From: Jon (email@example.com)
Date: 12/20/02-09:07:38 PM Z
> For an example of one of the bits: someone, whose post I must have
> deleted and whose name I didn't recognize as a frequent contributor,
> said something to the effect that while a photograph of the landscape
> taken with a telephoto lens is certainly a photograph, it couldn't
> rightly be called a *landscape* photograph, apparently because it
> wouldn't represent perspective accurately, which has been puzzling me
> ever since.
That was me. And I didn't say that a telephoto 'couldn't' be considered a
landscape. I stated that it has the potential of becoming something other
then a landscape. But there are people that would consider the image a
landscape simply based on the subject matter and/or where it was
Yes, I agree a landscape can be made with a telephoto. However, depending
on your definition of landscape, a wide angle lens is more successfully
used (and used more often) in landscape photography.
A question to pose to the list: (I already have my opinion)
Why are we arguing about tele and landscape based on the distortion
presented by the lens without even mentioning the distortion created by a
wide angle lens.
I think there is some confusion.
I see two separate questions/topics being discussed. First, when
something crosses the threshold of 'photographic' and secondly, what makes
a photograph a landscape.
Is anybody going to challenge me in saying that it is significantly easier
to make a 'landscape' with a wide angle lens vs. a telephoto?
And, for clarification, this does not mean that a landscape can not be
created with a telephoto.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST