Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Years ago, professional photographers switched to using zooms for nearly everything, except for specialized work like macrophotography. Despite that, it is almost universally believed by amateurs on photo forums that using zooms is lazy and that 'real photographer' don't use zooms. They use single focal-length lenses and adjust the composition of their images by "Zooming With Their Feet." That is, they walk closer or further from the subject to adjust the size of the subject in the image.
Of course zooms are not made for many types of cameras (like rangefinders), so instead of a zoom, you would carry a selection of single focal length lenses. A popular idea on RFF is that you should carry only one lens, taking the "Zoom With Your Feet" concept to its most extreme.
The problem with only using one lens and "Zooming With Your Feet" is that the place you stand when you photograph does much more than establish the size of the subject in the image. It affects relationships between the subject and the background and foreground. By carrying only one lens focal length, you're constraining yourself to the point of making many photographs impossible. Here are some examples:
Consider this photograph of my house. There is a large tree in my neighbor's back yard, and it is mostly hidden by my house. I say "Mostly" because some of that tree's branches are visible, sticking out from the side of my house's roof on the left side of the photo. They're ugly and distracting. If I were using a single lens, I'd be stuck with it.
For this photograph, I moved closer to the house, making the tree branches disappear behind the house. To maintain a similar subject size, I set the zoom lens I was using to a shorter (wider angle) focal length.
Here's another example. This is another house in my neighborhood in Fort Wayne. Look at the right side of the image, and you can see a small part of the garage (and the car parked in front of it) sticking out from the side of the house. The garage is not attached to the house, it sits behind and to one side of the house. That little bit of the garage and the car are distracting and ugly. If I had only one single focal-length lens with me, I'd be unable to make a better picture.
As I did in the photograph of my house, I was able to remove the distracting background element by moving closer to the house. Once again, I zoomed out to a shorter, wider-angle, focal-length lens in order to maintain a similar subject size in the image.
These examples were made with a digital camera with a zoom lens (Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II with the 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens), but the conclusions are just as valid with film. You don't even need a zoom lens. When I shoot with my Leicas, I carry 21mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm lenses so that I can choose the one closest to what is needed to get the composition with the subject/foreground/background relationships I want.
The right way to work is NOT to chose a lens then walk back and forth to get the composition. The right way is to find the place to stand that gives you places the subject and other elements in the image in the right places, then choose the lens (or zoom setting if you use a zoom) that will work to get the composition you want from that camera position!
Of course zooms are not made for many types of cameras (like rangefinders), so instead of a zoom, you would carry a selection of single focal length lenses. A popular idea on RFF is that you should carry only one lens, taking the "Zoom With Your Feet" concept to its most extreme.
The problem with only using one lens and "Zooming With Your Feet" is that the place you stand when you photograph does much more than establish the size of the subject in the image. It affects relationships between the subject and the background and foreground. By carrying only one lens focal length, you're constraining yourself to the point of making many photographs impossible. Here are some examples:
Consider this photograph of my house. There is a large tree in my neighbor's back yard, and it is mostly hidden by my house. I say "Mostly" because some of that tree's branches are visible, sticking out from the side of my house's roof on the left side of the photo. They're ugly and distracting. If I were using a single lens, I'd be stuck with it.
For this photograph, I moved closer to the house, making the tree branches disappear behind the house. To maintain a similar subject size, I set the zoom lens I was using to a shorter (wider angle) focal length.
Here's another example. This is another house in my neighborhood in Fort Wayne. Look at the right side of the image, and you can see a small part of the garage (and the car parked in front of it) sticking out from the side of the house. The garage is not attached to the house, it sits behind and to one side of the house. That little bit of the garage and the car are distracting and ugly. If I had only one single focal-length lens with me, I'd be unable to make a better picture.
As I did in the photograph of my house, I was able to remove the distracting background element by moving closer to the house. Once again, I zoomed out to a shorter, wider-angle, focal-length lens in order to maintain a similar subject size in the image.
These examples were made with a digital camera with a zoom lens (Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II with the 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens), but the conclusions are just as valid with film. You don't even need a zoom lens. When I shoot with my Leicas, I carry 21mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm lenses so that I can choose the one closest to what is needed to get the composition with the subject/foreground/background relationships I want.
The right way to work is NOT to chose a lens then walk back and forth to get the composition. The right way is to find the place to stand that gives you places the subject and other elements in the image in the right places, then choose the lens (or zoom setting if you use a zoom) that will work to get the composition you want from that camera position!
helen.HH
A smile & a wink…
Well it’s really far more sensible to zoom with the feet
Than do a Toobin on Zoom... wink, wink
Than do a Toobin on Zoom... wink, wink
Pablito
coco frío
That was a pretty good explanation of the way different focal length lenses "see", and "zooming with your feet" is certainly a fundamentally flawed concept.
The problem with the final argument is that there is no "right" way to work. I mean HCB shot almost everything with a 50, Winogrand with a 28, so many Magnum folks and others work only with a 35, etc.
The problem with the final argument is that there is no "right" way to work. I mean HCB shot almost everything with a 50, Winogrand with a 28, so many Magnum folks and others work only with a 35, etc.
wes loder
Photographer/Historian
I actually kinda' like the tree poking around the edge of your roof. Helps frame the house. The neighbor house with the garage showing has less wide-angle distortion. So I would leave the garage showing. Each to their own.
peterm1
Mentor
Some people argue that primes should be used over zooms full stop. And that necessitates "zooming with your feet" as a kind of justification for this.
I am more flexible......I admit I do tend to use primes over zooms for two reasons. The first is that I like using old classic lenses on mirrorless cameras and in general (with some notable exceptions) primes were better back in "the day" and there is also a bigger choice of such lenses to buy.
This is not to say I will not buy and use an old classic zoom if it has a good reputation. For example, Nikon made a couple of great 80-200mm zooms (both f4 and f4.5) in when was it(?) the 1970s and 1980s, and other excellent shorter zooms were made by Minolta (a couple of which ended up in the Leica stable) Olympus and Konica to name a few that I have bought. But even though those zooms I mentioned are good I still often give priority to primes for their speed.
The second main issue for me concerns the weight of zooms. Good pro quality zooms (from back in the day) tended to be heavy and large and I find it easier to use a prime if I am going to do any extended amount of walking. Even if I take two primes - a longer one on the camera and a wider one in the bag for example this still works for me weight wise. Having said this, modern zooms - especially those designed for m4/3 cameras are quite small and light and I find them less problematic to carry around for extended periods.
In short I guess it is not so much a question of being biased against zooms or wanting to "zoom with my feet" it is more an issue of my personal priorities and the tradeoffs I am willing to make. I will often not have a zoom with me for the above reasons. So I have to "zoom with my feet" in those circumstances.
I do agree however with your primary contention that by moving closer or further away you change the relationship with the subject and the background and that this may or may not work to your advantage, hence it is better to chose your point of view - then choose your lens (or zoom point) accordingly.
I am more flexible......I admit I do tend to use primes over zooms for two reasons. The first is that I like using old classic lenses on mirrorless cameras and in general (with some notable exceptions) primes were better back in "the day" and there is also a bigger choice of such lenses to buy.
This is not to say I will not buy and use an old classic zoom if it has a good reputation. For example, Nikon made a couple of great 80-200mm zooms (both f4 and f4.5) in when was it(?) the 1970s and 1980s, and other excellent shorter zooms were made by Minolta (a couple of which ended up in the Leica stable) Olympus and Konica to name a few that I have bought. But even though those zooms I mentioned are good I still often give priority to primes for their speed.
The second main issue for me concerns the weight of zooms. Good pro quality zooms (from back in the day) tended to be heavy and large and I find it easier to use a prime if I am going to do any extended amount of walking. Even if I take two primes - a longer one on the camera and a wider one in the bag for example this still works for me weight wise. Having said this, modern zooms - especially those designed for m4/3 cameras are quite small and light and I find them less problematic to carry around for extended periods.
In short I guess it is not so much a question of being biased against zooms or wanting to "zoom with my feet" it is more an issue of my personal priorities and the tradeoffs I am willing to make. I will often not have a zoom with me for the above reasons. So I have to "zoom with my feet" in those circumstances.
I do agree however with your primary contention that by moving closer or further away you change the relationship with the subject and the background and that this may or may not work to your advantage, hence it is better to chose your point of view - then choose your lens (or zoom point) accordingly.
aizan
Mentor
The “zoom with your feet” guys are usually talking about human subjects in dynamic situations (street and portraits), but the importance of perspective and its impact on focal length selection and working methods is always a good thing to bring attention to.
A working method that starts with determining perspective encourages people to buy a zoom lens or a wide range of primes to “cover their bases.” The “minimalist purists” put a value judgment on what’s in other people’s camera bags because they’ve seen the light and moved onto a higher plane of existence, which annoys me a little because they’re assuming that what works for them should work for everyone.
I get it, you found out that you didn’t need to buy so many lenses. Congratulations.
A working method that starts with determining perspective encourages people to buy a zoom lens or a wide range of primes to “cover their bases.” The “minimalist purists” put a value judgment on what’s in other people’s camera bags because they’ve seen the light and moved onto a higher plane of existence, which annoys me a little because they’re assuming that what works for them should work for everyone.
I get it, you found out that you didn’t need to buy so many lenses. Congratulations.
charjohncarter
Mentor
I'm lucky if I get everything right with my camera, so feet zooming is for me. And besides that never having used a zoom I have a problem with wide angle distortion.
I appreciate your effort Chris and always like your photos. However, here I have to say I prefer the first photo in each case. The trees give the roof depth in the first one, and seeing the entire fence (left) and part of the garage (right) helps the photo balance for me. It's ok, it's all subjective. Another point is that many people are not as exact in their framing as you are. Many photographers are very loose on purpose. There's no one size fits all in photography. So, it can be dumb and it can work perfectly.
sjones
Established
I shoot with a 50mm on a rangefinder, that’s it. I have a 35mm, but I think the last time I used it was six years ago (plus or minus one). And I have absolutely no desire to use anything longer. Maybe one day I’ll try out a 28mm, maybe.
Berate me all you want; tell me my photography will suffer. But I’m not the one criticizing anyone else’s approach or demanding that they mirror mine.
Ultimately, this is my thing. I don’t get paid…yet. Personal preference is a funny thing, doused in subjectivity as it is.
Use what you want or need; a trillion quadrillion photos taken every millisecond, there’s room for everyone.
Berate me all you want; tell me my photography will suffer. But I’m not the one criticizing anyone else’s approach or demanding that they mirror mine.
Ultimately, this is my thing. I don’t get paid…yet. Personal preference is a funny thing, doused in subjectivity as it is.
Use what you want or need; a trillion quadrillion photos taken every millisecond, there’s room for everyone.
Richard G
Mentor
1. A pity you had to say dumb. That's not a very friendly start.
2. I also prefer the first two photos, which have these extra bits and the cost of removing them, particularly in the neighbour's house, is too great: the charm of the architecture has been lost a lot in that second shot.
3. Certainly I use all three (but mostly two) lenses on my iPhone 11 Pro, for the reasons you mention. But with an RF camera having it with me, compact and nearly always one lens, is my way of walking with a camera. I can take a 28 or a 50 and just make do. Colour or Black and White, and I make do. If you see with a certain habitually used focal length or type of film you choose the shots.
4. Your project requires you to have your different lenses. Many of the results end up being a different sort of compromise. War correspondents in a trench can't zoom with their feet: they would lose them. Event photographers in a designated area the same. Great shots are got with a two lens kit, 28-70 and 70-200. But that's a different sort of photography.
2. I also prefer the first two photos, which have these extra bits and the cost of removing them, particularly in the neighbour's house, is too great: the charm of the architecture has been lost a lot in that second shot.
3. Certainly I use all three (but mostly two) lenses on my iPhone 11 Pro, for the reasons you mention. But with an RF camera having it with me, compact and nearly always one lens, is my way of walking with a camera. I can take a 28 or a 50 and just make do. Colour or Black and White, and I make do. If you see with a certain habitually used focal length or type of film you choose the shots.
4. Your project requires you to have your different lenses. Many of the results end up being a different sort of compromise. War correspondents in a trench can't zoom with their feet: they would lose them. Event photographers in a designated area the same. Great shots are got with a two lens kit, 28-70 and 70-200. But that's a different sort of photography.
Richard G
Mentor
PS I noticed a remarkable change in the presence of your photos when you first started using the Leica and one lens.
David Murphy
Mentor
I love Zoom lenses - on SLR's. They are very practical for taking pictures under a wide range of unpredictable circumstances. I have found that many after market brand Zooms like recent models from Vivitar and Tokina, produce fine results at very modest cost (I favor the 28mm - 200mm models, but sometimes shorter on the long end when I need to cut down the weight). Some of these zooms can even be found new-old-stock today, were made fairly recently, and their manufacture took advantage of recent advances in modern optical engineering.
Nevertheless I can still notice some some quality differences in favor of fixed focal length lenses, especially on the wide angle side, but they are often not significant enough to outweigh the practical value of Zooms. When enough light is available to stop down a bit, the advantages of fixed focal length lenses in SLR's diminish further.
On the less practical side, zooms can also be fun to use. One can focus a lot on shooting and effects, and much less on changing lenses all the time and framing issues. With rangefinders, I am usually doing a different sort of photography, more experimental and "art" oriented really - and slower, more methodical most of the time, and attempting to really squeeze maximal technical performance from the camera, lens., film, and light. I reserve rangefinders usually too for times when I want to keep it light and inconspicuous - and they do that far better than a 35mm SLR with a big zoom hanging off it.
Zooms are still somewhat bulky and heavy, although they have certainly improved in that regard in recent years, sometimes at the expense of build quality however.
Chris, your house looks just great, as do those of your neighbor - real classics!
Nevertheless I can still notice some some quality differences in favor of fixed focal length lenses, especially on the wide angle side, but they are often not significant enough to outweigh the practical value of Zooms. When enough light is available to stop down a bit, the advantages of fixed focal length lenses in SLR's diminish further.
On the less practical side, zooms can also be fun to use. One can focus a lot on shooting and effects, and much less on changing lenses all the time and framing issues. With rangefinders, I am usually doing a different sort of photography, more experimental and "art" oriented really - and slower, more methodical most of the time, and attempting to really squeeze maximal technical performance from the camera, lens., film, and light. I reserve rangefinders usually too for times when I want to keep it light and inconspicuous - and they do that far better than a 35mm SLR with a big zoom hanging off it.
Zooms are still somewhat bulky and heavy, although they have certainly improved in that regard in recent years, sometimes at the expense of build quality however.
Chris, your house looks just great, as do those of your neighbor - real classics!
CMur12
Well-known
Chris, I tend to use a couple of favorite focal lengths, visualizing my images based on what I have mounted on the camera. I haven't liked zooms when I have tried them in the past, however I have acquired a nice DSLR with a couple of zooms that I need to come to terms with!
I get your point, though, and will add it to my considerations. Thanks.
- Murray
I get your point, though, and will add it to my considerations. Thanks.
- Murray
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've never used a Leica and one lens, though I know that's a popular way to work here. I shoot with a couple of Leicas (Two IIIf bodies and an M3) and I have 21, 28, 35, 50, 90, and 135mm lenses for them. I carry several lenses and choose the lens after I find something I want to photograph.
The 50 and 35mm lenses are my most-often used, so I can see why you thought I only used one lens. So why not carry only those two? Because every time I have tried that I've lost a shot that I couldn't make the way I wanted to make it because THAT TIME I didn't have the right tools for the job with me.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
That's ok, its a personal artistic choice. Neither of the examples I posted are great photographs, they're just quick examples I made showing how the relationship between subject and background change when you move closer or further away from the subject.
It got people's attention! I said it that way because this mantra that "you should zoom with your feet" is repeated constantly on internet forums with little thought to the effects of it on the final image. One of the biggest failings that I see in the work of photographers who are still learning is that they don't pay attention to their backgrounds or to the relationships between the subject and the background. I wanted to make people think about something that is often overlooked.
Zooms for fullframe cameras are just outrageously big and heavy. Its why I switched to micro four thirds. I shoot with the Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II, and I usually have the vertical grip on it. This camera is huge by m4/3 standards, but even with the (also big by m4/3 standards) 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus Pro zoom on it, it is tiny and light compared to a fullframe camera, SLR or mirrorless, with a zoom of equivalent focal length range and aperture.
Build quality sucks on most modern lenses, even primes, with few exceptions. Leica and Cosina Voigtlander lenses are well built. I have a couple of Olympus primes (45mm f1.8 and 60mm f2.8 Macro) for m4/3 and they're plastic crap....though image quality with both is incredibly good. Even the Olympus lenses that they market as "metal bodied" are plastic inside with a thin metal skin and a metal lensmount.
My house used to be my grandparents' house. My mom grew up in this house; her parents bought it in the late 1950s when she was 7 or 8 yrs old. It was built in 1930. Its a nice house, and bigger inside than it looks. It has two big bedrooms on the first floor, which my son and I sleep in; and two small ones upstairs. My son uses one as a work room for his electronics projects and I use the other to store books. I have almost 3000 books. The whole house is full of them!
I grew up in this neighborhood; my parents still live in the house they bought a few months before I was born. Its just around the block from my place.
farlymac
PF McFarland
I'm not one to adhere to any one method when it comes to composing a shot, Chris. I'll use whatever works in the moment. If I have time to change lenses then I will, but if not then the feet do the work.
If I'm using an SLR/DSLR I'm more likely to have a zoom affixed, though a couple of them I'm not really enamored with due to barrel distortion, and have plans to replace them.
Some cameras I only have one lens for them, or it's a fixed mount with no adapters (I've got boxes full of compacts), so I get my exercise using them.
If someone wants to stylize their photography by working around the limitations of using only one lens, I'm not going to fault them for it. There are lots of times I go out with the express purpose of using all the lenses in the bag, and then only use one. I just didn't see anything that day that required a lens change.
PF
If I'm using an SLR/DSLR I'm more likely to have a zoom affixed, though a couple of them I'm not really enamored with due to barrel distortion, and have plans to replace them.
Some cameras I only have one lens for them, or it's a fixed mount with no adapters (I've got boxes full of compacts), so I get my exercise using them.
If someone wants to stylize their photography by working around the limitations of using only one lens, I'm not going to fault them for it. There are lots of times I go out with the express purpose of using all the lenses in the bag, and then only use one. I just didn't see anything that day that required a lens change.
PF
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I learned photography as skill via P.O.T.N. Back in 2009 it has many professionals with L zooms on Canon DSLRs. And L primes collectors. Nobody mentioned rangefinder. It was/is one of the biggest photography forums on the internet. Zooms were considered as universal, primes as more sharp lenses for less money.
Maybe it was like OP talk about zooming, but nothing to be a big fuzz in the cup of English tea cup.
The zooming with prime or whatever is kind of attention seeking statement to me.
I like primes because they are small. Small zooms, I also like them.
What I find about primes, they have pre-determined distances. 28 is great for busy streets, 35 is in between. 50 is for the middle of nowhere.
I have 22-55 compact, film era EF/AF/USM zoom on my Canon RP. It is so much easier as switching primes. All I have to do is to look at the scene and determine which focal length is suitable. Formula for focal distances works most of the time.
All I have to do is to select 22, 28, 35 or 55. I don't select in-between. I pre-select. Instead of switching primes.
I don't mind to take single camera, single prime lens with me. But it dictates a lot more.
I can't zoom out with 50mm in busy street. It just looks telescopic or too much of cut out. This is why Winogrand liked 21, but stopped at 28 as no distortions lens. Once his capabilities were declined, he was using something he used at beginning. Lenses allowing to take it from distance. Just as HCB became unfit, he switched to 90mm more and more.
Maybe it was like OP talk about zooming, but nothing to be a big fuzz in the cup of English tea cup.
The zooming with prime or whatever is kind of attention seeking statement to me.
I like primes because they are small. Small zooms, I also like them.
What I find about primes, they have pre-determined distances. 28 is great for busy streets, 35 is in between. 50 is for the middle of nowhere.
I have 22-55 compact, film era EF/AF/USM zoom on my Canon RP. It is so much easier as switching primes. All I have to do is to look at the scene and determine which focal length is suitable. Formula for focal distances works most of the time.
All I have to do is to select 22, 28, 35 or 55. I don't select in-between. I pre-select. Instead of switching primes.
I don't mind to take single camera, single prime lens with me. But it dictates a lot more.
I can't zoom out with 50mm in busy street. It just looks telescopic or too much of cut out. This is why Winogrand liked 21, but stopped at 28 as no distortions lens. Once his capabilities were declined, he was using something he used at beginning. Lenses allowing to take it from distance. Just as HCB became unfit, he switched to 90mm more and more.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Mr. Crawford,
Please don't quote me and ascribe the notion of "zoom with your feet" to anything I've ever said. I've never, ever used that term or suggested that as a technique: To me, it's a dumb concept.
You quoted me and took what I said in a direction that has nothing to do, whatever, with anything I've ever said or taught in 55 years of doing photography as if they were connected. I find that somewhat offensive, to be truthful, because you didn't even bother to ask me anything about the concept you wanted to disparage yet you used my words to lead into your denouement.
I request you edit your original post and remove the quote from it. The notion I was articulating has nothing to do with anything you said.
G
Please don't quote me and ascribe the notion of "zoom with your feet" to anything I've ever said. I've never, ever used that term or suggested that as a technique: To me, it's a dumb concept.
You quoted me and took what I said in a direction that has nothing to do, whatever, with anything I've ever said or taught in 55 years of doing photography as if they were connected. I find that somewhat offensive, to be truthful, because you didn't even bother to ask me anything about the concept you wanted to disparage yet you used my words to lead into your denouement.
I request you edit your original post and remove the quote from it. The notion I was articulating has nothing to do with anything you said.
G