The Dark Art of Foot Zooming

There seems to be a phenomenon creeping into these forums and photography in general that foot zooming is bad for your photography, even bad for your health

We all understand that when we change our shooting position without changing focal length the perspective changes.. Is this a bad thing, within reason??

Does an image where the subject has filled the frame by foot zoomimg any less of an image than an image where the subject has filled the frame by changing focal length??

I realise that filling the frame with a portrait with a wide angle lens is silly unless it was done for effect.. What about using a tele lens??

Who here foot zooms?? I like using tele primes so I foot zoom..

I used to, but since I've gotten my Canon system with zoom lenses, I don't any more. I probably think about the perspective control more these days, though.

I prefer to foot zoom. Having a fixed perspective of a prime focus you to think more about composition. I also have two zooms for when I cannot foot zoom though.

Oddly enough I've ramped up my total millimeter count by adding the 500 f/4L prime because I can't foot zoom many of my subjects.

(The FAA generally frowns on photographers shooting from the middle of a runway...)

yogestee wrote in post #10705058
There seems to be a phenomenon creeping into these forums and photography in general that foot zooming is bad for your photography, even bad for your health

We all understand that when we change our shooting position without changing focal length the perspective changes.. Is this a bad thing, within reason??

Does an image where the subject has filled the frame by foot zoomimg any less of an image than an image where the subject has filled the frame by changing focal length??

I realise that filling the frame with a portrait with a wide angle lens is silly unless it was done for effect.. What about using a tele lens??

Who here foot zooms?? I like using tele primes so I foot zoom..

It depends on the subject of course. In a lot of things perspective is the most important thing so the position of the camera is the first consideration. In such a situtation I either use a zoom or crop a little to get the right framing.

Other times an acceptable perspective can be found over a range of positions (this is more frequent when shooting a subject where the background is not part of the photo really). In such a situation I'll frame the subject within reason by moving.

I think the derision of the term 'foot zooming' comes when people use it to suggest that there is no advantage to using zooms and they are simply good lenses for people who are too lazy to move. Good photographers know that perspective is important to a photo, and they understand that using primes will sometimes mean they cannot shoot the perspective they want because they can't frame it.

Yes and no.

I use whatever FL is necessary (zoom or prime) to get the perspective I want. for example I like using my 85mm or 70-200 for portraits, which requires that I foot zoom back several steps versus using my 24-60 or 30mm and being closer to the subject. If I want to get a wide angle shot of the inside of a church, I will use my ultra wide lens, no foot zooming with a 24mm lens, unless someone wants to drill a deep hole in the floor!

I use whatever it takes to get the shot I want. Whether prime or zoom, I will often "foot zoom" to get the angle/perspective I want.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10706308
The FAA generally frowns on photographers shooting from the middle of a runway...

Auditorium audiences don't care for it too much either.

When I'm shooting a show it's from the same spot for 2-3 hours, so a zoom (or three) is the only way to get a decent variety of perspectives.

Perspective isn't the only thing that changes when you're moving. So does the background, the bokeh, & the reflections in some subjects like cars. See the difference in MOVE YOUR FEET!

JeffreyG wrote in post #10706756
Good photographers know that perspective is important to a photo, and they understand that using primes will sometimes mean they cannot shoot the perspective they want because they can't frame it.

with my zooms, i realized that i was always shooting at certain focal lengths. software mapped out my archives and there were massive spikes at 24mm, 40mm, 70mm, and 200mm. that's when i realized that primes really wouldn't be a limiter for me, because that's how i naturally frame my photos anyways.

when i really can't accommodate a perspective that i want, i've found that using a different one makes for an equally interesting or even more creative shot at the end of the day. i suppose it's different for each of us.

mbellot wrote in post #10707302
When I'm shooting a show it's from the same spot for 2-3 hours, so a zoom (or three) is the only way to get a decent variety of perspectives.

the point is that you aren't though.

mbellot wrote in post #10707302
When I'm shooting a show it's from the same spot for 2-3 hours, so a zoom (or three) is the only way to get a decent variety of perspectives.

As mentioned above, the perspective (relative sizes of various elements of the scene which are at different distances from the camera) does not change when your camera position and the distances to the various elements of the scene are not changing. You're getting different framing but not different perspective.

Zooms are not the downfall of man that some here would have you beleive, and using primes exclusively doesn't make a better photographer and arguably doesn't make a better image either. I started back into this hobby with ideas I had stored on the mental hard drive from 25 years ago when primes definitely were the way to go and zooms were an unknown commodity, hoping getting a good one was like hoping to get another 50K out of a used YUGO, it happened, but not for you usually. I spent much more time cleaning sensors when I had my primw collection. also missed shots changing lenses, and had to carry and worry about a big old bag of lenses on long shooting trips.
I tried an L zoom more for the IS than anything else, but soon found I liked the quality of the images, as much or more than a comparable prime.
All zooms all the time doesn't mean my feet are set in cement, if anything, getting rid of the tripod (totally necessary with a 135 or 200 prime, especially with a doubler) for outdoor work where the IS is working has made me more of a foot mover now than ever.

Zoom? What's that? I haven't shot a zoom in so long I forget what that experience is like.

SkipD wrote in post #10707575
As mentioned above, the perspective (relative sizes of various elements of the scene which are at different distances from the camera) does not change when your camera position and the distances to the various elements of the scene are not changing. You're getting different framing but not different perspective.

Yup, I believe so. So with primes, perspective is the same. With zooms as you change the focal length, the perspective changes as well.

So if you foot zoom back and forth, the perspective is the same but the subject may be further and closer, respectively. If you stand at one place with a zoom and move the focal length from wide to telephoto let's say, then the perspective changes.

Anyway, prime or zoom lenses are only tools, I have my favorites and preferences, but in all honesty, I think I may be the only one who notices the differences between primes and zooms when I'm working on the image. Most when viewed at normal sizes don't look that much (if any) different IMO.