Rajan Parrikar wrote:
I don't know if you have photographed in India or any third-world countries. Often, the most beautiful things are juxtaposed with the most butt-ugly objects. Often, the background is awful. Often, you have to make do with the less-than-optimal lighting.
I'm not over analyzing anything. I responded to a comment that's all. I also understand the "classical" rules of composition, but that doesn't mean they can or should always be observed.
As for photographing in India, no I never have but it's high on my list. As for 3rd world countries, yes, several. if you read my post again, I acknowledge that you can't control everything and you have to take what's there sometimes. That doesn't change compositional rules (adhered to or broken) and it doesn't make a snapshot a great photo. if you like/love, then that's what's important. I have many shots that others may not appreciate, but they're evocative of something larger not conveyed by the image alone.
John Mills wrote:
I would disagree Will the 17mm is the best lens I have ever used. If you are an architectural photographer then it is worth every dollar spent. Just like you are with the 400 f2.8 I would never think that lens is worth the money and that is certainly a lot more than the 17mm. It all depends on what you shoot, and the type of work that you shoot there is no use for an architectural lens.
+1 to a point.
For me the 24 TS-E 2 is best. When wider than the 24 is a must, then the 17 TS-E is the best.
Yes, they're both a lot of money, but you do get what you pay for. IMHO
Peter
Architectural Photography by Peter Montanti, www.mountainphotographics.com
