@@TinHouseStudioUK gotta be freaking joking me any one can simply print screen and verify that you did nothing in technical controlled way here my dislike have a good weekend
That saying was meant figuratively, not literally. The idea is that you shouldn’t be a lazy photographer and stand in the same spot and let the zoom lens decide your composition.
As someone who started with 2 medium format camera in 1959 and didn't have a zoom lens, which was crap by the way, until 1979, we learned to first determine the perspective we want by MOVING our feet...not zooming.... then we selected the lens that gave us the crop we wanted. What you see novice photographers doing today is hanging a zoom lens on and when they see something that they like, stand in place and just zoom. No consideration of perspective. Zooms have come a long way, but it is a rare one, loaded with all that glass, that matches a low element prime. Yes, there are types of photography where you can't or can't quickly get closer/further away. Sports, wedding. But as a film shooter who can't change film stocks, iso, color/b&w instantly even with changeable backs. I carry more than one film camera. I'm 77, and if someone says that's too much weight, get in the darn gym. But for wild live moving fast, sporting events. yes, a zoom has some advantages. But for decades, pros did just fine with primes. But as in everything photography, horses for courses.
Isn’t zooming with a wide to telephoto lens like a 24-70 technically both (perspective and cropping)? Zooming with your feet with it at 24 is going to crop in but also be a different perspective as it features become even more exaggerated. I get the feeling zooming with your feet makes more sense when you are talking more with a 70-200 but still it is different as you say but not as dramatically so as a zoom with a wide to telephoto. This is a good video though as it is pertinent information to understand what to expect from focal length, proximity to subject, and background separation.
It all depends where and what you shoot. When I’m hiking in the mountains, I can’t just go on the other side of the valley and extend my 5-7 hour hike by two more hours. I don’t know about other brands, but the Fuji 16-55 and 50-140 really are "a bag of primes" when it comes to sharpness and quality.
I think that's why this is still a really good instructional technique. If it was taught as perspective and cropping (instead of moving and zooming) it would probably be more helpful. Also a reason I like zooms for wide and telephoto where you need to extend your width or reach but primes for the normal range.
Perspective vs Cropping... It's been a long time since my photography class. (We used celluloid and had limits. THAT long ago.) So this simple tradeoff idea is worth a lot to me. Thank you. Also, you're pretty good at this. I'm not sure you'll take that as matter-of-factly as I've given it, but that's what I think. For me, there's a factual-ness that I want, plus a sense of humor that I appreciate. If I were to guess, I'd say this is the same mix we find in your product photography style. The references to what has gone before... the references land, even if I can't precisely name the reference, it's there in my "sense of things"... uh, it feels right and I smile often. 👍
That's not zooming. Getting closer to a subject by physically moving yourself and calling it 'zooming' is incorrect. Zooming refers to using a lens or digital technology to magnify an image while maintaining the same distance from the subject. There are two types of zoom: *optical zoom* and *digital zoom* . - *Optical zoom* is when a camera's lens adjusts to bring the subject closer without degrading image quality. - *Digital zoom* is when the camera crops and enlarges the image, simulating being closer, but at the cost of resolution and quality. Physically moving closer to your subject isn't 'zooming'; it's simply changing your position or perspective. The confusion arises because both methods result in the subject appearing larger in the frame, but they are fundamentally different processes. Zooming uses technology, while moving closer changes the actual distance.
Here's the thing A lot of people don't plan their shoots as much as you do. When they have a zoom lens they'll just stand there and zoom in and take the picture. They don't give composition a second thought because they can just simply zoom in. When they use their feet to move forward or back they have more of a chance of walking around and looking at the thing at different angles and it gives them an opportunity to pause and think about their composition.
My old photographer teacher was real old school and ex-UN commander, but he told us a trick with zoom lenses because he actually loved using zooms and told us that primes only made sense on a medium format (film) and our digital cameras (6 - 8 megapixels at the time) did not resolve enough details for it to matter. So he said, "Imagine your zoom lens being multiple primes in one lens, divide the lens up to your wanted range, 35 - 50 and 70 and use those and only those. And that made a lot of sense to me because I mostly shoot in the 40 to 70mm range anyway, I do wide very rarely but his advice still stuck with me and I find it weird that no one talks about it anymore, zooms are great but you still need to limit yourself to a "range" because most people will just automatically go wide to fit everything in, or zoom all the way in to make detail images instead of just doing an in-between framing with both in balance. In fact, people should never start shooting on anything wider than 35mm LOL, because it does more harm than good, if you cannot shoot indoor with a 50mm, then one needs to go back and relearn the basics, my old teacher used to tell us to make stories instead of just taking location shots, by that he meant, photograph the stuff indoor, people, items, the wallpaper, the furniture. With a zoom, you can do both an establishing shot and then do story shots.
It’s called “bracketing your composition”, especially if you actually take multiple images. Also called “working the subject”. Sometimes the first thing you see is not the best available.
@buning_sensations5437 Funny you should mention math and how it's not taught like it used to be. I pointed out that if you taught math using the old log-log-decitrig slide rules, 6th graders would be proficient with everything up to differential and inferential calculus and actually understand it. I still use a slide rule to do the math to generate vintage lenses profiles to correct for distortion and lateral/vertical chromatic aberration. I can solve complex equations faster with a slide rule than I can with a scientific calculator. I used to do all the math for calculating exposure on motion picture film cameras (especially the effects of 'shutter angle' using a slide rule.
I cut the bit out about the history of the saying. It was Hass who said it in regards to getting in and amongst it, but now its cited as a reason to not change lens and the original meaning has all but vanished.
For years I had no money so all I had was a rangefinder and not in the Leica M league. Heck it wasn't even a Minolta CLE. But a Ricoh 500. Fixed lens. So zoom with my feet was all I could do. Building too wide for a 45mm lens? I talked my way into a nearby flat. My reward was a bird's eye view shot. No fish eye lens? I put the other end of a binoculars against the fixed lens. Same effect, more or less. As one advertising agency is fond of saying, "don't outspend others, out think them."
I understand why you're saying "Zooming is cropping." Though my brain was fighting you saying that phrase, because background compression and dept of field change when you're zooming, since it all changes when you zoom. Great video!
I may not be adding much to what Scott as said, but I reckon that you first set the camera to subject diatance to control the perspective and choose the focal length (by zooming or switching primes) to determine the crop.
I kinda assumed the whole point of the saying was mostly for amateurs with kit lenses who couldn’t fathom why you’d pay more for a lens that didn’t zoom, and that physically moving your camera around and properly finding your framing was an important part of the learning process rather than just standing there and zooming in to get closer to your subject and saying “that’ll do”. Actively choosing to switch to a telephoto lens verses a wide angle would also be part of that leaning process. Obviously once you’ve actually figured out the basics of composition and how lens optics work it’s a very much redundant phrase because we should know better.
Probably a topic that will annoy Photographers but not non-Photographers that might be the viewing audiance of the images. The average person looking at the resulting images probably wont notice any difference in backgrounds or perpectives of an image when looking at a photo and focusing on the subject. I'd have no clue if someone used a Zoom Lens or a Prime by looking at a random image on the internet, and probably would not care. I either like the image or I dont.
True, but of course, all this stuff is actually what contributes to how effective a picture is - so without analysing the why and how, many viewing punters will nevertheless discern that one picture is "better" than another! For them, it's not about how the image was achieved, but simply what they see!
I think you misunderstood what is meant by this. "Zooming with your feet" means you decide what focal length to use, and then move around the subject accordingly, so that you don't end up with a random focal length that can have a drastic impact on perspective, as you explained.
Im not sure thats what the saying means in most places. And the original meaning was from Hass and more in line with James Nachtwey if your photo sucks get closer. But now its what people use as an argument for primes over zooms.
No, he did not say focal lenght has impact on perspective, quite the contrary it has not. Your terminology (or at least the definition of perspective) is wrong.
@@TinHouseStudioUK I think this goes back to Robert Capa who said "'If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough'". I studied documentary photography where this argument is used a lot and it does mean that you decide on the focal length first and then work around the subject. But regardless, I think another way of looking at a zoom lens is to think of it as a collection of focal lengths. So once again, you decide on the focal length, you set it, and then move around the subject. I also think that zooms are not as goof as primes. Even though the modern zooms are very good, the high quality primes are better.
@@MezeiEugen When you change the focal length you will have to change the distance from the subject to, for example, fill a frame, which will affect the perspective.
I dont think it means you do that for choosing your focal lenght. Originally it was meant as consolation for the amateur that could not afford (or had a camera with non changeable lens) different focales. Sort of "you can do what the pros do, shoe sole wear is cheaper than a second lens and almost as good". Later, when 3 lens kits (usually 28, 50, 135mm) became cheaper and usual for amateurs, the consolation was regarding the still not in budget limits of amateurs. It comes even better in German, where zooms are called rubber lenses. There the sayin is about focusing with your sneakers, as those have rubber soles. (Turnshuhzoom.) "What zoom do you have?" "Ich habe einen Turnschuhzoom."
Tim, yes you are correct. It's all about the relative distance from camera to subject vs camera to background.... and what that does to relative perspective. I have used that expression many times (ZWYF) without paying it much attention. But yes, it's possibly more complex than many novice togs realise. However I almost always consider the subject in the context of background ie with regards to what to show and extent to which a background is rendered OOF. But, I just never formally thought about it (ie operating more by instinct, experience and observation). Clearly with a zoom one can do both by adjusting zoom FL and/or moving camera closer/further from 'hero' subject. Also, to a more limited extent moving/directing main subject closer/further from background. In a wide vista it makes little difference adjusting subject to background distance (vs camera to subject). But in a relatively short subject to background (eg wall or screen ie mostly 2-D background) then getting the main subject separated further can make a huge difference.
How on earth would someone NOT understand that walking closer to the dog and photographing with the wide lens is DIFFERENT to just zooming in from where you were originally standing? Even the dog knows this is different.
Simply because it's not that intutive so that someone new to photography would immedially expect this to be the case. A layman would think "I walk closer to the subject, or I use the zoom to bring the subject closer, same difference".
I think you're making a flipped dunning Krueger mistake here. People generally assume that things that are obvious to them are obvious to others, but it's often not the case. People are often completely ignorant about things outside of their scope of interest or experience. So, no, people won't 'just' understand that, unless they have enough experience with optics. Perspective, compression, one-lens, background separation etc. isn't intuitive to the average person. I promise you, as someone who was pretty ignorant about how these things worked until a few months ago. It's not necessarily about stupidity, but you don't think about the things you don't think about. If you ask a random person to actually - think - about the dog example they will probably realize that it's - of course - different, but unless they are interested in the subject, they likely won't think about it unless something prompts them. Bigger is bigger dur...
We need to consider the context. This phrase is usually heard when a new photographer is learning primes exist. The newbie asks something like "but how do you zoom with a prime?" To which invariably a Prime Supremacist answers "I zoom with my feet, noob." This eventually becones a dogma of faith rather than a well-thought composition choice.
Most professionals don't seem to understand the benefits of zoom lenses. An example when walking in the streets: a tower above buildings. Only a zoom may be able to capture the scene because, go closer and the tower disappears behind the buildings. And when closer enough to have the tower prominently in the picture, the houses are in another position. Each lens has its purpose
That’s not the difference between a Professional and an Amateur, that’s the difference between someone who understands it and someone who doesn’t. How you make your living is irrelevant.
Well a professional can act like an amateur, and vice versa. Just because someone else does not hold you to a certain standard, does not mean that you shouldn't either ;)
@@webmuir it's just a matter of expression.doing it like a pro here means enjoying the technical advantage of both framing and perspective, instead of acting like they are mutually exclusive - like an amateur, if you would.
This is up there with "fast primes are good for low light". Are you going to shoot at f1.4 and have a crappy blurry photo just because it's dark? I like shooting with a 35mm prime, because I like how it renders the photos I like to take. I also like the rendering of a 100mm prime, but it has way more compression.
"Reframe with your feet" ... 😅(*As long as you have found the focal length that works for your vision of a completed image and completes the image overall with the aesthetics inherently displayed within that focal length...)
Professionals earn money with their work, amateurs usually don't. The quality of the photos is something totally different. Zooming with lens or feet is irrelevant for the quality of a photo.
Sometimes I move backwards to zoom in. Sometimes I realize I need to get closet to the subjet using a different optic. And when I change the optic, I sometimes move back to reframe.
Scott the effect of perspective shift of the B/G while making the action be in total focus throughout, is what we used to call a trombone effect. We'd use it a bit in commercials or as part of a VFX project. I enjoy watching your videos *as a bit of a laugh" but you shouldn't worry about all those d... heads with respect to zoom lenses and primes. The very reason I do not promote my own youtube channel, and really couldn't give a stuff about it. You CANNOT please everyone all of the time. Keep up the great work.!!!
I'm glad you covered this, because I'm well sick of being shut down by the self proclaimed "elite" hobbyists when trying to explain it to someone in response to various silly statements. Now I can sit back and watch the dills blither at you instead.
It's an analogous term, and it all depends on what photography you enjoy, or if you are a pro or amateur, etc. When I say, zoom with my feet, I essentially mean I am composing by moving forwards, back, left and right. I personally love using light gear and fixed focal lengths. I don't like thinking about the gear, just the photos I am taking
Giving the lesson that moving is for perspective and zooming is for framing is great, but I feel getting all hot about the phrase "zoom with your feet" is overblowing it a bit. That phrase IS useful when instructing a newbie shooting with a fixed lens and failing to consider the poor framing of their subject caused by it being too far away and surrounded by too much irrelevant background.
Scott rarely gets "hot." He's just having a conversation with us about the niggles of English, and the way it's carelessly used. And that's fun - like having a chat with a friend about the ways (and the nuttiness) of the (photographic) world! It's people, mate! People!
It's funny how close this topic gets to the whole "lens compression" argument. Your focal length + your field of view/ capture size + distance from subject all matter a lot. Being able to control your background, and your depth of field with this in mind, gives you a remarkable amount of control over your image and storytelling ability. I own quite a few great zoom lenses, but sometimes nothing beats doing a whole shoot on a prime. Understanding this is also why many people shoot medium format. That one line about zooming is a crop, is one of the most concise ways to describe zooming to get closer. Great video.
Swapping prime lenses is not something I do outside as I live in a corrosively invasive climate. I have a 24-70 lens with little yellow marks at 40mm and 65mm, the only focal lengths I use. Is that OK?
Wow, you discovered the definition of perspective. Btw, with longer distances between camera and subject the change of perspective does not become dramatic like you say, au contraire, with big distances the perspective changes very little, you will have to change your position also by an exponentially increasing long distance.
Glad this has been made actually. A lot of the interiors photography groups kick off about the use of wide angle lenses, partly because they say make rooms look too big “and” because they cause distortion. What they miss however is that the degree of distortion is affected, not by the lens, but due to the distance from the subject. In other words if it looks distorted the camera is too close. Don’t underestimate the value of something like an angle finder, for getting the camera closer to the wall behind you/ further away from the subject.
I love the push and pull of framing with a zoom. Balancing perspective and focal length without using multiple camera bodies is a godsend in many a situation. It's also a technique that takes time to master, I've never understood why some people refuse to learn it, just because 'some primes are sharper in the corners'. Anyway cheers
Agree. I mostly have a prime lens and many times I've seen something that's perfect, but my lens is too wide. When I get closer, the angles change and it's no longer the perfect composition, it's no longer the shot I wanted. That's why walking can't replace a zoom lens.
Eh, you could explain this easily by showing a, say, 28m and a 100mm outdoors picture taken from the required distances to get a same-sized person. The in the studio example doesn't have enough distance/compression to make it clear, and the product shots are of two different subjects, so people can't easily see the difference.
This is why I just say I am a novice photographer. I'm 74 and been with a camera since I was ten, but I don't claim to know photography. I do good to get an image that you'll look at for more than three seconds.
It took @5:15 to finish up with the chatter and tell the proper reason. I'm not fan of short videos, but these sort of things would fit much better in that format, than filling 6 minutes with some may be confusing talk. In my opinion.
Yes. I take mostly woodland photos and am limited to a 24-105mm zoom lens (a 70-200mm lens would actually be preferable for my situation in relatively closed-in woods, but it’s taken 10 years for me to figure that out). I very often see an image I’d like to capture but I’ve learned the hard way that zooming with my feet is normally a total waste of time. Exactly as you say, it changes the whole perspective and all the trees or rocks I saw with my eyes have moved their relationship to each other or disappeared out of shot altogether.
I commiserate, but you already know the answer...all you need to do is to walk in, and the meticulously move all the rocks, mountains and trees so that your subject is placed neatly between them, and there you have it...a masterpiece! /s
Divide the zoom into desired focal length, restrict yourself to those and fire away, there is a reason why zoom lenses have markings, most people just zoom in until their shot is somewhat in frame and leave it at that, instead of just "Okay I am going to 40mm now" and maybe move a little to get the framing perfect, and then "now I go 80mm" moves to a different position and take another picture, thats the versatility of a zoom, when people say you need to zoom with your feet they completely inept at understanding that you actually need to walk to different positions with a zoom lens too LOL, but the zoom lens save you time needed to switch prime lenses around and in many cases if you run and gun / journalist work, you wont have time to switch lenses, thats why zooms were invented!!! For exactly those scenarios LOL.
Unfortunately, not every single time you adjust your zoom to 50 mm will it be 50 mm. It may be 49, 51, 53.... It is that granularity that Scott talked about. Of course, due to the construction of the prime, it will most probably won't be 50 mm either. Focus breathing will change the actual distance a few mm, on top of any inaccuracies in the build of the lens, the canera, and even dilation of materials due to the temperature. But a zoom will invariably add that additional complication of taking pictures at 47mm or 231mm or 22.5mm.
@@SMGJohn Likewise, I really doubt that restrictinf your zoom to a particular range within your possibilities yields better results. Or that anyone will guve up on the shot because it required them to go beyond that artificial limit. I would say that most people talking about restricting themselves to certain points when using a zoom do not really check if their lens is within those limits when shooting.
Coming from a prime only owner (24, 25, 50, and 85). There are a few times where a zoom would have been the much better option of the shot I wanted. But! Rarely am I in this situation for what I do! I'm not against zooms, I am just in more situations where a prime makes more sense.
Personally, even though i shoot mostly on primes i absolutely adore zoom lenses, once you find your perspective you just crop it out and move to the next picture. Such a nice thing for architecture shoots
I accidentally figured this out for myself long ago with doing thumbnails for my vids. Zooming with a lens, it almost makes the subject (in my case) look small, it's often hard to see the subject with the small size of a thumbnail. But if I do perspective, it completely changes how the image looks, and suddenly, it just works in thumbnails a lot of the time. And of course, there certainly are exceptions where the opposite happens to work better.
I'm from the era before zoom lenses when even an interchangeable lens was financially beyond most photographers. When I got my first roll of film back at age five in 1946, I was appalled by how much further away I was from how I had framed them. I learned that cheap cameras purposely took in more than the viewfinder showed to prevent people from cutting off their subject's heads. So I learned to get closer and even developed the habit of getting even closer because I noticed it almost always made the shot stronger. When I first looked through a Nikon F in the mid sixties, I FINALLY could see the actual view of the lens. With foreground subject at constant size say someone's head as in your example. I came to think of a normal lens as oe that rendered the relative size of background approximately the same as the eye. A wide angle would shrink the background so you could see more of it and a telephoto would magnify the background and of course throw it out of focus. I remember taking a photo of a friend swinging a baseball bat at the edge of a car to make it look like they were close to the car using a telephoto lens when they were actually too far away from the car to hit it. Then normal and wide angle shot illustrating how what we, at that time, thought of as 'perspective'. So didn't learn to zoom with the lens, but to change lenses. I remember the initial confusion I had when using the 43-86 Nikkor for the first time. Since it didn't change the perspective drastically I learned to use it as a handy normal lens which allowed me to adjust framing without having to move my feet. I still prefer primes because I am old and most zoom lenses are heavy, but the 9-18 Olympus zoom on a M4/3 camera is, to me, just a handily adjustable prime that is not a burden. I share this with you not to argue with you, just to point out how our 'perspective' on lens choice as evolved.
I'm (slightly) younger, but yes, learned my photography from boyhood upwards on basic film cameras - developing my films, and blowing up the negs on my home-made enlarger (made from wood!) And, like you, learnt all this stuff on fixed-lens cameras - moving, and reframing to get what you wanted. Now, as an oldie, I realise, I am getting too wedded to zooms, and rediscovering that moving back to a prime actually forces those old photographic physical moves to get a better picture! And, it's somehow more fun, more rewarding!
I actually don't like the name "Zoom" because it suggests something that it doesn't do: just make your current composition closer. It doesn't. It is merely a lens that offers tons of different focal lengths in one unit, with all the positive and negative aspects of each of those focal lengths (expansion on the wide end, compression on the tight end). The point is, you can take most photos using, say, a 35mm lens. To get in closer you walk towards the subject. To get further away, walk away. Zoom lenses are sold with the promise that you don't have to move and that simply isn't true.
I agree. But beyond that, shooting with a prime lens - while romantically purist - takes the option of creating a perfect composition (in camera) off the table for you. Walking around with a fixed lens 28mm is absurd to me. In that case you had better be shooting full frame because you will definitely need to crop the vast majority of your images.
Horses (and lenses) for courses... There is the counter frustration of being in a place, where you really want to go wider, but don't have the lens to give you that! I went out with just a 50mm recently, to save weight and clutter...and really could have done with a 28mm on the day! Frustrating!
This is a concept from Robert Capra and Eugene Smith, two of the greatest documentary photographers of all time. What they were saying was, for one to get great images (or shots) the photographers should be part of the action. Don't be a passive bystander. This is a statement coming from two photographers who were active during the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. They were carrying two or three cameras during assignments. Definitely a different time.
That moment knocked me out when I first saw it in a cinema back in the Seventies! Woah..!!! One of those instances when a movie needs to be seen on the big screen - not your average TV, or laptop!
If you're taking a photo of a house with an interesting sign peaking behind it, and that sign is key for your photo to work and you "zoom with your feet" that sign will hide behind the house. On the contrary if you zoom with your lens you will get the frame you're envisioning and the sign will be peaking behind the house.
But zooming with your feet gives you more consistency in the style of your images. If this is some key factor of you style or you want to emphasize your style through using always similar focal lengths as portrait or wedding photographer or something like that.
Wow, thanks, never even thought about it before. Duh! When you use a manual focus then it is clear that cropping is not focusing but using a autofocus zoom lens both happen simultaneously.
Good explanation! i have always wished there were zoom lenses with 2 or 3 click in focal lengths for convenience. I have used a 24-50 that way by only using the extreme ends, 24 and 50. It's like having two primes without having to change lenses. Really convenient for a travel setup.
I’m absolutely stunned that anyone could take time out to suggest zooming with your feet is even a subject for a professional photographer to talk about, it’s just a joke saying by amateurs . LOL
The problem is that it is not a joke. Just like some people swear by the rule of thirds for composition, some people swear by using primes and zooming eith their feet. What we need is, precisely, pros talking about this so that new photographers understand it rather than be fooled by a dictum if faith like "zoom with your feet."
Scott is simply talking affably about the stuff and nonsense in the minds, and conversation of ever-so-fallible people. Scott is simply lovable company talking photography in all its delight and nuttiness. One can indulge - or look elsewhere...
To understand zooming and distance just think about the Jaws scene when Spielberg zooms out but prings the camera closer at the same time and see the perspective change
I own a zoom lens and still zoom with my feet. I've been using primes for the last 15 years and I currently own the 28th to 70 f2 lens. Although it is a zoom lens I still dealing with my feet because I understand every focal length has a different distortion or compression and also dof. Ever focal leanth is a tool for story telling 😊
Moving your feet is just like any other tool. Shutter speed, aperture, ISO and focal length and height of the camera in relation to the subject matter and frame portrait or landscape mode. I've been using zooms and super zooms for 40 years. If I want to match a F1.8 portrait lens, I WILL use my feet. Move backwards and use a long focal length setting. Lovely bokeh! I'll also move people's feet too. Don't want a pole sticking out of heads, etc. Funnily my camera forgets I've won awards. Each time I have to use it wisely and get the composition right - no matter what I use.
I think the saying comes in from street photography. The aim is to encourage the change of prospectives and adding more context into the theme, instead of “cropping” with a zoom lens.
Certainly Henri Cartier-Bresson and Frank Cappa suggested getting closer was important for the documentary approach, but the saying comes from someone else and promoted by others and it relates to 'not being lazy by standing in one place and zooming' but to work a subject from different angles and distances; which is fair. The real issue comes in when people don't understand the change in perspective that comes with changes in distance to the subject for a given lens' angle of view; a trap for the beginner photographer.
I like primes and zooms. I just seem them as different tools. For weddings I like zooms for the most part because its a pain to swap lens when you are working by yourself. When I have a engagement shoot I'll use mostly a prime lens and will use a zoom lens in my bag for just a few photos. I try to think of a zoom lens as a bunch of primes and will sometimes set my Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 at 17mm and then go to 40mm.
Not a 'lie', to be a lie it would have to be an intentional falsehood. It's just a silly method put about by people who don't understand the importance of apparent perspective in composition. They don' intend to mislead, the wrongly think it's good information.
I never got the zoom with your feet either. There are three factors that affect composition. Where the camera is, what direction it is pointed, and the focal length of the lens.
I found that a bit confusing , not that I know anything. I would say zooming in affects perspective, It will compress the background and make it seem closer. Ive got a sony 24 to 240 lens but it only goes to f 5.6 zoomed in, Ive got sony 50mm and 85mm lenses they can do f1.8 and he zoom one hasn't got good reviews, not made of money it was £700.
THANK YOU Chris…and take that, Ken Rockwell. The WHOLE point of zooms is….YOU CANT ZOOM with your feet which is WHY you’re using a variable focal length lens in the first place. 😅. Primes REQUIRE your feet!
Good demonstration, however, it all comes down to the look you/your client is looking for. Therefore, neither is right nor wrong, as it’s all relative to what the look the client is going for. My opinion…
Until about 50mm or until where the distortion happens very large until that only we will get a difference. If the distortion is very small it won't effect as i think
This saying is especially wrong when you are taking architectural photos. If you come closer to your object with a lens which is too wide in order to fill the frame you have a hugely warped image. If you go back when you lens is too telephoto there may be lampposts or other things in the way or the street is too tight to go back. I feel very uncomfortable when respected professional photographers repeat that "zoom with your feet" mantra...
Just photograph flat objects and you can "zoom" with your feet. ;-) But of course the focal length is only determining what is in the frame. With endless resolution and perfect optics (no vignetting, no distortion) one would not need different focal lengths and just crop in later.
Come and join our group Studio Access where we share the in depth pro level knowledge that isn't for the masses. tinhouse-studio.com/studio-access/
Unfortunately I'm a poor old person, with the emphasis on *poor*, and can only afford free content! 😥All the best for your venture.
Fear not, we have lots of free content on youtube.
@@TinHouseStudioUK gotta be freaking joking me any one can simply print screen and verify that you did nothing in technical controlled way here my dislike have a good weekend
That saying was meant figuratively, not literally. The idea is that you shouldn’t be a lazy photographer and stand in the same spot and let the zoom lens decide your composition.
@@mp_martin Most people don't have the intellectual bandwidth to go beyond the literal. Especially as they get older.
Exactly. Well said.
@@mp_martin 👌🏼🎯💯 facts!
@@mp_martin exactly. Such a stupid video 😂
I always heard the addage, "Compose with your feet and crop with your lens."
Brilliantly succinct. I never heard anyone say that, I just do it.
As someone who started with 2 medium format camera in 1959 and didn't have a zoom lens, which was crap by the way, until 1979, we learned to first determine the perspective we want by MOVING our feet...not zooming.... then we selected the lens that gave us the crop we wanted. What you see novice photographers doing today is hanging a zoom lens on and when they see something that they like, stand in place and just zoom. No consideration of perspective. Zooms have come a long way, but it is a rare one, loaded with all that glass, that matches a low element prime. Yes, there are types of photography where you can't or can't quickly get closer/further away. Sports, wedding. But as a film shooter who can't change film stocks, iso, color/b&w instantly even with changeable backs. I carry more than one film camera. I'm 77, and if someone says that's too much weight, get in the darn gym. But for wild live moving fast, sporting events. yes, a zoom has some advantages. But for decades, pros did just fine with primes. But as in everything photography, horses for courses.
I made a similar comment from an 82 year old perspective. Great comment!
@@Bob-g1i Totally agree! But what do I know. I'm just a kid..only 68.. ;)
Isn’t zooming with a wide to telephoto lens like a 24-70 technically both (perspective and cropping)? Zooming with your feet with it at 24 is going to crop in but also be a different perspective as it features become even more exaggerated.
I get the feeling zooming with your feet makes more sense when you are talking more with a 70-200 but still it is different as you say but not as dramatically so as a zoom with a wide to telephoto.
This is a good video though as it is pertinent information to understand what to expect from focal length, proximity to subject, and background separation.
It all depends where and what you shoot. When I’m hiking in the mountains, I can’t just go on the other side of the valley and extend my 5-7 hour hike by two more hours.
I don’t know about other brands, but the Fuji 16-55 and 50-140 really are "a bag of primes" when it comes to sharpness and quality.
I think that's why this is still a really good instructional technique. If it was taught as perspective and cropping (instead of moving and zooming) it would probably be more helpful. Also a reason I like zooms for wide and telephoto where you need to extend your width or reach but primes for the normal range.
Don't zoom with your feet while photographing polar bears. It's why people call me Stumps.
Perspective vs Cropping...
It's been a long time since my photography class. (We used celluloid and had limits. THAT long ago.) So this simple tradeoff idea is worth a lot to me. Thank you.
Also, you're pretty good at this. I'm not sure you'll take that as matter-of-factly as I've given it, but that's what I think. For me, there's a factual-ness that I want, plus a sense of humor that I appreciate. If I were to guess, I'd say this is the same mix we find in your product photography style. The references to what has gone before... the references land, even if I can't precisely name the reference, it's there in my "sense of things"... uh, it feels right and I smile often. 👍
THanks a lot!
That's not zooming. Getting closer to a subject by physically moving yourself and calling it 'zooming' is incorrect. Zooming refers to using a lens or digital technology to magnify an image while maintaining the same distance from the subject.
There are two types of zoom: *optical zoom* and *digital zoom* .
- *Optical zoom* is when a camera's lens adjusts to bring the subject closer without degrading image quality.
- *Digital zoom* is when the camera crops and enlarges the image, simulating being closer, but at the cost of resolution and quality.
Physically moving closer to your subject isn't 'zooming'; it's simply changing your position or perspective. The confusion arises because both methods result in the subject appearing larger in the frame, but they are fundamentally different processes. Zooming uses technology, while moving closer changes the actual distance.
@@KibaSnowpaw Zooming with your feet is a saying, and I'm pretty sure we all know exactly what that means and that it isn't actually zooming.
Here's the thing A lot of people don't plan their shoots as much as you do. When they have a zoom lens they'll just stand there and zoom in and take the picture. They don't give composition a second thought because they can just simply zoom in. When they use their feet to move forward or back they have more of a chance of walking around and looking at the thing at different angles and it gives them an opportunity to pause and think about their composition.
My old photographer teacher was real old school and ex-UN commander, but he told us a trick with zoom lenses because he actually loved using zooms and told us that primes only made sense on a medium format (film) and our digital cameras (6 - 8 megapixels at the time) did not resolve enough details for it to matter.
So he said, "Imagine your zoom lens being multiple primes in one lens, divide the lens up to your wanted range, 35 - 50 and 70 and use those and only those.
And that made a lot of sense to me because I mostly shoot in the 40 to 70mm range anyway, I do wide very rarely but his advice still stuck with me and I find it weird that no one talks about it anymore, zooms are great but you still need to limit yourself to a "range" because most people will just automatically go wide to fit everything in, or zoom all the way in to make detail images instead of just doing an in-between framing with both in balance. In fact, people should never start shooting on anything wider than 35mm LOL, because it does more harm than good, if you cannot shoot indoor with a 50mm, then one needs to go back and relearn the basics, my old teacher used to tell us to make stories instead of just taking location shots, by that he meant, photograph the stuff indoor, people, items, the wallpaper, the furniture. With a zoom, you can do both an establishing shot and then do story shots.
And that is why we need more of these videos. So that people who take snapshots start thinking about composition and transition to taking pictures.
It’s called “bracketing your composition”, especially if you actually take multiple images. Also called “working the subject”. Sometimes the first thing you see is not the best available.
This is something they used to teach in photography/cinematography schools back in the 70s and 80s. Excellent explanation!
Yeah it seems to have vanished from the modern education for some reason.
In fact that is what every photo book for beginners states. The problem is people dont read, they stop at catchphrases like "zoom with your feet".
@@MezeiEugenI suppose catchphrases are easier to remember than principles.
Well, they used to teach science in school also. Now, it's okay to be bad at things like MATHS.
@buning_sensations5437 Funny you should mention math and how it's not taught like it used to be. I pointed out that if you taught math using the old log-log-decitrig slide rules, 6th graders would be proficient with everything up to differential and inferential calculus and actually understand it.
I still use a slide rule to do the math to generate vintage lenses profiles to correct for distortion and lateral/vertical chromatic aberration. I can solve complex equations faster with a slide rule than I can with a scientific calculator.
I used to do all the math for calculating exposure on motion picture film cameras (especially the effects of 'shutter angle' using a slide rule.
The saying was started with people that only own primes.
I cut the bit out about the history of the saying. It was Hass who said it in regards to getting in and amongst it, but now its cited as a reason to not change lens and the original meaning has all but vanished.
For years I had no money so all I had was a rangefinder and not in the Leica M league. Heck it wasn't even a Minolta CLE. But a Ricoh 500. Fixed lens. So zoom with my feet was all I could do. Building too wide for a 45mm lens? I talked my way into a nearby flat. My reward was a bird's eye view shot. No fish eye lens? I put the other end of a binoculars against the fixed lens. Same effect, more or less. As one advertising agency is fond of saying, "don't outspend others, out think them."
@@eltee5696 I wonder how much more productive you could have been with a zoom.
And not enough of them!
People like Ken Rockwell
“Teddy has deactivated” - love the phrases you use! 😂
I understand why you're saying "Zooming is cropping." Though my brain was fighting you saying that phrase, because background compression and dept of field change when you're zooming, since it all changes when you zoom. Great video!
I may not be adding much to what Scott as said, but I reckon that you first set the camera to subject diatance to control the perspective and choose the focal length (by zooming or switching primes) to determine the crop.
so, should the phrase be changed to "reframing with your feet" instead? i feel like that would be more accurate & harder to misunderstand
I kinda assumed the whole point of the saying was mostly for amateurs with kit lenses who couldn’t fathom why you’d pay more for a lens that didn’t zoom, and that physically moving your camera around and properly finding your framing was an important part of the learning process rather than just standing there and zooming in to get closer to your subject and saying “that’ll do”. Actively choosing to switch to a telephoto lens verses a wide angle would also be part of that leaning process. Obviously once you’ve actually figured out the basics of composition and how lens optics work it’s a very much redundant phrase because we should know better.
preach on, sistah! i've been quietly mocking this topic for bloody years :)
Probably a topic that will annoy Photographers but not non-Photographers that might be the viewing audiance of the images.
The average person looking at the resulting images probably wont notice any difference in backgrounds or perpectives of an image when looking at a photo and focusing on the subject.
I'd have no clue if someone used a Zoom Lens or a Prime by looking at a random image on the internet, and probably would not care. I either like the image or I dont.
There is no way TO know.
This. The end result is what counts (and having fun taking pictures).
True, but of course, all this stuff is actually what contributes to how effective a picture is - so without analysing the why and how, many viewing punters will nevertheless discern that one picture is "better" than another! For them, it's not about how the image was achieved, but simply what they see!
I think you misunderstood what is meant by this. "Zooming with your feet" means you decide what focal length to use, and then move around the subject accordingly, so that you don't end up with a random focal length that can have a drastic impact on perspective, as you explained.
Im not sure thats what the saying means in most places. And the original meaning was from Hass and more in line with James Nachtwey if your photo sucks get closer. But now its what people use as an argument for primes over zooms.
No, he did not say focal lenght has impact on perspective, quite the contrary it has not. Your terminology (or at least the definition of perspective) is wrong.
@@TinHouseStudioUK I think this goes back to Robert Capa who said "'If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough'". I studied documentary photography where this argument is used a lot and it does mean that you decide on the focal length first and then work around the subject. But regardless, I think another way of looking at a zoom lens is to think of it as a collection of focal lengths. So once again, you decide on the focal length, you set it, and then move around the subject. I also think that zooms are not as goof as primes. Even though the modern zooms are very good, the high quality primes are better.
@@MezeiEugen When you change the focal length you will have to change the distance from the subject to, for example, fill a frame, which will affect the perspective.
I dont think it means you do that for choosing your focal lenght. Originally it was meant as consolation for the amateur that could not afford (or had a camera with non changeable lens) different focales. Sort of "you can do what the pros do, shoe sole wear is cheaper than a second lens and almost as good". Later, when 3 lens kits (usually 28, 50, 135mm) became cheaper and usual for amateurs, the consolation was regarding the still not in budget limits of amateurs.
It comes even better in German, where zooms are called rubber lenses. There the sayin is about focusing with your sneakers, as those have rubber soles. (Turnshuhzoom.) "What zoom do you have?" "Ich habe einen Turnschuhzoom."
I am aware of the difference and I thought you explained it perfectly.
Tim, yes you are correct. It's all about the relative distance from camera to subject vs camera to background.... and what that does to relative perspective.
I have used that expression many times (ZWYF) without paying it much attention. But yes, it's possibly more complex than many novice togs realise.
However I almost always consider the subject in the context of background ie with regards to what to show and extent to which a background is rendered OOF. But, I just never formally thought about it (ie operating more by instinct, experience and observation).
Clearly with a zoom one can do both by adjusting zoom FL and/or moving camera closer/further from 'hero' subject. Also, to a more limited extent moving/directing main subject closer/further from background. In a wide vista it makes little difference adjusting subject to background distance (vs camera to subject). But in a relatively short subject to background (eg wall or screen ie mostly 2-D background) then getting the main subject separated further can make a huge difference.
How on earth would someone NOT understand that walking closer to the dog and photographing with the wide lens is DIFFERENT to just zooming in from where you were originally standing? Even the dog knows this is different.
Simply because it's not that intutive so that someone new to photography would immedially expect this to be the case. A layman would think "I walk closer to the subject, or I use the zoom to bring the subject closer, same difference".
I think you're making a flipped dunning Krueger mistake here. People generally assume that things that are obvious to them are obvious to others, but it's often not the case. People are often completely ignorant about things outside of their scope of interest or experience. So, no, people won't 'just' understand that, unless they have enough experience with optics. Perspective, compression, one-lens, background separation etc. isn't intuitive to the average person. I promise you, as someone who was pretty ignorant about how these things worked until a few months ago. It's not necessarily about stupidity, but you don't think about the things you don't think about. If you ask a random person to actually - think - about the dog example they will probably realize that it's - of course - different, but unless they are interested in the subject, they likely won't think about it unless something prompts them. Bigger is bigger dur...
We need to consider the context.
This phrase is usually heard when a new photographer is learning primes exist.
The newbie asks something like "but how do you zoom with a prime?"
To which invariably a Prime Supremacist answers "I zoom with my feet, noob."
This eventually becones a dogma of faith rather than a well-thought composition choice.
@@lesath7883The proper answer is, “I zoom by changing lenses.”
@@excursionfilm6075 many won't know.i am very sure.
Most professionals don't seem to understand the benefits of zoom lenses. An example when walking in the streets: a tower above buildings. Only a zoom may be able to capture the scene because, go closer and the tower disappears behind the buildings. And when closer enough to have the tower prominently in the picture, the houses are in another position. Each lens has its purpose
Absolutely!
That’s not the difference between a Professional and an Amateur, that’s the difference between someone who understands it and someone who doesn’t. How you make your living is irrelevant.
Well a professional can act like an amateur, and vice versa. Just because someone else does not hold you to a certain standard, does not mean that you shouldn't either ;)
@@b00ty He didn't say "thats the difference between someone who ACTS like a professional..."
@@webmuir it's just a matter of expression.doing it like a pro here means enjoying the technical advantage of both framing and perspective, instead of acting like they are mutually exclusive - like an amateur, if you would.
@@b00ty Yeah, but I thought it was lazy and patronising and worthy of pointing out.
My dude, I need the link to where you got that work shirt/jacket. Thanks!
This is up there with "fast primes are good for low light". Are you going to shoot at f1.4 and have a crappy blurry photo just because it's dark? I like shooting with a 35mm prime, because I like how it renders the photos I like to take. I also like the rendering of a 100mm prime, but it has way more compression.
"Reframe with your feet" ... 😅(*As long as you have found the focal length that works for your vision of a completed image and completes the image overall with the aesthetics inherently displayed within that focal length...)
haha yup...
Professionals earn money with their work, amateurs usually don't. The quality of the photos is something totally different. Zooming with lens or feet is irrelevant for the quality of a photo.
Sometimes I move backwards to zoom in. Sometimes I realize I need to get closet to the subjet using a different optic. And when I change the optic, I sometimes move back to reframe.
Scott the effect of perspective shift of the B/G while making the action be in total focus throughout, is what we used to call a trombone effect. We'd use it a bit in commercials or as part of a VFX project. I enjoy watching your videos *as a bit of a laugh" but you shouldn't worry about all those d... heads with respect to zoom lenses and primes. The very reason I do not promote my own youtube channel, and really couldn't give a stuff about it. You CANNOT please everyone all of the time. Keep up the great work.!!!
I'm glad you covered this, because I'm well sick of being shut down by the self proclaimed "elite" hobbyists when trying to explain it to someone in response to various silly statements. Now I can sit back and watch the dills blither at you instead.
haha yup
This has always been one of my pet peeves, along with the "knowledge" that a longer lens compresses perspective.
5:17 Jackpot! You are a legend.
It's an analogous term, and it all depends on what photography you enjoy, or if you are a pro or amateur, etc. When I say, zoom with my feet, I essentially mean I am composing by moving forwards, back, left and right. I personally love using light gear and fixed focal lengths. I don't like thinking about the gear, just the photos I am taking
That was a really useful video, thanks for posting.
Your commentary is a breath of fresh air thanks
Giving the lesson that moving is for perspective and zooming is for framing is great, but I feel getting all hot about the phrase "zoom with your feet" is overblowing it a bit. That phrase IS useful when instructing a newbie shooting with a fixed lens and failing to consider the poor framing of their subject caused by it being too far away and surrounded by too much irrelevant background.
Scott rarely gets "hot." He's just having a conversation with us about the niggles of English, and the way it's carelessly used. And that's fun - like having a chat with a friend about the ways (and the nuttiness) of the (photographic) world! It's people, mate! People!
It's funny how close this topic gets to the whole "lens compression" argument. Your focal length + your field of view/ capture size + distance from subject all matter a lot. Being able to control your background, and your depth of field with this in mind, gives you a remarkable amount of control over your image and storytelling ability.
I own quite a few great zoom lenses, but sometimes nothing beats doing a whole shoot on a prime. Understanding this is also why many people shoot medium format.
That one line about zooming is a crop, is one of the most concise ways to describe zooming to get closer. Great video.
Swapping prime lenses is not something I do outside as I live in a corrosively invasive climate. I have a 24-70 lens with little yellow marks at 40mm and 65mm, the only focal lengths I use. Is that OK?
Wow, you discovered the definition of perspective.
Btw, with longer distances between camera and subject the change of perspective does not become dramatic like you say, au contraire, with big distances the perspective changes very little, you will have to change your position also by an exponentially increasing long distance.
I try
Cropping and compressing... I hate when I hear the feet zooming
Thanks man
Glad this has been made actually. A lot of the interiors photography groups kick off about the use of wide angle lenses, partly because they say make rooms look too big “and” because they cause distortion. What they miss however is that the degree of distortion is affected, not by the lens, but due to the distance from the subject. In other words if it looks distorted the camera is too close. Don’t underestimate the value of something like an angle finder, for getting the camera closer to the wall behind you/ further away from the subject.
I've been aware of this for donkeys years - it's reassuring to hear a professional agree.
I love the push and pull of framing with a zoom. Balancing perspective and focal length without using multiple camera bodies is a godsend in many a situation. It's also a technique that takes time to master, I've never understood why some people refuse to learn it, just because 'some primes are sharper in the corners'. Anyway cheers
Agree.
I mostly have a prime lens and many times I've seen something that's perfect, but my lens is too wide. When I get closer, the angles change and it's no longer the perfect composition, it's no longer the shot I wanted. That's why walking can't replace a zoom lens.
Eh, you could explain this easily by showing a, say, 28m and a 100mm outdoors picture taken from the required distances to get a same-sized person. The in the studio example doesn't have enough distance/compression to make it clear, and the product shots are of two different subjects, so people can't easily see the difference.
This is why I just say I am a novice photographer. I'm 74 and been with a camera since I was ten, but I don't claim to know photography. I do good to get an image that you'll look at for more than three seconds.
If you are on a 135mm and your comp is too tight or too wide what are you supposed to do?
Change lens assuming you like the perspective
It took @5:15 to finish up with the chatter and tell the proper reason. I'm not fan of short videos, but these sort of things would fit much better in that format, than filling 6 minutes with some may be confusing talk. In my opinion.
Yes. I take mostly woodland photos and am limited to a 24-105mm zoom lens (a 70-200mm lens would actually be preferable for my situation in relatively closed-in woods, but it’s taken 10 years for me to figure that out). I very often see an image I’d like to capture but I’ve learned the hard way that zooming with my feet is normally a total waste of time. Exactly as you say, it changes the whole perspective and all the trees or rocks I saw with my eyes have moved their relationship to each other or disappeared out of shot altogether.
I commiserate, but you already know the answer...all you need to do is to walk in, and the meticulously move all the rocks, mountains and trees so that your subject is placed neatly between them, and there you have it...a masterpiece! /s
Yes. Always yes. I get knew knowledge and validation out of every episode.
Divide the zoom into desired focal length, restrict yourself to those and fire away, there is a reason why zoom lenses have markings, most people just zoom in until their shot is somewhat in frame and leave it at that, instead of just "Okay I am going to 40mm now" and maybe move a little to get the framing perfect, and then "now I go 80mm" moves to a different position and take another picture, thats the versatility of a zoom, when people say you need to zoom with your feet they completely inept at understanding that you actually need to walk to different positions with a zoom lens too LOL, but the zoom lens save you time needed to switch prime lenses around and in many cases if you run and gun / journalist work, you wont have time to switch lenses, thats why zooms were invented!!! For exactly those scenarios LOL.
Unfortunately, not every single time you adjust your zoom to 50 mm will it be 50 mm.
It may be 49, 51, 53....
It is that granularity that Scott talked about.
Of course, due to the construction of the prime, it will most probably won't be 50 mm either.
Focus breathing will change the actual distance a few mm, on top of any inaccuracies in the build of the lens, the canera, and even dilation of materials due to the temperature.
But a zoom will invariably add that additional complication of taking pictures at 47mm or 231mm or 22.5mm.
@@lesath7883
Absolutely no normal human being will care about having it precisely at the 50mm mark, come on now.
@@SMGJohn Likewise, I really doubt that restrictinf your zoom to a particular range within your possibilities yields better results.
Or that anyone will guve up on the shot because it required them to go beyond that artificial limit.
I would say that most people talking about restricting themselves to certain points when using a zoom do not really check if their lens is within those limits when shooting.
Excellent topic Scott!
Coming from a prime only owner (24, 25, 50, and 85). There are a few times where a zoom would have been the much better option of the shot I wanted. But! Rarely am I in this situation for what I do! I'm not against zooms, I am just in more situations where a prime makes more sense.
Personally, even though i shoot mostly on primes i absolutely adore zoom lenses, once you find your perspective you just crop it out and move to the next picture. Such a nice thing for architecture shoots
I accidentally figured this out for myself long ago with doing thumbnails for my vids. Zooming with a lens, it almost makes the subject (in my case) look small, it's often hard to see the subject with the small size of a thumbnail. But if I do perspective, it completely changes how the image looks, and suddenly, it just works in thumbnails a lot of the time. And of course, there certainly are exceptions where the opposite happens to work better.
I'm from the era before zoom lenses when even an interchangeable lens was financially beyond most photographers. When I got my first roll of film back at age five in 1946, I was appalled by how much further away I was from how I had framed them. I learned that cheap cameras purposely took in more than the viewfinder showed to prevent people from cutting off their subject's heads. So I learned to get closer and even developed the habit of getting even closer because I noticed it almost always made the shot stronger. When I first looked through a Nikon F in the mid sixties, I FINALLY could see the actual view of the lens. With foreground subject at constant size say someone's head as in your example. I came to think of a normal lens as oe that rendered the relative size of background approximately the same as the eye. A wide angle would shrink the background so you could see more of it and a telephoto would magnify the background and of course throw it out of focus. I remember taking a photo of a friend swinging a baseball bat at the edge of a car to make it look like they were close to the car using a telephoto lens when they were actually too far away from the car to hit it. Then normal and wide angle shot illustrating how what we, at that time, thought of as 'perspective'. So didn't learn to zoom with the lens, but to change lenses. I remember the initial confusion I had when using the 43-86 Nikkor for the first time. Since it didn't change the perspective drastically I learned to use it as a handy normal lens which allowed me to adjust framing without having to move my feet. I still prefer primes because I am old and most zoom lenses are heavy, but the 9-18 Olympus zoom on a M4/3 camera is, to me, just a handily adjustable prime that is not a burden. I share this with you not to argue with you, just to point out how our 'perspective' on lens choice as evolved.
I'm (slightly) younger, but yes, learned my photography from boyhood upwards on basic film cameras - developing my films, and blowing up the negs on my home-made enlarger (made from wood!) And, like you, learnt all this stuff on fixed-lens cameras - moving, and reframing to get what you wanted. Now, as an oldie, I realise, I am getting too wedded to zooms, and rediscovering that moving back to a prime actually forces those old photographic physical moves to get a better picture! And, it's somehow more fun, more rewarding!
I actually don't like the name "Zoom" because it suggests something that it doesn't do: just make your current composition closer. It doesn't. It is merely a lens that offers tons of different focal lengths in one unit, with all the positive and negative aspects of each of those focal lengths (expansion on the wide end, compression on the tight end). The point is, you can take most photos using, say, a 35mm lens. To get in closer you walk towards the subject. To get further away, walk away. Zoom lenses are sold with the promise that you don't have to move and that simply isn't true.
I agree. But beyond that, shooting with a prime lens - while romantically purist - takes the option of creating a perfect composition (in camera) off the table for you. Walking around with a fixed lens 28mm is absurd to me. In that case you had better be shooting full frame because you will definitely need to crop the vast majority of your images.
Horses (and lenses) for courses... There is the counter frustration of being in a place, where you really want to go wider, but don't have the lens to give you that! I went out with just a 50mm recently, to save weight and clutter...and really could have done with a 28mm on the day! Frustrating!
This is a concept from Robert Capra and Eugene Smith, two of the greatest documentary photographers of all time. What they were saying was, for one to get great images (or shots) the photographers should be part of the action. Don't be a passive bystander. This is a statement coming from two photographers who were active during the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. They were carrying two or three cameras during assignments. Definitely a different time.
Nice rundown of the first-order factors in the trade-off. Also, nice use of that famous Jaws scene. It really drives the point home.
That moment knocked me out when I first saw it in a cinema back in the Seventies! Woah..!!! One of those instances when a movie needs to be seen on the big screen - not your average TV, or laptop!
Like David Hurn said: “Photography has just two controls : Where you stand and when you press the button”
If you're taking a photo of a house with an interesting sign peaking behind it, and that sign is key for your photo to work and you "zoom with your feet" that sign will hide behind the house. On the contrary if you zoom with your lens you will get the frame you're envisioning and the sign will be peaking behind the house.
Yes, it’s the distance to the subject that changes the perspective, not the lens.
But zooming with your feet gives you more consistency in the style of your images. If this is some key factor of you style or you want to emphasize your style through using always similar focal lengths as portrait or wedding photographer or something like that.
Wow, thanks, never even thought about it before. Duh!
When you use a manual focus then it is clear that cropping is not focusing but using a autofocus zoom lens both happen simultaneously.
Good explanation! i have always wished there were zoom lenses with 2 or 3 click in focal lengths for convenience. I have used a 24-50 that way by only using the extreme ends, 24 and 50. It's like having two primes without having to change lenses. Really convenient for a travel setup.
the olympus new bodies give you accurate zoom lengths so you can keep going back to a particular length.
Moving forward or back on your Feet changes perspective - zoom changes the field of view
I’m absolutely stunned that anyone could take time out to suggest zooming with your feet is even a subject for a professional photographer to talk about, it’s just a joke saying by amateurs . LOL
The problem is that it is not a joke.
Just like some people swear by the rule of thirds for composition, some people swear by using primes and zooming eith their feet.
What we need is, precisely, pros talking about this so that new photographers understand it rather than be fooled by a dictum if faith like "zoom with your feet."
Scott is simply talking affably about the stuff and nonsense in the minds, and conversation of ever-so-fallible people. Scott is simply lovable company talking photography in all its delight and nuttiness. One can indulge - or look elsewhere...
That was a terrific explanation.
To understand zooming and distance just think about the Jaws scene when Spielberg zooms out but prings the camera closer at the same time and see the perspective change
Try zooming with your feet in astrophotography!
In fairness it would result in a way better image
I don’t think Home Depot has ladders that high.
I own a zoom lens and still zoom with my feet. I've been using primes for the last 15 years and I currently own the 28th to 70 f2 lens. Although it is a zoom lens I still dealing with my feet because I understand every focal length has a different distortion or compression and also dof. Ever focal leanth is a tool for story telling 😊
Yea thanks for this! I see comments like this on my channel all the time. Cheers
Moving your feet is just like any other tool. Shutter speed, aperture, ISO and focal length and height of the camera in relation to the subject matter and frame portrait or landscape mode.
I've been using zooms and super zooms for 40 years.
If I want to match a F1.8 portrait lens, I WILL use my feet. Move backwards and use a long focal length setting. Lovely bokeh!
I'll also move people's feet too. Don't want a pole sticking out of heads, etc.
Funnily my camera forgets I've won awards. Each time I have to use it wisely and get the composition right - no matter what I use.
I think the saying comes in from street photography. The aim is to encourage the change of prospectives and adding more context into the theme, instead of “cropping” with a zoom lens.
Certainly Henri Cartier-Bresson and Frank Cappa suggested getting closer was important for the documentary approach, but the saying comes from someone else and promoted by others and it relates to 'not being lazy by standing in one place and zooming' but to work a subject from different angles and distances; which is fair. The real issue comes in when people don't understand the change in perspective that comes with changes in distance to the subject for a given lens' angle of view; a trap for the beginner photographer.
I like primes and zooms. I just seem them as different tools. For weddings I like zooms for the most part because its a pain to swap lens when you are working by yourself. When I have a engagement shoot I'll use mostly a prime lens and will use a zoom lens in my bag for just a few photos. I try to think of a zoom lens as a bunch of primes and will sometimes set my Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 at 17mm and then go to 40mm.
I don't zoom with my feet, I walk around until I achieve the composition. Primes and zooms have their place.
Nice…that last line was gold. Cropping with the zoom lens and changing perspectives with your feet!!! Next time start with that…hahaha!!!! Thanks!!!
Excellent explanation, thanks Scott 😎
absolutely right! btw: Vertigo Effect / Dolly Zoom it is!
Not a 'lie', to be a lie it would have to be an intentional falsehood. It's just a silly method put about by people who don't understand the importance of apparent perspective in composition. They don' intend to mislead, the wrongly think it's good information.
40 years shooting and never owned a zoom, quite likely I never will. Use what makes you happy.
Came for dolly zoom, got it in the end.
Great explanation!
Good to repeat! Thanks for the video Scott.
@6:13 my favorite part. I love it when camera men do this.
I never got the zoom with your feet either. There are three factors that affect composition. Where the camera is, what direction it is pointed, and the focal length of the lens.
Beautiful model and a handsome photographer... Generally speaking Russians got a lot of good looking man and women just by watching your video...
I found that a bit confusing , not that I know anything. I would say zooming in affects perspective, It will compress the background and make it seem closer. Ive got a sony 24 to 240 lens but it only goes to f 5.6 zoomed in, Ive got sony 50mm and 85mm lenses they can do f1.8 and he zoom one hasn't got good reviews, not made of money it was £700.
THANK YOU Chris…and take that, Ken Rockwell. The WHOLE point of zooms is….YOU CANT ZOOM with your feet which is WHY you’re using a variable focal length lens in the first place. 😅. Primes REQUIRE your feet!
Your preaching to the choir on this one. Although I do use Nikkor Lenses. 😎
I agree with you. That is the reason what I buy my little Sony 20-70mm 😉👍
Good demonstration, however, it all comes down to the look you/your client is looking for. Therefore, neither is right nor wrong, as it’s all relative to what the look the client is going for. My opinion…
"zoom with your feet" my brother in christ im photographing a cloud
Until about 50mm or until where the distortion happens very large until that only we will get a difference. If the distortion is very small it won't effect as i think
This saying is especially wrong when you are taking architectural photos. If you come closer to your object with a lens which is too wide in order to fill the frame you have a hugely warped image. If you go back when you lens is too telephoto there may be lampposts or other things in the way or the street is too tight to go back.
I feel very uncomfortable when respected professional photographers repeat that "zoom with your feet" mantra...
Just photograph flat objects and you can "zoom" with your feet. ;-) But of course the focal length is only determining what is in the frame. With endless resolution and perfect optics (no vignetting, no distortion) one would not need different focal lengths and just crop in later.
A very good video to give context
I only shoot primes due to quality and I have never seen the fixed focal as a limitation.
There are too many people who hear things but don't test things. Goes for everything in life.
Check out the scene in the diner with Ray Liotta and Robert Di Niro from Goodfellows from a sublime dolly-zoom 👌