17 Amazing Wide Angle Images

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.

17 Amazing Wide Angle Images

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.

Have you taken a great wide angle image? Please share it in comments below!

Read more from our category

Darren Rowse is the editor and founder of Digital Photography School and SnapnDeals. He lives in Melbourne Australia and is also the editor of the ProBlogger Blog Tips. Follow him on Instagram, on Twitter at @digitalPS or on Google+.

Some Older Comments

  • juliet goretti July 25, 2013 11:35 pm

    amazing shots! thanks for sharing.

  • kirtu Riba May 14, 2013 04:01 am

    Darren Rowse deserves appreciation for imparting photography skills to all enthusiasts . He is a man of exceptional zeal and ability !!

  • jim March 28, 2013 10:40 am

    These images are great! Stop being such gear heads and give a little props. HDR is too cool looking for you? Just another tool in the box. (And its not like we all don't do our fair share of post work..) they're just pictures people! Dont hate em' cuz they're beautiful. ;)

  • kendall February 21, 2013 06:05 am

    I think the photos each have a unique look all their own. Thats what is grat about art, it is left up to the viewer interpertation. Thank you for sharing!

  • Darin January 13, 2013 08:44 am

    Can you put a 10mm on a full frame? what lenses were used here?

  • Ben Holland January 2, 2013 06:14 am

    Really great images. I'm just getting into photograph and am looking at wide angle lenses now. Personally, I like HDR images but not so much when used for landscapes. I think they look best for city landscapes

  • ianthé wiehahn August 26, 2012 01:03 am

    I am going to buy wide lense. I use a Pentax K20D. What lense will be best...a 10-20 or 12-24?

  • TimW August 14, 2012 04:13 am

    HDR I find is OK if it's not overdone. I do find some get a little carried away. Some may like it, but I find it to be distracting at times. To each his own.

  • Justin May 6, 2012 03:15 pm

    the amount of editing and tonemapping is honestly nauseating in these shots, they lose any form of talent or actually being photo's and really are people who can take an average shot and edit the crap out of it.

  • gordon pressley May 5, 2012 11:15 pm

    Looking at the replies .they date back to 2008..I think wide angle HDR proccessing has become more refined now !

  • lambertwm May 1, 2012 08:20 pm

    Sure, they are wide angle, but "over processed" is the first thing that comes to mind when I look at these photos.

  • Patrick Dinneen March 21, 2012 10:41 pm

    I'm using a Pentax K-7 so it'd be 35mm equiv I presume.

  • P-J March 21, 2012 09:21 pm

    When you state 10mm it's obvious that is not on 35mm (dgital equiv) format?

    So meaningless to most.

    I agree with the HDR commenst also - overdone here

  • nancy dowling February 16, 2012 02:07 am

    I agree HDR overdone. Missing on the beauty of wide angle!

  • Patrick Dinneen February 15, 2012 02:03 am

    I don't have a true wide angle lens yet (have a 17-50mm) but will get one at some stage.
    I think one can't appreciate the extra width/height you get in a shot unless you have a photo shot at 10mm compared to the same scene shot at 17/24mm.

  • Seppo February 5, 2012 10:04 am

    Im in on banning HDR all together. When overutilized it makes everything look like plastic toys. In this case the HDR discussion is taken over the commenting that should concentrate on the wide angle images - the composition and what a wide angle lens will do to perspective, space and distances. I think Darren has posted a nice selection of photos that make think about how I compose a shot. Thanks!

  • Fotograf Constanta January 28, 2012 07:43 am

    I hope i`ll get a sigma 10-20mm this year...impressive photos. The dog is quite funny

  • Adam Allegro November 10, 2011 01:29 am

    Half of these images are horrible. Who picked these??? There is nothing wrong with HDR when used properly. With the numerous halos, oversaturation, boring subjects... These look like some of the first HDRs I ever tried my hand with. Not impressed with this "amazing wide angle images" in the least...

  • james moran October 29, 2011 05:01 am

    great photos, just bought a tokina 11-16mm f2.8 ultra wide. mounts on my D7000 with precision. fantastic lens, camera not bad either

  • Larry October 18, 2011 10:37 pm

    HDR photography is an excellent tool to create photos that look more like what we see with our eyes. It can also be used to make unrealistic looking photos. How it's used is ultimately an individual choice. If painters rejected the idea that unrealistic looking paintings were "art" half the walls in our museums would be empty. Not every photo needs to be exactly like it really is to be interesting and pleasing to the eye. As long as people have a tool to test and expand their creativity it's going to be used no matter how loudly others protest.

  • james j moran October 4, 2011 12:38 am

    just got a tokina 11-16mm f 2.8 for my D7000, need to go shoot a thousand photos, hopefully I can get some to look like these

  • Bob smith September 30, 2011 03:32 pm

    I am just curious , I wonder why it is that we generally tend to want to rip on those things we do not like. Reading the comments here in regards to HDR I found a fair amount of us have not bothered to provide constructive criticism just to rip in and bash an attempt to kill the offending subject. Some claim that it not real looking...impressionist.. Van Gogh anyone just saying? Some claim it lacks creativity but to create something that does not really exist as opposed to capturing the moment make me think painter versus copy machine. I do not like or dislike the HDR photos but I have no constructive input as i could not do HDR as well as the poster. I think all art is to be encouraged and if you don't like it fine just don't say anything unless you got something constructive to say.

  • Andrys August 7, 2011 09:01 pm

    Nothing is inherently 'art' or wonderful. There are some really FINE images here. There are also some predictable ones that remind me of black velvet pictures. It's arrogant and narrow to say that others are not opening their minds or staying within borders just because they react differently to these as a -whole-. It's not about realism vs anything else. A look at the individual shots here is one thing. But to paint them all as overdone OR as 'art' is not seeing each one.

  • cattle August 3, 2011 03:08 pm

    Photography is art. Art can be realistic or an expression of self or one's imagination taking it to a new dimension. I would say the long drawn out argument over HDR for 4 years on this blog is pointless as your arguing "art" which is undefined without limits. "Picasso I'm sorry, those are just not realistic" sure it's paint but paints a medium just as photography as is photoshop as is HDR. Infinity conversation as there is only opinion. Let your mind go of the boarders and enjoy looking through life through someone's else's eye.
    I think there is some beautiful stuff upstairs I'll keep my doors open.

  • Jazzfreakjerry July 28, 2011 07:36 pm

    I would just like to share my opinion on HDR. The picture are just to unnatural for me. I would rather shoot it in and process it a bit. There are too many photographers now that do a lot of post processing rather than shooting the picture right. When you look at the original picture its really not that great. I still like old school, that is where the skill and art of the photographer can be appreciated.

  • Adrian June 28, 2011 07:07 pm

    Thanks for the inspiration

  • Kat June 7, 2011 06:46 am

    These are some great captures but the HDR is poorly done in many of them...so many bad halos >.<

  • Peter L April 29, 2011 02:49 pm

    I am wondering if the images are taken at 10mm. On what sensor size? Are they 15mm or 18mm equivalent, or true 10mm on a full frame camera?

  • kelvin March 22, 2011 03:10 am

    "You don't take great photographs...... You make them" Ansel Adams

    Those that are opposed to post processing should go back and read books by Ansel Adams. You might be amazed at his post processing......

  • Umer Rasheed March 21, 2011 05:54 pm

    wow. Excellent images. thanks for sharing

  • Saravanaraj March 6, 2011 02:01 am

    I'm getting a wide angle lens(17-40 f/4L) and was looking around for some tips and ideas in shooting wide angled images. I landed here and the images here are so inspiring! Gives a lot of ideas to shoot in the world around you. I'm definitely gonna subscribe here!

  • eddie February 24, 2011 08:25 am

    Being new to photography, I have to admit being extremely impressed with most of the photos presented here (even the ones with the HDR overkill). Still, it is my belief that on the topic of photography, or any other art form, that the beauty in the art lies in the individual interpretation. On the topic of discussion, the use or overuse of HDR distracted me (only in a few photos) from the intended topic, the use of wide angle lens.

  • Keith Anderson February 8, 2011 12:47 pm

    Hi Chuck. I suppose if I could paint like that, I probably would give up photography. The cool thing about photography these days is that you can shoot very realistic looking photos or you can make your photos look like paintings or sketches or whatever.

    It cracks me up when people talk about realistic photos. So photography was originally all black and white - how fake looking are those? :-) The human eye has only one focal length. So when you choose a zoom or wide angle lens, or a certain f-stop for depth of field is the image no longer "real"? Just enjoy the art, create what you want to please yourself or your audience, and don't over think it.

  • Chuck February 3, 2011 02:57 am

    Half of these photos look fake! ...more like an oil painting. Is that HDR? Why not just take up painting instead of photography? The other half look really cool!

  • M. D. Vaden of Oregon November 14, 2010 09:22 am

    The red bridge over water is probably my favorite.

    And the tractor image seems to be the most dramatic.

    The car photo is more or less average, than amazing.

  • matt zory November 11, 2010 12:03 pm

    For me, as a veiwer, HDR can add a painterly (is that a word?) quality, usually surreal. I'm new to this so haven't used it myself but seems like a good, possibly expressive, tool.

  • Bryan Agoncillo October 28, 2010 03:30 pm

    @Keith, but HDR is cool!

  • Michael Seljos October 28, 2010 02:00 pm

    Well said Keith Anderson. I totally agree with you. Photography is art, and the way it is accomplished should be entirely up to the creator of that art. I love pure photography, and I also love HDR. I really don't care if others like what I do or not. If it pleases me, that's what I'm after.

  • Keith Anderson October 28, 2010 01:22 pm

    Why are people getting down on HDR as "Not Natural"? Is 10mm natural? The human eye doesn't see in that focal length. I've never seen a kid with a face as long as his arms or a rooster the size of a barn... Or frozen drips, or sexy colored smoke whisps, or a dozen lightning strikes hitting a bridge at the same time, or stars that are 100 times longer than they are wide. Much of photography is not "real".

    I think many of us strive to create "Art" and are distressed when viewers think we were "Just Lucky" to capture a unique or beautiful image. If photgraphers can't recognize photography as an art form, how can we expect the general public to do so? Some photos are intended to mimic reality, others are not. As long as the artist got what was intended, they accomplished their art.

    'nuff said. I am heading out to hire that elusive supermodel that never uses makeup and walks around all day in a halo of perfect Bokah...


  • Scott R October 8, 2010 11:43 pm

    Personally I love all of the HDR's in this post.

  • Chris October 8, 2010 08:01 am

    I'm in agreement with most everyone else: HDR overused kills pictures! Most of these look like a scene from a video game. I would have wanted to have seen more creative use of the wide angle, for example, with land scapes, creative portrayal of foreground objects, etc. rather than more than half the images simply displaying a trendy processing technique. If half the pictures had been sepia toned instead of HDR...

  • M_TZ September 20, 2010 07:27 pm

    For those who were wondering, almost (if not all) pics were taken with aps-c (crop) sensor cameras, which means 10mm -> 15 or 16mm (35mm equivalent).
    Next time, why not split the wide angle pics in 2 sections: normal and HDR, for as some of us, I am getting a bit tired only seeing over saturated HDR pics :-)
    HDR is not compulsory to get a good wide angle pic.
    Let's rather play with distorsion :-)

  • M_TZ September 20, 2010 07:27 pm

    For those who were wondering, almost (if not all) pics were taken with aps-c (crop) sensor cameras, which means 10mm -> 15 or 16mm (35mm equivalent).
    Next time, why not split the wide angle pics in 2 sections: normal and HDR, for as some of us, I am getting a bit tired only seeing over saturated HDR pics :-)
    HDR is not compulsory to get a good wide angle pic.
    Let's rather play with distorsion :-)

  • M_TZ September 20, 2010 07:27 pm

    For those who were wondering, almost (if not all) pics were taken with aps-c (crop) sensor cameras, which means 10mm -> 15 or 16mm (35mm equivalent).
    Next time, why not split the wide angle pics in 2 sections: normal and HDR, for as some of us, I am getting a bit tired only seeing over saturated HDR pics :-)
    HDR is not compulsory to get a good wide angle pic.
    Let's rather play with distorsion :-)

  • anon September 1, 2010 12:06 am

    more like paintings than photographs. compelling work but more a showcase of post processing than wide angle lenses

  • mozeye August 31, 2010 02:01 am

    photography = capturing light. irrespective of whether that is via traditional medium of film or new technology such as digital ccd.

    High Dynamic Range is a way to maximise exposure across subject matter. If you understand light at all then you know this will render unrealistic representations of the world. This is a consideration to make when using this technique. It does not mean it is wrong or that the images rendered will be of less artistic merit than that of an image that has had no manipulation.

    When we choose to criticise somebody's work we need to contextualise where and why our critique has validity. So in what circumstance was that image taken and for what purpose?

    The beauty in photography especially as art is that we can manipulate our images in any way we see fit. That may be our choice of lens,filter, film speed, shooting technique, angles, exposures, post editing, etc etc we have a wonderful array of choices lets not waste time putting each others work down. These pictures each have there own set of pros and cons each dependent upon there intended use, and viewers interpretation.

    I employ an open mind when I look at work and never judge something by comparing it to what I would do....more often that not I if I do dislike a piece I will explored it and its artist in depth then I either hate it more or I it changes my perspective, at least it validates my critique whether that be positive or negative....we don't like or dislike without reason.


  • Glen August 26, 2010 10:25 am

    these are good pictures except for overdoing the post processing..i don't know if this can still be called photography since the pictures are processed in such a way that the colors looked very unnatural..if you are going to use the hdr effect you might as well stop photography and concentrate on painting so that you can put all the colors you want to your heart's desire..processing a picture is like painting done digitally...the joy of photography is in the way you capture the moment the way your eyes saw at the moment it was captured..otherwise, what's the sense of photography if you are going to manipulate the pictures..this is just my opinion cause i'm tired of seeing unnatural photographs...but on the other side, if you are a professional photographer and is being paid to deliver these kind of pictures, continue with your work..

  • bill August 20, 2010 01:00 am

    I have to agree with TEXGATOR..

    All of you so called "PHOTOGRAPHERS" that just criticize someone elses perspective of their art lack vision and imagination. Geez, wonder what they all wouldve said about Van Gogh's Starry Night... Im certain that view from his window didnt look ANYTHING like he portrayed it.. oh well. Everyone has an opinion and just like something else, they all stink. sorry. off my soap box.

  • Aldric July 25, 2010 10:51 am

    These are beautiful. I would like to be able to create photos such as your traffic light picture. Can you recommend a good wide angle lens that is compatible with a canon rebel? I am a beginner.

  • Christi Nielsen July 6, 2010 02:37 am

    And I just realized that you did address the angle a bit in a few other posts. Thanks!

  • Christi Nielsen July 6, 2010 02:28 am

    It would be nice for you to address shooting from different angles with a wide angle lens. For instance, when shooting interior design, I've noticed a friend of mine always wants to shoot from the corner, which drastically elongates cabinets, etc. It's always best for me to shoot straight on if possible in a situation like that. I'd like to see/hear about angle techniques, or other techniques, for taking a shot that accurately represents the space/architecture.

    Regarding the HDR - you know when someone first uses Photoshop and you want to lock them in a room for a week and let them get the filters out of their system? That's what needs to happen with HDR. Once they get it out of their system and learn to use it properly, they'll (hopefully) stop producing kitsch. One of my colleagues says it best (IMHO). HDR is the new clipart.

  • Greg Carrick June 26, 2010 10:52 pm

    Nice wide angles. Pity about the hdr.

  • zoe June 22, 2010 02:26 am

    Hi i was wondering if anyone can help me i am looking for a digital camera to take pictures of our new house we are doing up. I did have a Kodak easyshare but the pictures are not wide enough when taking pics of the rooms. Willing to spend up to about £200 any recommendations

  • texgator May 19, 2010 07:26 am

    It seems to me that people get bent about HDR shouldn't look at digital photographs at all. In essence, a photograph is a subjective capture of light. Unless you happen to be closing your eyes when you are taking a picture, you are editing reality just by deciding what part of your vision is going to end up on the camera's sensor. That is, unless your natural vision is rectangular.......

    You've already decided to manipulate the pixels just by taking the shot. To then pass judgment upon another pixel-manipulation is akin to a pot smoker looking down upon a crack smoker.

    If it is a good shot, it's a good shot.

  • syandyh April 1, 2010 04:50 pm

    To me photograph is an art, and like any other art it is very subjective to the taste of the viewer. I really want to see photograph taken by Leo, the 99% photojurnalist who critized heavily on the posted pictures.

  • Blandi Hufsnah March 16, 2010 07:27 pm

    I believe these images are very interesting i am new to photography so to me these composition almost look flawless, but they may have been touched up in order to create the desired effect but overall i really like the wide anlge lens, because it really does make the image look interesting

  • Joe March 4, 2010 11:35 am

    I'm pretty sure the rooster is the worst of the bunch. Wanna talk about screing around in Photomatix? Look at the sky ober the rooster's right shoulder, your left. It's awful. I'm all for surrealism and wide-angle and HDR; that's what they're for most often. But that is just not very good. Poorly executed in every sense. For people who can take good pictures AND make them look a bit better with HDR? Props to you. Same goes for those who can take a good picture and make it a crazy-but-still-good picture with HDR.

    If you're gonna go crazy, go crazy and end up with something solid and presentable.

  • Bryan Agoncillo February 16, 2010 06:22 pm

    OMG, these images are amazing and done through a wide angle lens.... I'm currently researching on it's effects to see if I can take advantage of these type of images in my photography adventure.

  • Synthe February 2, 2010 02:23 pm


  • Gino December 17, 2009 10:57 am

    As far as I am concerned HDR is up to the artist (photographer). Even the old masters like Cole, Adams, etc., used to dodge and burn their works to achieve their masterpieces. That is the same as using HDR today just a different technology. I am not wild about the surreal colors or images but they also are expressing their views, not mine , so be it.

  • Byrle December 17, 2009 09:48 am

    HDR; I have never done it, too lazy I guess. However, I have been looking at HDR images for the past year and as of this date I agree with all those who say 'it has been nearly worked to death'. Photography is art, but not in the same sense as an oil painting or some such. Think photographs look better as photographs, even the ones from long long ago.

  • Baginz December 12, 2009 08:55 pm

    HDR is of course the modern equal to exposure blending, however I agree with most above, photomatix has turned HDR into a horrible onslaught of over saturated photo's....I do HDR work often enough but I never make them look like this, and I never use automated programs specific to HDR.....photoshop and adjust, but keep it NATURAL looking, that being said as a fellow artist I can see where some think they look cool, and honestly they do, but not in a photography sense, in a man made sense:) either way I'll stick with natural HDR and go buy a new 10mm lens:)

  • Kelly December 2, 2009 07:52 am

    I like some of the architectural/interior shots (like the bridge, cathedral and escalator), but the ones with the extremely obvious HDR work look fake and silly for my taste. Is it me or do these types of HDR overdoses look more like sloppily-filled-in paint by numbers paintings rather than photographs?

  • KLBO November 26, 2009 03:18 am

    These are amazing examples. Glad I ran into this, I'm especially excited because I just bought a tokina 11-16 f2.8.

  • Gabe November 24, 2009 07:57 pm

    I wrote that not reading one post from other people, and realised, after the comment box said"look slike you already said that"(huh!,haha), wow, so many of us are dying to see some piks raw, letting the camera do its job, glad Im not alone here......dont get me wrong the piks are awsome, the post production wrecks them a little.

  • Gabe November 24, 2009 07:47 pm

    Love the piks, but would love them more if they were'nt so touched up with photoshop or light room, what ever happend using the camera for great results instead post production....let it all hang out natural, I miss that...fancy editing...whateva!!!!!

  • mrsrobinson November 23, 2009 08:33 am

    I ready somewhere that when HDR is done properly and truly, you don't even realize it's HDR. So I guess it's sad that when people think HDR, all they think of is the in your face versions. Anyway, I like the shots compositionally even if they are overprocessed.

  • Deb November 23, 2009 06:43 am

    More wide angle discussion please. How much correction for curvature in horizontal and vertical lines is done post-production? And of course, a different image results when a 10mm image is cropped to the same image as the same shot taken with a 100mm lens or a 50mm lens for that matter. It would be fun to see some side by side examples of the differences. Tell us about post-production work done on some of these really great examples.

  • Anna November 22, 2009 10:28 pm

    Poor poor post.

    Confuses all beginers when it comes to the meaning of zoom and wide angle/zoom.

    And the HDR are downright ugly!! Horrible! Nasty, hurts my eyes!

  • rod fermin November 22, 2009 05:20 pm

    i guess it's every photographer's desire that the deeper it is, the better! There's more for us if we once again visit the wide, wide angle lenses!!!

  • Mool33 November 22, 2009 11:20 am

    I personally like the HDR look in all of these photos it has so much more creativity and takes the photos beyond just a scenery shot capturing what’s around. These city shots that are edited give a real creepy feel an abnormal and different look which says so much more to me, from an environmental greenie perspective or the feeling when I moved to the capital city from my small town in the outback. These photos captured that feeling for me. If you don’t like digital then don’t be a hypocrite and still use digital cameras.. go back to film. But if you are going to use digital why not enjoy and play with everything it has to offer. There is no less creativity or artistry in some one that can do it in post maybe that doesn’t make them a photographer in the classical sense but it still requires vision, knowledge, time, patience and love.. the essence of any artistic piece.

  • DeeCajun November 22, 2009 04:52 am

    In my opinion what is the object of photography?

    To come out with a nice photo.

    I agree that they are over processed but believe they could have their place somewhere.

    I always strive to do what I did back in the days of film, try to get that good raw shot.

    I am not liking that I am losing that edge due to digital manipulation.

  • Lewis November 21, 2009 12:38 pm

    The HDR debate in these comments reminds me of the great divide between pictorialism and pure photography.

  • Phil November 21, 2009 08:53 am

    I can't belive that there is hardly any distortion on the edges of these beautiful photographs using a 10mm wide angle lens. What's the trick? That's why I havent purchased a wide angle, especially a 10mm, because I thought I would get the fish bowl effect.

  • Bob L November 21, 2009 12:47 am

    Can anyone recommend a wide angle for my Nikon D90?

  • Bob L November 21, 2009 12:45 am

    What's the difference between a 'wide angle' and a fish eye. Is it that a wide angle is just that, 'wider angle' and a fish eye is more of a special effect lens?

  • Joe November 20, 2009 11:45 pm

    I like the streetlight and the interior of the church, but the rooster is an example of bad HDR. Why post an article about wide angles and ruin it with examples of HDR? Seems distracting - just look at all the negative comments.

  • Daniela November 20, 2009 11:36 pm

    I Think HDR is nice but not real, sometimes we forget that natures gives us stunning colours. I love wide angle pictures, this is one i took in a trip in my country, Argentina, its a 18mm shot, i hope you like it![img]http://www.flickr.com/photos/26318037@N05/4119087575/[/img]

  • purrdey November 20, 2009 08:23 pm

    With apologies to Andrys and anyone else put out my the size of the 2 files I pointed to. I assumed the forum would downsize them automatically (given that you can't see them at full size anyway, where they look rather more impressive.)
    I hadn't said that the first shot was HDR, and you obviously think I should have set up a tripod and taken bracketed shots (not possible, given the venue). Of necessity the shot was taken as a single RAW and 'retro-processed' by cloning to 3 TIFs and then passing through Photomatix. The subject was incredibly bright, but I'd be happy to send you the EOS40D .CR2 file if you think you can improve on it.
    But having looked at some of the shots on your website, I'm reminded to make another point re ultra-wide angle lenses which is that vertical distortion is almost always a problem, at least in architectural shots. Most people seem content to live with this, and make no attempt to correct it. My second shot looks truly weird uncorrected - although I can imagine some people finding the shape of the corrected version a bit novel.

  • devi November 20, 2009 06:20 pm

    what is HDR? I do not like to add colour etc to teh photos I have, except perhaps a bit more brightness.
    Sort of feel it is not "natural" to add colour.

  • Andrewdt November 20, 2009 05:37 pm

    Please Leo - I have to read more of your work (you say you are a freelance journo). This thread started to disintegrate earlier with all the infighting but my oh my did Leos comments make me laugh! Now back to grumpy faced work....

  • peter kovak November 20, 2009 05:32 pm

    It's not only the HDR, it's also exagerated postprocessing, to much photoshop...hues become unreal, contrast and saturation...well, I don't know, like some kind of SF movie. It's a pity, because there is a couple of realy good pictures damaged only by to hard darkroom (everything, of course, according to my taste).

  • mbugua kibera November 20, 2009 03:27 pm

    very nice pictures.
    i wish i had a wide angle lens like 17mm.
    thanks for sharing.

  • Akhil November 20, 2009 02:44 pm


  • mayie delgado November 20, 2009 01:03 pm

    I like the effects of HDR and have been successful in some of my attempts. But that's beside the point. The images here shot with 10mm lenses are beautiful and artistic. I will try some of the techniques used by the photographers who shared their images. Thank you for sharing.

  • liz November 20, 2009 10:47 am

    OK - so WHAT exactly does "HDR" mean, and how does one accomplish this effect? Is this a photoshop technique? (Think I may like to try it, in a limited sense.) Thx!

  • Gino November 20, 2009 07:49 am

    To HDR or not as far as I am concerned is up to the photog to enhance his concept or to make a mundane picture a little more interesting. We are all in this medium trying our best to express our personnel interpretation of a scene or subject..I'm not into HDR but I see a lot of great photographs using this medium, all good or bad, it's what the photog wanted for his final photo. LOL, like where was his head at?

  • jb November 20, 2009 07:38 am

    HDR does have it's place as many have said, but it is way overdone these days. These images are more in tune with the graphic arts genre versus photography. You can generate the same types of images with modeling software...just like they do for video games.

    I also agree it's art. Some of it is neat and cool! But there isn't much difference between overdone HDR and the art created by simply applying the "colored pencil" or "dry brush" filter to any image in Photoshop. It's art but it's left the realm of photography.

    When done right, HDR can expand the limitations of the camera. When overdone, it faddish and gets old fast. I agree we are past that point.

  • Andrys November 20, 2009 05:29 am

    This is already a long page and it's grotesque to slow it down further with a sudden humongous file, the full effect of which (showing what extreme wide angle can get you) could have been shown us with a small file. This page could not work if others tossed exceedingly large files on it.

    Second, as much as I hate overdone HDR (the only type we keep seeing these days), the first picture could have used bracketing at least and post processing layering so you wouldn't have the blown out whites of the lights, which detract from an otherwise impressive image for travel documentary purposes. Outside of all that, I agree with you that your lens is a great choice.

  • purrdey November 20, 2009 04:54 am

    knowing I was going to Istanbul, I wanted to be able to capture the interiors there. A fisheye would have been over-the-top (price AND effect) so the Canon 10-22 seemed like a good idea. I used it heavily, especially in the Dolmabahçe Palace (shot #4403 taken in the harem; shot @ 10mm) and in the Blue Mosque (shot #4478; also shot at 10mm) NB here I have deliberately NOT cropped it to a rectangle. Why waste it?
    The bottom line is that an ultra-wideangle zoom can take you places a standard zoom never can.

  • Chuck November 20, 2009 04:06 am

    I also feel that HDR has its place. Unfortunately, when over done it can become somewhat garish. That makes the effect easily recognizable and people beging dismissing the images out of hand simply because it's HDR. It's like saying, "I don't like Bob's photos. I don't care about the individual merit of his photos. I don't like the photos because Bob took them."

  • wildplaces November 20, 2009 03:45 am

    Thank you for posting...in spite of a few over-HDRed photos, as noted by others, the composition is first rate and creative and all interesting uses of UWA lenses...

  • Alex November 20, 2009 03:34 am

    Some pretty good images but several heavily overprocessed. HDR is only cool if it isn't obvious!

  • Jim Esten November 20, 2009 03:25 am

    I also agree with James. In many of these shots the HDR is overdone, and looks like a phony gimmick. i could see using it in advertising because it's eye-catching, especially to the majority of people who don't know what it is. I would use the technique very sparingly in a fine art photo.

  • David November 20, 2009 03:14 am

    I have to say that some of these shots are deliciously good. But the HDR ones are ruined by overdone HDR. I don't mind HDR when used subtly, but gari baldi's shot is ruined by over processing.

  • Darren Addy November 20, 2009 03:00 am

    @james: Over-done "dialed to 11" photomatix-y "HDR" has always been tired, in my book. It isn't really HDR to me.

  • Srinu November 19, 2009 11:51 pm

    that's amazing and inspiring ..! thanks you.. ! i am subscribed your feed ..! i like your all posts..!

  • Jason Collin Photography November 19, 2009 06:25 am

    Absolutely love the lead Ferrari in the city shot. I went to flickr and faved it before even writing this comment here.

    No doubt in the right circumstances, i.e. mounted on a tripod most of the time, a super wide lens can be just as fun as a super telephoto.

  • Flores November 18, 2009 03:58 pm

    What is white angle in this article means? Is it just for DSLR or PS camera as well? I just have canon PS S5 IS, and 80% of my shoot is no zoom at all. And this particular camera lens is 6mm to 72 mm. So, it means I always take picture with 6mm wide angle. Does it means better than 10mm (not on the quality of the picture but on the angle of the lens). Stupid questions from an amateur photographer.

  • Rebecca November 18, 2009 03:44 pm

    My very favorite post!! I loved every picture!! Totally inspiring, cant wait to try it out myself! thank you~!

  • Javi November 18, 2009 10:38 am

    I think the images are quite artistic! Wide angle is definetly unique and at times very useful. In contrast to (sorry, to differentiate) from what the most are saying regarding HDR photography, I believe its a post process technique taken to the extreme. I have played with it enough to know it takes a very long time to create and to me that equals art but not money. For the sake of art as a form, its a wonderful tool, and we must not limit our artistic abilities to one resource (the camera) but expand to the many others available including post processing and the computer. I'm sure the process takes a long time to perfect and kudos to those that do it right. From a non-photographer point of view (others I've asked) I don't think I've had a single person not like the effect. It truly is art.

  • Canonfan November 18, 2009 03:16 am

    I too am tired of post processing, to me its not artistic at all. All it means is you know how to use a computer program and not a camera. Maybe i'm old school but I believe the shot should come from the camera and the person behind the lense, not the computer.

  • Mike McManus November 17, 2009 12:18 pm

    We need to remember, it's ART. Doesn't mean you need to like it, but respect the artist. Someone saw in their minds eye what the final image looks like. We can learn from every image. I started shooting with a 16-35 Canon and it's changed my outlook on what to look for.

  • Jim Fox November 17, 2009 10:18 am

    Most of those shots are pretty cool, but I think the HDR stuff is overdone and is being way over used. I like the tractor one though. Is the 2 stop light one an HDR? It isn't bad either. But some of those other HDR shots..............yuck. HDR is getting to be like the Beatles...........over-rated.

  • Cornell November 17, 2009 08:08 am

    RE: the HDR photos

    Nothing exceeds like excess.

    When HDR images are so overdone, they cease to be photographs. They're graphics, not photographs.

  • Jason November 17, 2009 07:44 am

    question: when the writer says 10mm, does he mean 10mm on a cropped sensor camera, or full frame? 10mm on a ff is ridonkulous.

  • Stock Photos November 17, 2009 04:02 am

    I love angles it adds depth to the photos!

  • Ben November 17, 2009 01:44 am

    Some great images here! But some of the HDR's are a little "hamfisted" in my opinion...

  • Jesper Revald November 17, 2009 01:08 am

    There's HDR, and then there's overdoing it - by a giant leap. IMO there are some keepers in there. Rest rest are just plain bad. With so many great wide angle shots out there, why focus so heavily on the HDR ones?

  • Ken November 16, 2009 11:29 pm

    These images are amazing.....but they are so post produced you could barely call them a photograph. I think they also put false hopes in the mine of beginners. I look at photos like these and go out and shoot, shoot, and shoot and can get no where near these images. Then come to find out most of what I see is post production. I would like to see some of these images in their original state.

  • Eric Mesa November 16, 2009 10:55 pm

    hahahahahaha! Way to disintigrate into an HDR rant when this is about wide angle photos!

  • Alex Suffolk Photographer November 16, 2009 10:28 pm

    I love wide angles.

    One of the reasons I decided to move to full frame digitals was to get back into proper wide angles instead of being constrained to a lens that only worked with certain bodies.

    I'm also going to jump on the HDR bandwagon - it's got it's time and place. Personally I don't really care for it, but appreciate that some do - however it's becoming a crutch that some use to 'improve' their mediocre work by slapping some HDR styling on it to make it 'art'.

    As the saying went - you can make a bad print from a good negative, but not a good print from a bad negative.

  • Andrys November 16, 2009 09:14 pm

    I love the wide-angle perspective and framing on most of these. Thanks for displaying them.

    As for HDR, the over-use of that does detract from many pics today, for me.
    It's now become the equivalent of color pictures on black velvet that we used to see hanging on walls.

    It's like a lack of appreciation for natural color, which is now apparently dull for many...
    A lack of faith in the subject matter or form.

    - Andrys

  • AnTalk November 16, 2009 08:29 pm

    Half of these pictures are not amazing because they are wide angle, they are simply oversaturated tastless HDRs.
    There are better wide angle shots on the net, which better portray the benefits and merits of the lens and not the merits of the HDR software.
    Hope no offence to all HDR lovers out there.

  • ArkyMark November 16, 2009 07:48 pm

    One of wide-angle's coolest tricks is the extreme exaggeration of space it can produce - such as a little flower in the foreground looking twice the size of a tall building in the background. A wide-angle lens that can focus close (try putting diopters on them!) can produce fish-eye like distortion that can be downright surrealistic.

    (Surreal? ... uh-oh, sorry. No offense to anyone...)

    I'm glad we had this discussion of wide-angle techniques - I'm sure everyone has learned a lot about how short focal-lengths can produce very dynamic images and when-and-how to use them.

    In fact, this discussion has inspired me to go out and shoot some 360-degree Panoramas and process them as HDR! Then I think I'll add a bunch of textures and blotches and stains and make it all GRUNGE! while I'm at it!

    And it seems if that if nothing else, I'll always be able to use the image as an assault weapon!

    Watch out - I'm reaching for my camera and firing up Photoshop...

    (Now let's see ... I should post this monster to the nearest "wide-angle" gallery, I suppose...)

  • Klaus November 16, 2009 07:08 pm

    @ james d:

    IMHO the point here is not only in those Tome-Mapped images (they're not HDR at all! HDRIs need special hardware to be seen...) with all those halos, digital noise and hypersaturated colours.
    The point is that these images were outdated in the late 19th century. These are paintings - albeit made with digital cameras - not photos. And they have to be watched at like paintings, with aestethic criteria different from the ones you use watching pohtos.
    And as paintings they're nothing new, nothing special. Most of them aren't even pleasant.
    IMHO, Wide Angle photography is another thing.

  • Amir Masoud November 16, 2009 03:14 pm

    Very nice shot, really Amazing

  • Aaron Seet November 16, 2009 01:32 pm

    i am not sure if i am more impressed by the post processing in the majority of the photos...

  • Michael Seljos November 16, 2009 01:13 pm

    I love all of the great images in this set, not only because they are wide shots, but also specifically because they are HDR images. I love HDR. Yes, some people know how to do it better than others, but the technique is amazing if done well. I've seen some gorgeous HDR images created by some very talented photographic artists. HDR is the newest trend in digital photography (it's always been around in darkroom processing of film), so if you don't want to get left behind, you should check it out. For the photography purists out there, I say they should not be too critical of any art form, whether they like to work with it or not.

  • Kamera gue November 16, 2009 12:20 pm

    When we see these beatutiful pics, we all agree that having a wide lens is a must. But when we really have one, then we found that it isn't easy to make a great pics like those above with a wideangle lens. I found that it is easier to play around with tele lens than wide lens, because we need a good knowlegde composition technique at least.

  • Jonathan November 16, 2009 12:12 pm

    Gee this argument is OLD. HDR haters grow up, any post technique looks wack if over used, there is a time and a place for all techniques.

    Get over it.

  • Alastair November 16, 2009 12:08 pm

    "Amazing"? Really? Then what are numbers 4, 5, 14 and 12 doing in this list? This is possibly "10 great wide angle images" at best.

  • Jacques Guillaumier November 16, 2009 10:59 am

    Enough with the HDR shots already!

  • chendoj November 8, 2009 05:27 pm

    you, as the photographer, are making a presentation to the viewer.
    based on the comments on this page, however, one would get the impression that you were making a statement about hdr and photoshop skills rather than wide-angle photography. you have commendable skill in that regard.

  • The Dutch November 7, 2009 10:07 pm

    Most of these are very un-natural looking HDR shots.

  • gturner October 28, 2009 05:17 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.

  • Dennis September 23, 2009 02:15 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.

  • Josh Hollands September 22, 2009 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?

  • Craig September 14, 2009 07:15 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!

  • Dennis September 9, 2009 10:15 pm


    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.

  • claire September 8, 2009 09:07 pm

    hey...awesome examples.....i don't really use my wide angle all that much but im sure i will now! 8)

  • Helen August 31, 2009 03:46 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.

  • Dennis August 31, 2009 01:49 pm


    HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. HDR images are created 'normally' by merging together the same image with different exposures.

  • Helen August 31, 2009 12:54 pm

    Someone else asked the question but I can't seem to find an answer, what is HDR?

  • Dennis August 31, 2009 10:43 am


    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.

  • Lee August 31, 2009 02:02 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.

  • Odisseus August 30, 2009 12:23 am

    These tips will definitely help me use my 10-17mm lens! Thank you!!!

  • krishna August 28, 2009 07:25 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

  • roadster August 28, 2009 07:37 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!!

  • Caroline August 26, 2009 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.

  • Arthur August 26, 2009 01:24 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.

  • Nate Gesner August 26, 2009 02:32 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.

  • Ashvin Patel July 25, 2009 05:10 pm

    It is really a very good lesson which I got to improve & create my vision in photography.I am obliged indeed.
    Ashvin Patel

  • Cybergabi July 24, 2009 06:23 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.

  • Peter de Villiers July 24, 2009 04:44 am

    Nice images but with a degree of post processing - so this will depend on your knowledge of photoshop etc...

  • npsguy June 7, 2009 02:54 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.

  • Marisa June 6, 2009 08:05 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.

  • anuj upadhyay May 1, 2009 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.

  • Jeremy April 28, 2009 07:55 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.

  • DigiNee April 25, 2009 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.

  • Leo April 24, 2009 07:58 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

    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

  • Leo April 24, 2009 07:48 pm

    its ok i'm a conflictive person and enjoy a little internet banter from time to time : )

  • C@pture April 24, 2009 07:44 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!"

  • Leo April 24, 2009 07:28 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: https://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

  • SnapShooter April 24, 2009 03:18 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?

  • jackie April 24, 2009 01:23 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!!

  • C@pture April 24, 2009 10:28 am

    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.

  • Leo April 24, 2009 05:11 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

  • Ed Starr April 24, 2009 04:29 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.

  • Cybergabi April 24, 2009 02:29 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.

  • Fenraven April 24, 2009 01:55 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!

  • Debby April 24, 2009 01:50 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?

  • Katia April 23, 2009 05:03 pm

    the rooster is THE BEST!!!

  • MeiTeng April 22, 2009 12:27 pm

    These are indeed amazing wide angle shots! I love the dog and rooster photos.

  • photonoobie April 14, 2009 04:39 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!

  • josh April 12, 2009 01:30 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.

  • photOroach April 12, 2009 12:02 am

    The tractor looks great but the washed out sky in the bridge photo was a welcome sight!

  • Erika April 10, 2009 11:13 pm

    One day I will master the art. I love the surreal look.

  • EVA CANTRELL April 10, 2009 08:33 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

  • Lucian April 10, 2009 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 ?

  • Joe April 10, 2009 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!

  • BeachsidePaul April 10, 2009 04:55 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

  • Manal Ali April 10, 2009 02:48 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.

  • Randy Case April 10, 2009 01:37 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!

  • tony February 28, 2009 06:08 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.

  • Chad January 31, 2009 10:50 am

    Whoa..chill out negative nancy! =)

  • Bethany January 31, 2009 12:46 am

    HDR is obnoxious. Get over it.

  • Bethany January 31, 2009 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.

  • Igor November 1, 2008 03:55 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.

  • Natalia October 23, 2008 08:34 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

  • Miles August 7, 2008 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.

  • disgusting July 19, 2008 08:35 am

    Sorry, but postprocessing a photo using the HDR technique doesn't make it "art".

  • Michael June 14, 2008 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.

  • coffeepro May 13, 2008 05:05 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.

  • Toby April 9, 2008 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!

  • Jenny March 24, 2008 05:08 am

    those are pretty awesome. great job!

  • Ryan March 15, 2008 08:27 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.

  • Joran March 8, 2008 03:28 pm

    these are probably the best pictures i have ever seen... kudos

  • sir jorge March 6, 2008 08:25 am

    those are seriously the best things i've seen in a long time.

  • Carin March 4, 2008 07:04 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???

  • Sean March 2, 2008 02:24 pm

    Wow, those are all awesome pictures. I love the one of the tractor, the first bridge, dog....well, all of them! Nice finds.


  • Roshan February 4, 2008 08:02 am

    Wow!!! Wow!! The pictures, all of them, are amazing!

  • Ryan February 1, 2008 04:54 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.

  • Louella January 31, 2008 01:45 am

    After reading all the comments about HDR, I have a question -- does HDR apply most commonly to wide angle shots?

  • Lia January 29, 2008 08:31 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!

  • Claudia January 28, 2008 11:47 pm

    stun·ning (stnng)
    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.

  • Claudia January 28, 2008 11:45 pm

    stun·ning (stnng)
    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.

  • Boo January 28, 2008 12:43 pm

    Stunning? Look the word up in the dictionary. These are in no way stunning.

  • James January 27, 2008 03:03 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?

  • Michelle January 26, 2008 04:06 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!

  • Teri January 26, 2008 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.

  • Claudia January 26, 2008 03:07 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.

  • erika January 25, 2008 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.

  • Jaysoft January 25, 2008 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.

  • Bob van Ooik January 25, 2008 10:22 am

    10mm church wedding, camera on the floor

  • Teri January 25, 2008 07:43 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.

  • Sanjay January 25, 2008 06:44 am

    Too much post-processing...Looks like images from a computer game...

  • Dean January 25, 2008 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.

  • Mikel Daniel January 24, 2008 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 =)

  • C@pture January 24, 2008 09:51 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.


  • julitico January 24, 2008 06:49 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.

  • shane January 24, 2008 06:44 pm

    i am SO SICK OF HDR!!!!! it looks overdone and not even close to real

  • Neil January 24, 2008 04:08 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.

  • Pierre January 24, 2008 09:18 am

    Michael Seljos + 1

    Examples (from my own portfolio so nobody get offended ;)):

    Abusive use of HDR (but got quite a few positive comments...):

    I wouldn't do that kind of post processing again.

    The HDRs that I like I would keep using:

    My HDR set: http://flickr.com/photos/mcfull/sets/72157600011026039/

    What do you guys think?

  • Michael Seljos January 24, 2008 09:13 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.

  • chad January 24, 2008 08:33 am

    jee wiz these are great. If only someone wanted to donate a 10mm to a poor college student. ehh? ehh?

  • jesu January 24, 2008 07:18 am

    Jesus, awful shots I have those HDR shot. Not even close to real photography..

  • Nishiology January 24, 2008 05:40 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.

  • Angela January 24, 2008 03:18 am

    petecarr I mean.

  • Angela January 24, 2008 03:18 am

    I'm in love with the photo by stevecarr.

  • razmaspaz January 24, 2008 02:59 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.

  • gerrit Zwart January 24, 2008 02:04 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.

  • Maurice Prokaziuk January 24, 2008 01:11 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.

  • Phil A January 24, 2008 01:04 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!

  • macdane January 24, 2008 01:00 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.

  • Madhur January 24, 2008 12:49 am

    Some very stunning photos.

  • Sandra January 24, 2008 12:20 am

    Totally stunning pictures!
    I really loved them.

  • Pete Langlois January 23, 2008 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.


  • Paul January 23, 2008 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.

  • julitico January 23, 2008 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.

  • Lloyd January 23, 2008 06:22 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.

  • Arie Kraai January 23, 2008 05:58 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!

  • Ted Meulenkamp January 23, 2008 05:13 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.

  • david January 23, 2008 05:05 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.




  • Chandamama January 23, 2008 04:55 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.

  • NikonnooB January 23, 2008 04:29 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.

  • Arjun January 23, 2008 04:09 pm


    This might be a silly question, but ... what is HDR ?

  • Matthew Miller January 23, 2008 11:56 am

    Hey, that's supposed to be "Matthew", not "Matthwe". Ooops. :)

  • Jono January 23, 2008 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.

  • Lilia January 23, 2008 09:44 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.

  • Andrea January 23, 2008 08:43 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).

  • Pierre January 23, 2008 07:39 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/

  • Jen January 23, 2008 07:37 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.

  • Bob January 23, 2008 07:14 am

    I guess it's true what they say... stunning is in the eye of the beholder. Frankly, I'm not stunned.

  • Squidman January 23, 2008 05:46 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.

  • Matt January 23, 2008 05:45 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.

  • jeadly January 23, 2008 05:13 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.

  • Jill January 23, 2008 05:05 am

    Thanks, Paul, for the explanation.

    That helps me quite a bit.

  • Sybren January 23, 2008 05:02 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.

  • Paul January 23, 2008 03:51 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.

  • MIchael Zahora January 23, 2008 03:39 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).

  • dimwell January 23, 2008 03:37 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.

  • Jill January 23, 2008 02:35 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.

  • Kris Taeleman January 23, 2008 02:34 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...

  • diggers January 23, 2008 02:15 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!

  • Elizabeth January 23, 2008 02:11 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.

  • Bernie January 23, 2008 02:08 am

    I agree about the HDR sentiments. I find my favs were those NOT post processed.

  • AC January 23, 2008 02:07 am

    Great photos - but some have been modified to such an extent that they fall flat.

  • Mikel Daniel January 23, 2008 02:01 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.

  • Klaidas January 23, 2008 01:50 am

    Truly stunning o_O

  • Tim January 23, 2008 01:47 am

    I agree.

  • James D. January 23, 2008 01:33 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?

  • Robert January 23, 2008 01:24 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".

  • basti January 23, 2008 01:18 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.

  • Reznor January 23, 2008 01:15 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.

  • Keith January 23, 2008 01:13 am

    Really nice images...thanks for sharing!!

  • Matthwe Miller January 23, 2008 01:12 am

    James -- yeah, I was thinking the same thing as I was looking at these.

  • James January 23, 2008 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....

  • James January 23, 2008 12:42 am

    The pictures are awesome. I definitely need a wide-angle lense some time soon ...