as always, please don't copy or distribute these images without asking

So, I started writing this blog entry and got a bit onto a technical sideline - the photos and discussion don't go hand in hand per se, but enjoy both.

On Sunday, the sun cutting through the trees was bright and the stiff wind kept the bugs away. It was fantastic. That may be an understatement. I didn't even see bugs. It was as good as a May day can get.

This is my time of year, not too warm yet, just crisp and clean. Everything is in bloom. As I walked into the woods I couldn't see people on the boulders, but they were there. They were obscured by new foliage.

I have always noticed (as an outsider) how much camaraderie exists within the bouldering (and climbing) community. People seem to know each other. It's a funny thing to walk into woods and run into people you know. On the one hand it seems somewhat clique-ish from the outside - I just assumed it was. Of course, once you actually meet a few people you realize it is a very loose organization of people in a common "community of interest."

On Sunday, a climber named Chris introduced himself and immediately offered to hang me off a wall with his gear so I could get better pictures. It was a great idea, I've often thought about it. But, I was concerned that I would end up being in a static position getting the common climbing shots with white knuckles straining on almost nothing in the foreground and "guitar face" grimace in the background. I'm not sure why those pictures are popular. It may be a perceptual divide from being a real practitioner of the art of climbing and being simply an observer. The "guitar face" doesn't speak to me anymore without landscape to give me context. Maybe if I were a better climber I would "get it." Chris let me poke through his camera and he had some great "above the climber" shots. Just not my current cup of tea I guess. I like seeing the junk on the ground.

There is a school of thought in photography that says you shouldn't use zoom lenses, you should use your feet. Moreover, you should probably be closer to the subject than you are. I'm of mixed minds about "the rules" but I like these two. There is a practical need for zoom lenses when you can't move yourself. But, when you are mobile, zoom lenses are a mixed blessing.

Perspective is determined by the distance from the camera to the subject. So, if you had a camera with infinite resolution you could shoot from one location and keep cropping the image down to achieve different "zooms" or framings. You could shoot with a 24mm wide lens and crop down to the equivalent of a 500mm telephoto lens and if you compared the shots from a "real" 500mm telephoto and your cropped image, the perspective would be the same.

So, when you are zooming in on a subject, unless you change your physical position, you really aren't changing much in the image. You are just cropping in real-time.

I mention this because I think zoom lenses are one of the big limiting factors for amateur photographers. I, like most people, feel like I am changing the picture in important ways when I zoom. But, at the end of the day, I am standing in the same place. To really change the picture you need to change the position of the camera, not the zoom of the lens.

This is why many (if not most) photography programs have their students work with a fixed focal length lens. Your feet become your zoom and to change the picture you can't stand in one position. I'm a big fan of fixed focal length lenses (also called prime lenses). They tend to be sharper and they make you think. Take two shots from the same place and you've taken the same shot twice. With a zoom I can convince myself I've shot two different scenes by zooming, but the perspective remains the same. By zooming I've only done some "real-time" cropping. Now, of course there are reasons to zoom. But, consider changing your angle as well.

The perspective (or perceived relationship of objects in an image) is an important consideration when shooting pictures. If you shoot a portrait close to your subject with a wide angle lens you will enlarge their nose and send there ears toward the back of their head. If you shoot with a long lens, you will compress their nose and bring their ears forward on their head. There are different conventions which are commonly adhered to as to what focal length makes a good portrait lens. This is the reason why. It isn't just - "what lens will put you at a comfortable distance from your subject and still fill the frame with their torso?" It has to do with how the elements of their face are going to be captured because of the distance to subject. The distance determines the perceived relationship of the features of the face and body.

Now, this has great implications when you start working with more cameras. Many DSLRs have a "magnification factor" which turns a 100mm lens into a 150mm lens ( typically multiply by 1.5 or 1.6). This is because their sensors are smaller than a 35mm piece of film or "full-frame" digital SLR. But, this "factor" is more accurately called a "crop-factor." The smaller sensor is capturing the interior area of the lens, not the whole lens area. So, it is "cropping" down to the equivalent of a 450mm lens. The perspective will be the same as a 450mm lens on a full-frame camera. Not a big deal right? Except that shorter focal lengths cost less money, so getting a 450mm lens for the cost of a 300mm lens (assuming they have the same "speed" or f-stop) is a great deal. Woohoo. So, why are pro cameras full-frame?

Well because there is another side to the story. More on that next time. (oh, and the red rope photo - he's tying a "swiss seat" - though I shot it because it reminded me of some quirky Japanese things).

SLIDESHOW BELOW - click an image to see the gallery