Yeah, I'll say. A 600mm is really immoral <VBG> Kenneth Waller
----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) > Did someone say something about the immorality of a lens choice? I must > have missed that. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I agree completely. And I frequently engage subjects. But I don't > consider long-lens -- or short lens -- candids to be in any way immoral. > > Paul > > > > > > > It depends on what you're trying to photograph, Paul. See my comments > to > > > Keith ... some people want candids, others, myself included, want > something > > > different. And it's not an either/or proposition. A photographer can > take > > > more intimate photos AND candids, even on the same day with the same > lens > > > ;-)) > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> > > > > Date: 6/27/2005 11:17:55 AM > > > > Subject: RE: morality part 2 (Was: Porto street shots) > > > > > > > > If the subject knows you're photographing him or her, the chance of > > > capturing a candid, unposed moment is lost. Thus, in the interest of > good > > > photography, I believe it's better to apologize after the fact if > > > necessary. I would guess that more than half of HCB's subjects didn't > know > > > they were being photographed. Thus, lens length becomes somewhat > > > irrelevant. But FWIW, even shooting with a 200 or 300, close to half of > my > > > subjects realize they're being photographed. When I shoot with a 35 or > 50, > > > the percentage probably goes up to about 60. I prefer long lenses more > for > > > the minimal depth of field rather than for the element of surprise, but > > > they help with both. > > > > > > > >
