17 Stunning 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.
Read more posts like '17 Stunning Wide Angle Images'
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.