If prime lenses can in fact spur creativity...

Then wouldn't a set of slow, f/5.6 lenses be the most creative?

Hear me out. There have been a few discussions on whether using just prime lenses can make a person more creative by forcing them outside of their comfort zone or breaking their cycle of standing in one place to shoot.

I don't want to re-hash that argument, but I would like to think a little more about the gear we select and the development of newer photographers. There are two problems I see with the 'fast primes make me more creative' line of thought:

1) A lot of people first get a fast prime or two as a way to deal with low light. This is fine, but these people often seem to be avoiding learning how to really effectively use flash. The flash that they know how to use (onboard, direct, not color balanced) looks like hell. So the prime is in some respects a crutch for a lack of knowledge. I know that I went through this phase myself.

It isn't that flash is always the best or most appropriate way to shoot everything in low light, but knowing how to really use flash well is one of the most difficult but most rewarding parts of photography. I think some of us hold ourselves back by getting fast lenses.

2) I have also seen people who feel that prime lenses increase their compositional creativity go on to cite shallow DOF as enabling. But isn't this also backwards? If your intended subject is located in a difficult situation with regards to the background, isn't shooting wide open and reducing that background to a colored smear the simple and easy way out?

Is not environmental portraiture where the subject belongs in the setting they are in much harder and more creative to shoot than just a person set before a smear of color?

There is nothing especially creative about snapshots with really shallow DOF, right? These are just snapshots IMO, easy to do with any fast lens:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Man I totally agree. I don't understand the "blur the living snot out of everything" mentality. It all looks the same... isolated subject with practically no cue or reference to their environment or setting. Just a smear of colour. If you are shooting a short portrait shoot, then fine. But to do every darn shot like this? It looks freakin' BORING to me.

Making good use of your environment, and shooting with that always in mind is MUCH harder than blurring the living snot out of everything. I actually DO find it a cop out. That doesn't mean making good use of blur is a BAD thing. It's only bad when used as a crutch and it limits your creative vision and potential. And the exact same thing goes for flash... some people use too much flash too often (i.e. strobists) and lose creative vision for finding great natural light.

For a given wedding day, I shoot from f/1.2 to f/18 through the day. This not only helps keep my creative vision and technical skills sharp, but it also gives variety to the shoot. And variety is the spice of life, right? It is a great practice to shoot in all sorts of different techniques. I'm constantly working on this, and still have a long ways to go to mastering all of it.

And heck, it keeps shooting INTERESTING!

To me, it's all about how the client reacts to the photo. Lots of times, they aren't aware of shallow dof consciously... it just increases the impact because of how their eye goes right to the subject. Otoh, if it's a party shot, then they're frustrated by shallow dof because they want to see who else is in the picture. I find it lots of fun to use aperture control to decide what the subject will like best... sometimes I get it right.

It really depends on what you're shooting. I think it takes just as much effort to effectively shoot at 1.2 as it does to shoot a scene at f/8 or f/11. There's so many variables to this that all it's going to do is bring out the fanboys for each side. I like shooting with a shallow DOF for most situations because I do find myself in busier settings that would include distracting elements if shot at f/8+. On the other hand, I've been admiring Chris Crisman's work a lot lately and he effectively uses both thanks to layering multiple shots. I've been wanting to try this with more car shoots lately shooting the car at f/8+ and finding a bg that was nice enough (read little to no distractions) to shoot and then compositing them together.

I believe what most mean by being creative with the faster lens, is there is opportunity to shoot at very shallow dof, whereas with slower lens, that opportunity is not available.

I do not believe most think there is no creativity with the "other" dof in slower lenses.

pbelarge wrote in post #11528604
I believe what most mean by being creative with the faster lens, is there is opportunity to shoot at very shallow dof, whereas with slower lens, that opportunity is not available.

Hmm. I was thinking along the lines of the suggestions many hear that using primes can be more creative because it forces the photographer to adapt to limited AOVs.

But if having a faster lens is more creative by giving more options, isn't a zoom also more creative by giving more options?

Back to my original thought: I think that for many of us, as we learn photography we are prone to falling into certain ruts. Our thinking is narrowed by what we have experienced.

Find yourself not moving around and really thinking about perspective? Perhaps shooting with one or two primes for a bit would help.

Find yourself shooting everything at f/1.4 and smearing all backgrounds to nothing? Perhaps shooting with a slow zoom for a while would help.

Find yourself saying 'I hate flash, I never use it?' Perhaps getting some a Speedlight or two and some cheap radio triggers would help.

I guess what struck as strange is that the only one of those three items I ever hear regularly is the first one.

Like most things in life, there is no one right or wrong.

I can understand someone saying that a prime forces can force one to look at the world differently. Once in awhile that may not be a bad idea to kick start one's creative juices.

The background. This is one area I have struggled with for a long time and am only now getting a grip on things. Although I was usually conscious of what was behind the subject, I now spend as much time on the background as I do in posing/framing/capturi​ng the right expression. I still prefer to capture a less posed look so I tend to take a lot of shots in fairly quick succession when I am shooting and get the subject to move between shots. I don't spray and pray, though and I am always looking at what is behind the subject. There has to a reason I just snapped the shutter another time.

I am also more aware of the little things. I hair out of place, some jewelery hanging awkwardly, that type of thing. I can kick myself the number of times I have returned and when reviewing images I get the "perfect pose, expression " but what is that tree sticking out of her head, feeling. That's just an example. Usually it's a necklace askew or something less dramatic.

Now, what does this have to do with the topic ? Sure, you can blur a background into unintelligible soup but that most likely means you have made the decision that the background is not important so, you've cropped tight. Nothing wrong with that, if that is the way you like to shoot or the picture calls for it. But someone can't tell me that the ability to render backgrounds into mush is somehow more creative, more liberating. For many it is a crutch, the easy way out, the least imaginative and creative. It's dismissing what, often, makes up the majority of the frame.

bohdank wrote in post #11528692
Now, what does this have to do with the topic ? Sure, you can blur a background into unintelligible soup but that most likely means you have made the decision that the background is not important so, you've cropped tight. Nothing wrong with that, if that is the way you like to shoot or the picture calls for it. But someone can't tell me that the ability to render backgrounds into mush is somehow more creative, more liberating. For many it is a crutch, the easy way out, the least imaginative and creative. It's dismissing what, often, makes up the majority of the frame.

I was thinking this year, I would like to spend more time shooting portraits with the camera held horizontally. I want to work on that space - and not just a blur of mush ether.

I almost never shoot people in portrait orientation, anymore, unless I think it is the best way to show, stress what I want to say. I seem to have acquired a feeling of having blinkers on when I look at portrait oriented images. I think my images are better for it.

I came to this conclusion when I realized why I wanted to take a shot of something. More often than not, what I was seeing with my eyes was the subject (animated or inanimate) in its environment. Taking away the environment, well, they didn't turn out having the same emotional response, from me.

You're right - photographers need to expand their knowledge and many tend to get tunnel vision and hit a wall. Whether it be with primes or zooms - the important part is knowing the fundamentals and how the different elements affect the overall picture. I have no problem with people shooting with shallow DOF - as long as they know why they are doing it and have a reason. Shooting at f/1.2/1.4/1.8 for no better reason than to blur everything into nothingness or shooting only at f/5.6-f/8 only because they feel that is the sharpest/only setting is not the way. If the background elements are not adding to the photo - it is usually hurting it - it is the photographer's job to compose a beautiful image and choose the appropriate settings.

Sometimes the answer to getting out of a creative rut is to use the tools that we are not comfortable with. Months ago - lighting was something that I was not comfortable using and I avoided it due to my lack of knowledge. I always made excuses about why external flashes were not the way to go. I finally convinced myself otherwise and made an effort to use my Speedlite for almost every shoot. Me going outside my comfort zone opened up my creativity and made me a better photographer.

Whats the point of this thread ? To create controversy ?

A good enough reason as any

mdgrwl wrote in post #11528811
Whats the point of this thread ? To create controversy ?

To promote discussion and learn from each other.

I guess we could just have more threads comparing infinitesimally small differences in lenses instead.

For me, a prime would allow me quicker reaction time to nail the shot. Shallower DOF is only a bonus. Like this shot of my niece learning how to open and close the door. I was playing with her and had no ideas what she would do next. She is almost 2. With a zoom, I may miss this shot because I may try to decide how to frame her (full body shot or some half of it). This is shot was shot at f2.5. Sigma 50.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11528869
To promote discussion and learn from each other.

I guess we could just have more threads comparing infinitesimally small differences in lenses instead.

well I think anything that breaks you out of a rut spurs creativity.

i was in a zoom rut, and a UWA rut - so my primes did spur creativity and opened my horizons. are you going to say I'm wrong?

i'm sure I'll get into a prime rut, and flash will break that... or something else will

but by the title and your approach, it doesn't seem like you want to talk about creativity. it seems like your the zoom police and want to target and bash primes.