your comment? Because much of what I have written here in this thread explains that I am the exact opposite of what you accuse me of.

Did you really read everything I wrote before making your statement? Or, did you just skim over a few paragraphs, and jump to your conclusion? Below are a few things I have said right here in this thread. If you would have paid careful attention to these statements of mine, you would have understood that I do not limit myself to just one point of view for any given situation. I will consider many, many POVs, and then, after giving many POVs a fair try, I will either shoot from many of them, creating a wide variety of images, or I will settle on the very best POV and work it as best as I possibly can.

Below are things I have written here - I wrote these things before you made the "one view / narrow vision" statement. How could you possibly read these things that I wrote and still make the statement you made?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17108412
Sometimes I "see" in 173mm. A moment later, I may see in 164mm. A minute or two after that, I may "see" a different way to capture the same scene, and that capture may best be accomplished by using a focal length of 522mm. Then later that day I may see something else that would best be captured at 300mm. Then I reposition myself to get a bit different angle, and the best way to capture the subject from that position might be 455mm. Then I see another way to shoot that subject, and it would most effectively be done at 118mm. This is typically how any day of photography goes for me. Gazillions of different types of images, all best made at different focal lengths.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17108412
When I am shooting subjects that allow me to position and reposition myself as much as I want, and really "work" the composition, I will often end up with many images, and those images typically cover a great range of focal lengths.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17108047
I set up my tripod and experimented by moving the camera into many different positions

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17108879
Reservior Dog,

I am surprised at what you said there about me only focusing on one point of view, and having a "narrow vision". Why am I surprised at your comment? Because much of what I have written here in this thread explains that I am the exact opposite of what you accuse me of.

Did you really read everything I wrote before making your statement? Or, did you just skim over a few paragraphs, and jump to your conclusion? Below are a few things I have said right here in this thread. If you would have paid careful attention to these statements of mine, you would have understood that I do not limit myself to just one point of view for any given situation. I will consider many, many POVs, and then, after giving many POVs a fair try, I will either shoot from many of them, creating a wide variety of images, or I will settle on the very best POV and work it as best as I possibly can.

Below are things I have written here - I wrote these things before you made the "one view / narrow vision" statement. How could you possibly read these things that I wrote and still make the statement you made?

yes my bad, i apologize, i wanted to write it like a kind of "picture", ok bad "picture" i did it wrongly
In fact i was not speaking about how you are taking picture with zoom, i was speaking about your statement than zoom are better for creativity ...
i cannot agree, both zoom and prime are good with creativity at the same level, so where i said "narrow vision" because you are thinking too much zoom, and by putting prime beside can get you a narrow vision from one point of view = the zoom point of view and you miss the prime point of view, which both zoom and prime are the ensemble.

CaliWalkabout wrote in post #17108312
People sure do get emotional and defensive when a post doesn't agree with their personal preferences for creating images. So absurd.

It's because a personal preference, what makes one creative, is framed into a debate. It doesn't need to be framed into a debate. Do zooms give one options that primes don't? Yes. Does that allow for more creative thinking? Creativity has nothing to do with equipment.

NBEast wrote in post #17108185
"Composition", maybe zoom helps achieve your pre-concieved notion of how it's shot. "Creativity" is about loosening up the cobwebs and breaking barriers.

CaliWalkabout wrote in post #17108312
People sure do get emotional and defensive when a post doesn't agree with their personal preferences for creating images. So absurd.

On the flipside I also find it absurd when a thread is started so that someone can state their "personal preferences" as if its the only correct answer. You will never get across the board agreement on topics like primes vs zooms, full frame vs crop, grip vs gripless etc etc

Personally I prefer primes on the most part but can see the benefit of zooms. I very much doubt I could tell the difference between 173mm and 180mm if both shots were framed the same and the settings were the same but maybe thats just me

bacchanal wrote in post #17109043
It's because a personal preference, what makes one creative, is framed into a debate. It doesn't need to be framed into a debate. Do zooms give one options that primes don't? Yes. Does that allow for more creative thinking? Creativity has nothing to do with equipment.

If one reads the thread title you'll find that Tom is claiming zooms give you more creative CONTROL. The ability to create "something" very precisely. "Creativity" is more coming up with that "something" to create. Creative Control is how close you get to that created/envisioned "something".

Other thoughts on creativity:

Limitation has often forced me to BE creative to get an image but it didn't make that image any more creative. (Think of the example of DIY lighting, to shoot the worlds most bland product shot.)

Does anyone like to limit themselves in other ways besides just FL? Would you enjoy using a lens with stuck aperture, or a camera that only has one SS? I guess in film days you were limiting your ISO.

In the context of this thread I think Tom lobbed himself a bit of a softball. The point could be you have more Control when you have more control. Of course having more options gives you more Control.

Creative Control - seems to be a bit of an oxymoron.

Tom, I agree with you and use zooms extensively. From what you say, I don't think you are "anti prime" (nor am I).

Personally I am in favor of having a lot of lens options to choose from and think limiting your focal lengths does not make you "creative". Granted there are situations where f/2.8 isn't fast enough or an extremely narrow depth of field is desirable.

Another advantage of zooms is when your subject is moving, especially toward or away from you, you have more flexibility for framing. (Something prime lovers can't deny.)

Clearly the type of photography you are into should influence your choice of equipment. Of course budget is a factor as well.

Unfortunately the nature of these forums is for people (including myself) to tout or defend their choices/purchases regardless of merit in some cases.

BTW: Tom, I have seen many wonderful photos that you have taken/posted.