17 Amazing Wide Angle Images
Many digital photographers get a little obsessed by the ability that their zoom lenses give them to get in nice and close to their subjects.
While there’s a lot to be said for the power of zoom lenses (in fact many manufacturers are developing cameras with bigger and bigger lenses like the 20x optical zoom on the Olympus SP-570 that was announced this week) photographers who exclusively shoot at the longer focal lengths that their camera and lens offer could be missing out on some wonderful perspectives and framings.
Today I want to present you with 17 shots – all taken with wider focal lengths (mostly with 10mm lenses). I hope these give a little inspiration to rediscover the wider end of your camera’s zoom.
I’ve included the focal lengths of those images with EXIF data that reveal the focal length used.
If you’ve got some wide angle images to share don’t forget to drop by the forum to post some of them for the rest of us to see, be inspired by and learn from.
Further Reading – read more about creatively using the lens distortion that shooting at wide angle lenses can bring in portraits.
Don’t miss future posts like this – subscribe to Digital Photography School.
145 Responses to “17 Amazing Wide Angle Images” - Add Yours
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:42 am
The pictures are awesome. I definitely need a wide-angle lense some time soon …
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 am
Is anyone else tired of HDR photos? Using HDR to get the correct exposure on all parts of the image is fine, but using it to toy with the colors is, for me, getting tiresome. I’ve seen photos using 50+ exposures to replace nearly every color in the photo….
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 am
James — yeah, I was thinking the same thing as I was looking at these.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 am
Really nice images…thanks for sharing!!
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 am
Totally agree with you, HDR is used way too much, many times it’s not even real HDR but faked with a single JPG file.
Many of these shots aren’t even that good, they’re just pimped to the max in post-processing. That’s just not what photography is all about.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 am
I couldn’t agree more with you guys (james, Matthwe)
I recently started playing with this hdr thing and I’m already sick of it. You can make beautiful images with this technique but most people just abuse it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 am
I was thinking the same thing. They look toooo unnatural. It would be one thing to punch up the color some, but the effect is just so overused AND overdone it’s a real turnoff. Put me down for “things we can do but shouldn’t”.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:33 am
I would like to here some other peoples thoughts on what James commented on. I am very new to photography,but as an artist I found the images to be quite impressive. I just don’t know if I should stick to the true art of photography,or have some fun, with what’s available in digital technology.Is it an absolute cheat? Or would I be missing out to to please a few old school hard cores?
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 am
I agree.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 am
Truly stunning o_O
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:01 am
I was really getting into these images until I saw the HDR ones. I’ve rarely seen HDR do anything more than scream “LOOK AT ME!! I’M LOUD, BRIGHT AND OFFENSIVE!!!”. Like so many other photo cheap tricks, the effect is more often than not badly done.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 am
Great photos – but some have been modified to such an extent that they fall flat.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:08 am
I agree about the HDR sentiments. I find my favs were those NOT post processed.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 am
I’m a little confused about the usage of the word ‘zoom’ in this context- what does zoom have to do with wide angle? I thought they were two completely different things.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 am
I agree, HDR is good (in its place), but it would have been nice to have some more shots that were not so heavily processed.
just do a search on flickr for “10mm” and you see lots of super wide images…
but keep up the good work, loving the site!
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 am
Nice shots, except for the overprocessed ‘HDR-tonemapping’ images. Couple of cool ideas to remember.
I fail to understand what people see in the fake look of tonemapping…
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:35 am
I’m with Elizabeth…a little confused. What ‘exactly’ consitutes a wide angle shot? Is it basically one taken without any zoom?
Can you take a wide-angle shot with a point and shoot camera? Or do you have to have a special lens of some sort? Sorry if this is a stupid question…I am learning.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:37 am
“To zoom in”, as a verb, means to use a zoom lens to get closer to the subject without actually moving. “To zoom out”, then, is to pull away from the subject without moving.
A “wide” shot is one that is “zoomed out”. In terms of focal length, a wide shot can be anything less than 35mm or so (the boundary varies from one photog to the next, but 35mm seems to be a fair line) while a telephoto shot would be anything more than 85mm or so. You may also see a “normal” term, which usually refers to shots around 50mm.
Also, a wide-angle lens is often referred to as a ’short’ lens, whereas a telephoto lens will often be called a ‘long’ lens.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 am
Zoom is the ability of a lens to change focal lengths (eg. 10mm-20mm, 70mm-200mm). A lot of photographers mix up the term zoom with telephoto. A telephoto lens is any lens that has a longer focal length than a standard lens (around a 50mm lens on a 35mm film SLR). A wide-angle lens has a shorter focal length than a standard lens.
You can have wide-angle zoom lenses (eg. 17mm-40mm), telephoto zoom lenses (eg. 70mm-300mm) and zoom lenses that range from wide-angle to telephoto (eg. 28mm-200mm).
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 am
Usually ‘wide angle’ means the most ‘zoomed out’ setting on your lens. Point & Shoot cameras will probably be at 18mm/24mm for their ‘wide’ shots, whereas an SLR can have a dedicated ‘wide angle’ lens that maybe only does 10-24mm (so even ‘zoomed’ in it would still be ‘wide angle’).
It’s basically the opposite of being zoomed-in as far as possible, but as with zoom there are dedicated lenses for them on SLRs.
Anyhoo some of these shots are nice, others (like people above say) are ruined by some rather odd processing. I’m 100% in favour of processing, indeed being creative and doing odd-processing etc. but I do think some of these shots would look nice in their natural form/B&W or with less ‘intense’ processing. The one with the black sky over the building would probably look much nicer (to my eyes) in B&W. Still i’m sure people say the same of my shots!
Nice post though – always good to see a bit of work on display showing what lenses/techniques/ideas can do – really helps make it easier to see what effect things have.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 am
> I’m a little confused about the usage of the word ‘zoom’ in
> this context- what does zoom have to do with wide angle? I
> thought they were two completely different things.
You’re right, they are.
And I feel the same way about HDR – it’s used way too much.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 am
Thanks, Paul, for the explanation.
That helps me quite a bit.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 am
I’m glad others had the same thoughts on these shots. I’m not quite naturally inclined to make use of wide angle shots, so its something I have to work on. But to me wide angle brings out a nearly surreal depiction of a scene. Our eyes don’t process wide angle information all at once, so the lens affords an unfamiliar glimpse of truth. It just doesn’t land as well when the image is modified so heavily.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:45 am
Zoom refers to any lens that is not of a fixed focal length. Therefore even a lens that is say 10-22mm is a zoom lens even though one end is wide-angle and the other really wide and neither end will bring things really close to you.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:46 am
What is considered “wide-angle”?
If 50mm is “normal” (approximates normal human vision), then anything longer than 50mm is telephoto and anything shorter is wide-angle.
At least that’s the way I understand it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:14 am
I guess it’s true what they say… stunning is in the eye of the beholder. Frankly, I’m not stunned.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 am
Just my 2c for what it’s worth… I think HDR has a place in modern photography. I use it to enhance my photos, to make them more appealing. However I wouldn’t want to overuse it, thereby losing the original feeling of the shot. And I wretch at the modern-day magazine covers a la Faith Hill and America Herrera.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 am
Shots 1 and 5 are standing out imho.
The “HDR” one are pretty bad, again imho ;).
For those interested, I have a wide angle (Canon 10-22) set on my flickr account: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcfull/sets/72157600027366414/
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
What Paul wrote above may be somewhat misleading. If I’m using a 70-300mm lens, 70mm is the “most zoomed-out” setting on the lens, but it can’t be considered wide angle. It’s not all relative.
In the 35mm film world, wide-angle lenses are those with a focal length of 35mm or less (per http://photo.net/learn/making-photographs/lens). With most digital SLRs, the size of the sensor means all lenses are effectively about 1.5 times longer, meaning you have to use a lens with a focal length of 23mm to get the same effect as a 35mm lens on a 35mm SLR (or a full-frame digital SLR).
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 am
well these pics just confirm my resolution to get me a nice 10mm lens (when I can afford it)
Even though I really like the look of zoomed in, shallow dof, there’s something about the wide angle shot that makes you want to look – I agree – the tractor and the clock tower building is way over processed. but I think the author has done an excellent job finding some really good examples of wide.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
Have the specified focal lengths been adjusted for crop factor to make them 35mm equivalent?
To put my two cents worth in, I love HDR photo’s, it’s one of the many benefits of digital photography. I do agree it looks really bad when it’s over done, which is easy to do.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Hey, that’s supposed to be “Matthew”, not “Matthwe”. Ooops. :)
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Hi,
This might be a silly question, but … what is HDR ?
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I think these are beautiful images. The red barn by the lake, and the “Horus” boat I find especially magical and effective. The angle on the overhead bridge is awe-striking, and the red bridge is beautify and dizzy-making.
I disagree on some of your takes on the HDR concept. It can certainly be overdone (and seems to be getting used so much more often, people are becoming sensitive to it), but for the creation of a particular mood, or adding to the excitement or overall feeling of an image, I find it very effective.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
As far as wide angle and POV these are great but I am not a fan of HDR to alter the whole feeling of the image.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
love the wide angles … nice write up.
i have a tokina 12-24mm and it’s my favourite lens … in fact, it’s rarely off my camera.
cheers
david
http://www.davidsmeaton.com
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I totally agree with the HDR comments. The colors are often way too bright and fake. Don’t want to enter into a long battle of what is artistic or not of course :-)
I do like the wide angle use though.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Fantastic article!
I’m one of those people using tele stuff all the time, but there’s a world to discover through a wide angle lens.
Thanks for inspiring again!
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
While I like HDR in its place, I agree that some of these shots are over processed, and could possibly be better without the HDR effect (although I personally do like the boat shot by shoothead and the church interior by J. Star).
On the topic of wide vs zoom, I find myself generally taking shots at one end or the other (in my case either 18mm landscapes, or tight zooms from 180mm to 300mm). It would be good to have some advice on creative use of the mid ground, as I have a nice 50mm prime I’d like to use more.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
HDR can give nice art-pictures, but you see now people are using it to much and everything becomes artifitial, but when it is used appropiatelly gives nice results.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I think the problem with HDR is that it’s often used to try and improve a poor photographs and in the wrong hands it will all too easily produce a garish final image.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I agree the above HDR shots are way overdone. I like the bridge shot the best out of these I think. I’ve seen thousands of HDR shots and I’d say a good 95% are overdone. There is a subtle way to get more DR out of a shot but most people just go way overboard.
I really haven’t tried playing with HDR and most likely won’t.
Pete
January 24th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Totally stunning pictures!
I really loved them.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Some very stunning photos.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Wow: 43 responses thus far and nearly half of them are, to one degree or another, “anti-HDR” posts. I’m thrilled to see this and I hope people get the message!
Otherwise, very nice shots. I tend to lean too far to the other end of things (200mm+) so this is a good reminder to revisit the wider angles now and again.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Thanks for mucking up my plans for the forthcoming weekend (macro shots of snowdrops etc). I am going to have to go out with my wide-angle lens now!
January 24th, 2008 at 1:11 am
You have to look at these HDR photos the same as one does to art work, in particular those dogs playing poker painted on felt. It’s not natural. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:04 am
I totally agree with James D. “Have some fun with what’s available in digital photography.” Most of the wide shots here look awesome to me and I love the art effects you can give to the images nowadays.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:59 am
I like the one of the car in the parking garage. Mostly because I’m surprised that there are 10mm lenses that are fast enough to get the blur that is achieved in this photo. Most of the 10mm lenses I’ve seen don’t go below an f stop of 3.5 or 4.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:18 am
I’m in love with the photo by stevecarr.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:18 am
petecarr I mean.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Woh!! Just superb compositions. I have been looking into buying a wide angle lense. After looking at these images, I have to get my hands on one pretty soon. I love the picture by “Petecarr” awesome work.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Jesus, awful shots I have those HDR shot. Not even close to real photography..
January 24th, 2008 at 8:33 am
jee wiz these are great. If only someone wanted to donate a 10mm to a poor college student. ehh? ehh?
January 24th, 2008 at 9:13 am
While it’s true that many people process their HDR images in an over-the-top manner, I still see nothing wrong with the technique. If done well, it can create some really stunning images. Besides, I don’t think proponents of HDR really care about what others may say about their photos. Personally I think all the images here are great photos, even the HDR ones.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Michael Seljos + 1
Examples (from my own portfolio so nobody get offended ;)):
Abusive use of HDR (but got quite a few positive comments…):
http://flickr.com/photos/mcfull/421645797/in/set-72157600011026039/
or
http://flickr.com/photos/mcfull/421645553/in/set-72157600011026039/
I wouldn’t do that kind of post processing again.
The HDRs that I like I would keep using:
http://flickr.com/photos/mcfull/421644117/in/set-72157600011026039/
and
http://flickr.com/photos/mcfull/421644028/in/set-72157600011026039/
My HDR set: http://flickr.com/photos/mcfull/sets/72157600011026039/
What do you guys think?
January 24th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
There’s some great wide shots – love jtrippins dog, makes me laugh, as does 10 Ninjas Steve’s shot of the kid in the tub.
What also makes me laugh is all the people getting snotty about HDR not being “real” photography. I’d agree that most HDR shots suck badly. (For the person who asked; HDR is High Dynamic Range – done, usually, by bracketing exposures and combining them to create a really wide range of tones.) However if used to help create a statement or message, HDR is like any other photo technique – its just a tool. No more or less.
If you’re saying it doesn’t “look real” well neither do these wide angle shots – at least my eyeballs don’t see things that way. Or super long exposures of waves or waterfalls that get all silky smooth. There’s lots of examples where photos depart from reality, but if they have a true artistic intent then it can be very cool.
Sadly, much of HDR (and many other techniques) aren’t so successful. Applying any artistic filter to make “a silk purse out a sow’s ear” or art from a basically bad composition just doesn’t fly – which is why I almost never use them.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
i am SO SICK OF HDR!!!!! it looks overdone and not even close to real
January 24th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Pierre, I see that you use HDR as should be, I think a good use gives great results, but as always to much and the picture looks irreal.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I agree that a lot of people take HDR too far but at the same time it can be a useful tool to bring out some vibrancy to an otherwise dull photo.
I was in Prague the other month and I took a photo down a side street, when I got it on the PC, it looked a little lifeless, I broke it up and made a HDR and only tweaked it mildly.
I would be interested in your opinions on this one as I think it is subtle enough to pass as a ‘reasonable’ HDR.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2192449286&size=m
January 24th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
It is interesting to note that a lot of these HDR images with lots of comments following them are usually attached to well over a dozen “comment farm” groups. You know, post one, fav 5 variety. I used to add my photos to those groups until I got sick of having to comment on photos that were sometimes just terrible. Individuals will slap on the latest post-processing techniques to add something, ANYTHING, to their photos that unfortunately are bland to begin with. From HDR, to the horribly abused Dave Hill technique, selective black-and-white; even all the way back to the Photoshop “lens flare” fad yeeeeeears ago. Of course each one in the hands of a dedicated photographer would yield excellent results, but those were few and far inbetween.
Oh yes, 10mm images are usually fun, as are macro =)
January 25th, 2008 at 12:51 am
I must be honest, I think these photos are really cool with a great sense of uniqueness.
One of the reasons I’ve stopped using forums and posting to them is that so many people have a very strong opinion of what is good photography and bad photography. It REALLY stifles creativity.
If everyone were to stick to the rule of thirds with exactly the right exposure, with minimal post processing then I’m afraid everyones shots would eventually be the same…. and boring.
Let people have creativity and not knock them down for it.
Great shots, which I think are different from many of the the critics here.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:44 am
Too much post-processing…Looks like images from a computer game…
January 25th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Personally, I like the HDR images. They are becoming popular because so many people like them. Can they be overboard? Sure, but as with all art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. If you do, go ahead and play to your hearts content.
All the images presented here are very interesting and unique, despite some common characteristics.
January 25th, 2008 at 10:22 am
10mm church wedding, camera on the floor
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobnl/961647838/
January 25th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
The shots are generally pretty awesome. I like the images that have had a little bit of HDR processing, the one of the bridge for example. But it does get overtiring when its been tonemapped to hell.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I have to tell you, I LOVE HDR. I love the surreal aspect of it. You can create so many moods using HDR. It’s enhanced life. Sort of like real life versus the Hollywood version.
January 26th, 2008 at 3:07 am
I wonder if some of us aren’t missing the point with these HDR photographs. I doubt that most of the photographers who took these and did post-processing were going for a “true-to-life” photo. I see these types of photographs as “art” and each one conveys a different mood or message which may be what the photographers were trying to do in the first place. If this method was done with a photograph with poor composition or one that is uninteresting(in other words, just a poor photograph), I can see how this technique could be frowned upon. However, these photographs are interesting in their own right and I would enjoy them even without the post-processing. I applaud those photographers who are able to create “art” with their cameras.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Well said, Claudia. The whole super wide angle theme stretches reality. I’d love to know how the first photo by wws was created without the normal wide angle distortion. He’s a master at correction if he fixed it in PS. I really like all the images.
January 26th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I love them. I think they’re beautiful and not so sure why everybody has to be a ‘critic’. Sometimes it’s better not to say anything if you can’t be nice!
January 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Can anyone recommend a point and shoot with wide angle? I’m looking at the Ricoh GX100, with an adapter I can get down to 19mm. Are there better options?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Stunning? Look the word up in the dictionary. These are in no way stunning.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
stun·ning (stnng)
adj.
1. Causing or capable of causing emotional shock or loss of consciousness.
2. Of a strikingly attractive appearance.
3. a. Impressive: gave a stunning performance.
b. Surprising: The President’s final decision came with stunning suddenness.
I for one think that most of these photographs are “Of a strikingly attractive appearance” and “Surprising” since they’re not what you’d expect a normal photograph to look like.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
stun·ning (stnng)
adj.
1. Causing or capable of causing emotional shock or loss of consciousness.
2. Of a strikingly attractive appearance.
3. a. Impressive: gave a stunning performance.
b. Surprising: The President’s final decision came with stunning suddenness.
I for one think that most of these photographs are “Of a strikingly attractive appearance†and “Surprising†since they’re not what you’d expect a normal photograph to look like.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I totally agree with most of the comments here. I also think the HDR is overused, but that is not what this article is about, no? I am justcoincidently discovering wide angle shots myself. Love to find new angles and this surreal picture it gives. Thanks for all your work, Dave!
January 31st, 2008 at 1:45 am
After reading all the comments about HDR, I have a question — does HDR apply most commonly to wide angle shots?
February 1st, 2008 at 4:54 am
I’ve found that I use my 12-24mm lens very rarely, but the shots I take with it are typically my favorites. It’s something about being able to get that much of a view into a single image.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Wow!!! Wow!! The pictures, all of them, are amazing!
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Wow, those are all awesome pictures. I love the one of the tractor, the first bridge, dog….well, all of them! Nice finds.
http://sean-dinner.com/blog/
March 4th, 2008 at 7:04 am
these pictures are all so rich in color tones, and beautiful.. i was wondering how much editing was actually done to them, or did the colors actually come out this rich when the photo was taken? i mean there are one or two that its a total given that it’s been edited on photoshop, the tractor for example -which i love that shot-. but is there a setting i dont know about for the colors to turn out so ultra rich or is this all the wonderful fun of photoshop that i have not gotten to experience in years???
March 6th, 2008 at 8:25 am
those are seriously the best things i’ve seen in a long time.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
these are probably the best pictures i have ever seen… kudos
March 15th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Yes, wide angle shots should not be forgotten.
And yes, HDR photos can be cool
But those two things have nothing to do with each other. So why represent fact 1 solely with photos that prove fact 2?
And I love good HDR shots. And these are good. But come on, you are misrepresenting yourself.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:08 am
those are pretty awesome. great job!
April 9th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Not a fan of the badly done HDR either, though I appear to be the 78th person to have said that on this post!
May 13th, 2008 at 5:05 am
I am going to agree with the majority here about HDR. I’m getting totally burned out on these type photos. Everybody is doing it and over saturation is taking place. Admittedly, HDR was cool at first… but now it’s getting stale. Nothing beats a great “natural” unprocessed (ie, not run through Photoshop or tone mapping programs). The real skill is the photographer, not the editor.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:22 am
There seems to be a lot of sentiment expressing a dislike of HDR photos. While I agree it can be overdone, I also think it has a place in photography and digital art. I personally love HDR and I’m trying to perfect the tone-mapping to look more natural than too overdone. I don’t do my photography to please anyone else. If I like it, I do it. I’m not a purist. I have all the skills to do “real photography” when I want to, but I also like to experiment with various other post-processing techniques for artistic purposes. To each his own I guess.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Sorry, but postprocessing a photo using the HDR technique doesn’t make it “art”.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I agree with all of the above posters that are against overuse of HDR post processing. It really is a neat way to enhance a photo, but it isn’t pure photography, it tampers with the original photo, and it is overdone way too much. When I first saw HDR photos, I was amazed. but after awhile I got sick and tired. It just tries to grab attention and sometimes people use it to make a bad photo look cool, but it ruins the point. I much prefer the look of traditional photography myself.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:34 pm
It seems to me that the major part of images are stunning not because of wide angle, but because of color correction/saturation and HDR
November 1st, 2008 at 3:55 am
Loved all photos, all of them, but kid in the bathtub is my favorite, about HDR – don’t understand all the bashing this interesting technique, if photo stinks it will stink no matter what – processed or not, those HDR photos do not stink and HDR used to make them better. And NO photograph does not need to be realistic, it has to have a spark to ignite some feelings, if it has no spark it can as realistic as they come it would be nothing more than waist of valuable hard disk space.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:43 am
90% of these look so fake. Everyone relies on a computer to make their pictures look good. Those arent your pictures. They’re photoshops. You spend more time making the picture look good than taking the picture. I guess anyone who knows how to work a computer can be a photographer these days.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:46 am
HDR is obnoxious. Get over it.
January 31st, 2009 at 10:50 am
Whoa..chill out negative nancy! =)
February 28th, 2009 at 6:08 am
agree with bethany, these is not photos, but photoshop, it’s like painting , 4 colour definition is unreal, too much ,
look awesome but it’s art pictures,
the best photos should look real and natural , pictures from gd photographer, not from photo editor.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:37 am
10mm? With what sized sensor? Without knowing that you really don’t know how wide that lens really is. 10mm on an APS-C camera is the same as a 16mm on a full frame body. 10mm on a full frame would be REALLY wide!
April 10th, 2009 at 2:48 am
I agree with most on here, the photos are good but not amazing except for the first one. I think photography is more about getting behidn the camera and capturing that perfect shot instead of spending more time behind the computer screen. The first is is by far the best.
April 10th, 2009 at 4:55 am
I get a kick out of the “anti-hdr” picture comments. I love HDR and find it humorous that some of the comments talk about post-processing as if it’s nothing short of the work of the devil. Do you realize that Ansel Adams spent 50+ hours “post-processing” some of his most beloved photos? Love it or hate it, the point is that most people are in photography for the pleasure of creating art, be it the stark, harsh reality of some of the great sports shooters, or the radical abstraction of an old 60’s pop poster. If you love HDR, look and enjoy, if you don’t, admire the efforts the photographer put into his/her work and move on. Pretty simple really, Paul
April 10th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Too big a deal is being about HDR. Nice job on the images it doesn’t matter how they were made. Live outside the box, color outside the lines, just do it and never look back!
April 10th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Hehe, this posting is about wide-angle usage, but 90% (roughly) of the comments are about HDR. Sorry, lazy – won’t look for the link, but there is a long & good thread in this forum on ‘exposure fusion’ (i.e. hdr) – maybe you should jump there.
However, on the wide-angle – it is a great reminder of its potential, thanks for the article; I love all the photos posted here, from that perspective at least; the composition is just great, the effect on the eye very pleasent and inviting (pity for the post-processing effects tho :) )
To shoot my own foot: looking at wide-angle landscapes on flickr, the majority (my view) have a certain level of exposure fusion, rather than just basic light optimization. If I’m right, is it that on such photo *inevitably* the contrasts are too high to capture them with the camera only, so the hdr is a must? or we are simply too lazy to wake up early enough for that soft light ?
April 10th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I think they are all lovely i wonder if all the winging critics can do as good i enjoyed looking at all the individual styles and some of them were bright but they were meant to be to enhance the main subject
bring it on again these are mega cool
April 10th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
One day I will master the art. I love the surreal look.
April 12th, 2009 at 12:02 am
The tractor looks great but the washed out sky in the bridge photo was a welcome sight!
April 12th, 2009 at 1:30 am
there definitely are some amazing wide angle shots on here, but i think you could find some much better examples than the several WAY over processed ones. I think they should be examples, but not for what you should do.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Poor pictures. Post-processing is fine. HDR is fine. But here it’s overdone. It’s like the cartoony Hollywood movies these days. The original photographer may think it looks natural, but he/she needs to step back and look at the images again with fresh eyes. They are awfully plasticky.
I actually enjoy HDR when used subtlely. Less is more!
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
These are indeed amazing wide angle shots! I love the dog and rooster photos.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
the rooster is THE BEST!!!
April 24th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Wonderful shots. My 10-22 is my favourite lens, takes some of the coolest shots. I LOVE the second one of the kid in the tub. Who says you can’t use a wide angle lens to take pictures of people?
April 24th, 2009 at 1:55 am
I notice there are a couple HDR pics in this group. It also looks like the Orton effect may have been applied to a couple as well. Congrats to you for not sticking with the tried and true processing methods when presenting photos to enjoy!
April 24th, 2009 at 2:29 am
I agree with photonoobie. I love wide angle shots, but these totally over the top HDR and Orton shots are just not my taste. I think it would be nicer if you’d chosen ‘real’ good photos, not ’shopped ones, to demonstrate what a wide-angle lens can do without this kind of artificial enhancement.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Hi There,
Firstly, I enjoy and learn lots from your newsletters. Thank you.
However, this one on wide angle mostly left me turned away. Too much distortion, too much subject and background, too much of what I don’t think was needed for a good photo. My taste of course, not a poll result. Since I’m a newbie pro photog, what do I know, right? Well I’ll tell you – I have been snapping good shots since 1947, way back when DIY chemical darkrooms made us all giants of photocontent control. I’ve done many thousands, many of which were beautifully composed. I know because others said so. Never did it for money though, don’t know why.
I’ll stick to my “empty content” shots that make me happy. I like to focus on one subject and/or lead into it. Simplicity – I love it.
Best,
Ed
April 24th, 2009 at 5:11 am
honestly hdr is a photoshop technique like any other and photoshop is used because photos need to be edited as a general rule…… see it used to be done in a darkroom now we use a computer its not that different so quit with the photoshop hate.
what really destroys these images is that they are boring….. the only possible reason to look at them is because they’re hdrs so they look like good pictures…. take your time to look at them and you’ll realize that my blind dog on crack could take those pictures (although maybe not edit them). there’s so much more you can do with a wide angle lens that doesn’t involve a bridge or getting too close to your cat. they lack substance and subject so who cares about the technique used? or even the lens? because if the images are boring not even photoshop will make someone who enjoys looking at photography look at it. seeing as only a photogrpher really cares about the lens then talking about the lens used as life changing fact reduces the spectrum of the population that cares about these images
hdr is nice if you can include the human element and not over do it so much that it makes your brain leak out your ears.
i’m not saying the photographers who took these images are bad i’m saying that they probably have taken better pictures but you people are drooling at the pointless ones put their to make the stack a little bit bigger
that is the difference between a real photographer and a teenger with a computer and an expensive hobby.
photographers record a subject and frame it in-camera to fit their artistic vision not to wank in front of the computer everytime some moron sees an overdone image of a rooster and says “wow that image of absolutely nothing is soo great cuz its like totally crazy colour magic boobs!!!!!!!! lol rofl” (notice the use of pathetic internet lingo)
no subject no photo
so please someone grow a pair and go take pictures of somthing interesting and then use hdr if thats your thing instead of contributing to the general waste provided by the good people at flickr or deviant art
April 24th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Leo:
I have been a professional photographer for 3 years and a member of this site for around the same length of time and I have a few comments about your post.
The quality of a photograph cannot be categorised into processed or non-processed. All photographers process their images and as time goes on; people utilise the advantages which progressions in technology allow.
You cannot say a HDR image is less of an image than a non-HDR photo purely as the photographer has used some tone mapping in the editing process.
The first step in creating a spectacular image is composition and whether you’re using 35mm, digital, you’ve edited it using a photo editing application or not, is irrelevat as the actual composition of the shot is the most important thing. What editing/enhancement technique is chosen after the shot has been taken will not alter the composition. Saturation may be applied, noise may be reduced, lens distortion may be removed or HDR may be applied, however these modifications are not by themselves enough to make an image memorable. HDR is simply another processing technique.
Some people choose to take HDR to the ultra saturated/abstract-art level whereas others use it to create an image which is equivalent to what the human eye can see with subtle colour and lighting enhancements. Either way, it is a fantastic technique to utilise and the question of ‘cheating’ does not come into it as a HDR image is obvious and the creator does not try to hide this.
People who question and criticise HDR images either a) do not understand the technology and cannot use it; or b) don’t like young competition with fresh ideas.
Personally; I think anybody who drops a comment on this page saying any one of these HDR shots is bad/unacceptable/cheating is simply jealous. Some of these shots are amazing and I wish I took them myself but I will dare not criticise as I would be only lying to myself.
In relations to the actual topic: I love wide angled lenses and my Canon 10-22 is on my camera 95% of the time.
April 24th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I’m glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t like ‘over done” pictures…they look fake and unnatural…the thing about photography is catching the real thing (atleast to me!) i just like real and i’m proud to say i was there capturing it!!
April 24th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I love the superwides but I wish more info was provided. Am I actually viewing a 10 mm pic or is it a 10mm lens on a DX body, hence a 17 mm pic. What kind of results can I expect with my cropped sensor?
April 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
“honestly hdr is a photoshop technique like any other and photoshop is used because photos need to be edited as a general rule…… see it used to be done in a darkroom now we use a computer its not that different so quit with the photoshop hate.”
Read more: http://digital-photography-school.com/17-stunning-wide-angle-images#ixzz0DaGskaVR&B
OH LOOK AT MY COMMENT i said exactly the same thing as you Mr Pro sir loook wow i must be a pro too to have such in depth knowledge and wisdom hmmm infact i think i know exactly what i’m talking about.
just because you’re a pro doesn’t mean your a better photographer it just means you make 100% of your income from photography so i don’t really need to hear about your credentials i’ll simply accept that you know what you’re talking about
truth is i pretty much said the same thing as you if you care to read my comment a little more carefully
did I use the word cheating? no
all i said was that despite the wonderful hdr (although i think in some cases it wasn’t very well done) i found that the lack of a concrete subject in the images made them boring and therefore were sustained only by the hdr that being said i never expressed that i believed hdr to be “evil” in fact i’ve been playing around with it myself i’m just not very good at it but that doesn’t mean i think it’s evil and should be destroyed.
honestly you took my comment and twisted it to make yourself look clever which is a little sad because i thought my comment was not only true but had a little humour (or subject unlike these photos)
i’m a freelance photojournalist 99% of the time i use a wide angle….. my personal favourite at the moment is my nikon 14mm 2.8 superwide on my nikon d700
sooo pretty screw zooms and screw 1.5 crop
April 24th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Leo: Apologies.
To tell you the truth, I glanced at your comment and assumed it was yet another anti-HDR rant, I then wrote my post and clicked ‘Submit Comment’.
After that I re-read through your post and realised that you are in fact agreeing with HDR – I tried to delete it but couldn’t.
(I also had a few too many beers leading to my misunderstanding of your comment).
For the record, I wasn’t suggesting that I know more than others, far from it, I was just trying to establish that I have an opinion out of a little experience.
I agree with what ‘Joe’ said ealier on in this thread:
“Too big a deal is being about HDR. Nice job on the images it doesn’t matter how they were made. Live outside the box, color outside the lines, just do it and never look back!”
April 24th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
its ok i’m a conflictive person and enjoy a little internet banter from time to time : )
April 24th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
to: debby
people who say not to use wide angle lenses to take pictures of people are in fact retarded and should put the textbook away before they turn us all into stereotypes
first off photographers have been using wide angle lenses for people pictures for long time because they are more fun
second
rules are made to be broken if you stick to the rules you will take constantly stereotyped images
do whatever the hell you want i have a photographer friend that swear the best way to take street shots is with a macro lens and a piece of paper infront of the viewfinder so he can’t see whats going on
somehow his pictures are awesome although god knows why (well actually he thinks buddha gives him his images or some shit he’s bizarre)
so why not distort people with wide angle lenses? the might even look better
April 25th, 2009 at 12:20 am
The Sigma 10-20mm is not expensive and is an incredible lens – have a dedicated camera (when a new one was purchased) that I keep that lens on all the time and when I shoot, it is around the neck ready for whatever may come . . . and it’s faster than one would think. Have been most pleased with it.
April 28th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
some of these pictures are really striking, and do illustrate very well the cool perspectives that wide angle lenses have to offer.
with regards to HDR, yes some of the pictures are excessively tone mapped, but HDR can be a wonderful tool, especially when you manage to get details that would otherwise escape you in a photo and make you wonder why is it so well composed and so well-exposed but still not exciting. having said that though, if i see yet another tone mapped tractor i will explode. i don’t understand what it is with people and tone mapping old tractors. i’ve done a few myself to be honest when i first experimented with HDR but i find they are the least favourite of my collection and i will do no more for sure. My final point is that wide angle photography is brilliant ,and HDR is not an easy way to good photography, its an easy way to ruin your photos if you’re not careful or breed laziness (only creative laziness because if you do a big set of HDRs it takes ages to process them all) in photography, but in the right hands (see the traffic light photo or the bridge above) its really effective.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:21 am
i like the tractor one, the camera angle was so dynamic becoz i am student of animation, n i am also want to do photography like this but i haven’t get it. so please guide me to get this kind of result.
June 6th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Bah Humbug! Love, love, love the pictures. They evoke feelings, excitement, verve! I thought they hilarious, joyful, a new twist on the same boring old photo art that everyone does. Would love to know how to do this.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:54 am
HDR is like make-up. If applied correctly it can enhance beauty without being noticed of if applied incorrectly it makes you look like a clown.
July 24th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Nice images but with a degree of post processing – so this will depend on your knowledge of photoshop etc…
July 24th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
The examples are again full of HDR and Orton processings. I think you’d make a better point if you demonstrated the power of the wide angle by choosing only images which have not been post-processed to death (like the last three – they are really good), since artificial effects are more a matter of personal taste than of good photography. This topic should be about seeing, about perspective, about angles – and not about who has the most advanced Photomatix skills.
July 25th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
It is really a very good lesson which I got to improve & create my vision in photography.I am obliged indeed.
Ashvin Patel
August 26th, 2009 at 2:32 am
I agree with Cybergabi. These are some nice photos, but they appear to be showing off HDR than wide-angle. It would be nice to see comparison shots with wide angle vs. zoon to give an idea of the advantages.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I agree with the previous comments, this article was supposed to be showcasing the use of an “ultrawide” prime or zoom lenses not the use of HDR or post processing. Sure most photography is photographic in nature, some is photographic art. I agree with c@pture’s comment that the most important part of the images shown involves the “composition”. I also think there are many degrees of HDR processing, something for everybody.
I personally use a Tokina 11mm-16mm f2.8 (17mm-24mm with DX “C” sensor) ultrawide. Great color, very fast and one of the sharpest short zoom lenses available today, you don’t need a Nikon or Canon equivalent, this lens is sharper @ a lot less $$$$ (see KenRockwell.com for review). This lens takes 77mm filters which is convenient since my other Nikon pro-glass utilizes the same size filters.
As far as HDR, my choice of software to play with when necessary is HYDRA.
Thanks for the great photo’s and comments.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Some (IMHO) of these are just incredible!! My family and I were just talking about the abuse of “overly computerized” photos. One said they love it, that anything is possible. Another said it’s as misleading as photoshopping yourself into a picture with the president. Another said “What’s the point of owning a camera if you can CREATE photos nearly from scratch on the computer”. So, once again, it’s all subjective! I personally don’t like messing with my pictures too much. I might ENHANCE them, but (other than b&w or sepia) refuse to mess with the true colors much.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:37 am
The photos are great, all this anti hdr waffle is the same as people moaning about images that were enhanced in the darkroom in the dark ages of film, burning in skys etc etc etc. Everyone using a filter is enhancing to some extent. If you don’t like them don’t look!! or show us some of your stuff!!
August 28th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
i don’t know that the wide angle pictures taken like this. They are just stunning. ur site taught me very very interesting topic. thanks a lot for ur photos
August 30th, 2009 at 12:23 am
These tips will definitely help me use my 10-17mm lens! Thank you!!!
August 31st, 2009 at 2:02 am
Giving consideration that photography is an art form, and digital processing allows us to expand this art, what s the big deal with HDR? It can help to invoke an emotion by emphasizing a part or all of the picture. For all of the “purists” posting, please direct us to your shots that were not cropped, burned, blurred, taken without additional lighting. For everyone who commented negatively on the HDR shots while installing the latest version of Photoshop……shame on you.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:43 am
Lee,
Two points I would like to make.
1. This topic is about wide angle images and not HDR, For some reason many of the pictures chosen were HDR and people were commenting on that.
2. HDR is fine and if people enjoy it, so much the better. I personally dislike most of the HDR images I see. I think HDR is great for some uses but often times it doesn’t appeal to me.
I said it in an earlier post, HDR is like make up. It can enhance but too much of it looks gaudy.
August 31st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Someone else asked the question but I can’t seem to find an answer, what is HDR?
August 31st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Helen,
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. HDR images are created ‘normally’ by merging together the same image with different exposures.
August 31st, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Thank you Dennis. I am a mature age beginnner so I think that HDR is a little bit out of my league for the time being but at least I now know what it stands for.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
hey…awesome examples…..i don’t really use my wide angle all that much but im sure i will now! 8)
September 9th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Helen,
From one ‘mature aged beginner’ to another let me say that it isn’t as hard as it sounds and it has some good benefits.
If I am shooting a scene that is composed of both very bright areas and very dark areas I will sometimes take two extra pictures of the scene. One image would be +2 stops above metered exposure and the other would be -2 stops below metered exposure. Those two images plus the ‘correct’ exposure image can be merged together into one HDR image using Photoshop (there are other apps as well that do a better job).
The plus side of HDR is you capture more details in the highlights and shadows. If the scene is very important the extra effort to take two more images is small. The minus side is the file storage requirements are much larger.and you really have to use a tripod.
September 14th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I personally do not like these “over-cooked” images but each to their own. I have tried a few of my own for fun but don’t want to go down that path with my photography. I like to use photoshop to process my RAW images to the best of my ability so the viewer can see with their eyes what I saw with mine when I took the photo but am not against people using HDR at all. It’s simply another aspect of photography, if you are not into it fair enough but no point moaning about it. It’s not going to stop people post processing using HDR. Concentrate on what you are doing and let others get on with their thing. We are all having fun!
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
please could you tell me the lens you have used to take these pictures and rougly the price you can get it for?
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 am
Josh, many of these pics were taken with a 10mm lens. The price of such a lens depends on your camera. A Nikon 10mm can run $750 or you can opt for a Sigma lens for around $460.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I was looking for wide-angle skills in this topic, but like everyone above it seems to be a post processing event!. There are much better wide shots on the forum pages. As for HDR – it is a art skill, not a photag skill in my book. Done well (fireworks, gothic/ old buildings) it works, many of the shots above are not to my taste.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Most of these are very un-natural looking HDR shots.
Leave a Reply