I’ve been watching some photography videos, and among other things some people seem to be praising the 50mm focal length endlessly; mostly for, supposedly, telling the truth about the situation before you, without either doing the wideangle distortion, or eliminating too much from the scene with telephoto isolation.

I’ve been thinking about that. Their assumption is that a photographer is supposed to show the scene as it is, to present reality without distorting it, to tell a story in ways that make you feel as if you’re a part of it.

That’s such fucking nonsense I don’t even know where to start. But first of all, 50mm doesn’t even feel like a focal length that does that. If anything, I would use an ultrawide to present the scene as I perceive it when I’m there, because I perceive so much with my peripheral vision that it’s almost exactly how I perceive a scene when I’m there, only without the geometric distortions. Something like this:

This is what it feels like to be there, on top of the island, and to look at the horizon. You see everything at once. What the 50mm approximates quite nicely is something else: the area of focused attention.

This is a 50mm frame; different island, different scene, different field of view. Does this look like something you actually see in front of you  when you’re there? Or does it look like something you’re looking at when you’re there? The latter, I’d say.

Or should we use another example?

This was also shot with a 50mm lens – same wide open aperture, even. Same evening. You think this is what my eyes saw? Or is it what I focused at and thought about?

Is photography about reporting accurately what was in front of me and telling a story about it, or is it about using bits and pieces of what’s in front of it to create a story about how I feel?

It depends on who you are as a photographer. If you’re a professional, it might be your job to tell other people’s stories, because that’s what you’re getting paid for. If you’re shooting weddings, you need to tell other people’s romantic stories for posterity, and you are merely a paid instrument that serves the purpose of achieving that. If you’re shooting a sports event for an agency, you need to report visually compelling moments from a game, create something that will draw attention to the article to be read. It’s your job to present it as visually interesting, but again, you’re telling other people’s stories, and you are as much an instrument in this as your camera. Basically, it’s paying audience first, motive second, and you and your equipment in service of that.

But I’m not a professional. Nobody is paying me to take pictures of what they want photographed. It’s all about what I want and why I want it. I might want to present the scene I experienced as accurately as possible. Or I might want to present something that drew my attention there, something most people would just walk by.

There’s absolutely nothing about the 50mm lens that I find more compelling, or more honest about presenting a scene than any other focal length. It’s basically a focal length that shows some things and omits others. This makes it no different from anything else, other than being more-less average. Want honest and complete impression of how it felt to be somewhere? Use a wide angle. Or use a telephoto, or use a normal lens, or use a macro. You think it’s not possible to use a macro or a telephoto lens to show what it’s like to be somewhere? I beg to disagree.

This is what it felt like to be there.

Also, this is what this scene felt like.

This, too, was what it felt to be there. The last one was taken with a 50mm lens. I find it no more or less honest than the second image, which was taken with an ultrawide, or the first one, taken with a 35-70mm zoom wide open on macro extenders. They all show some of my impressions, experiences and feelings. They also show something that’s in front of the lens, that may or may not be important.

There are all kinds of pretentious photographers – those with their Leicas and 50mm lenses trying to be HCB, or those with view cameras and f/64 ethos trying to be Ansel Adams, or hipsters shooting through a scratched filter on expired film, thinking that’s art. Whether something is art or not depends mostly on whether the thing you want to express is actually worth showing.

Let me show two scenes that would usually be taken with a 50mm lens, because it’s “honest”:

The first is taken with a 35mm, the second with a 135mm. Both faithfully capture a moment. In essence, if you’re going to do this kind of photography, you’re not bound to 50mm, because it’s not about the focal length or the aperture, it’s about the style and catching the moment. You don’t need a Leica and a 50mm Summicron to imitate HCB, you can be a fake person with any camera and lens. 🙂

Now that sounds like I’m pushing for authenticity, but that’s not really the case. I sometimes find it liberating to imitate someone who made something I liked, without trying to always do my specific thing, because sometimes I don’t actually know what I’m trying to do, and that’s fine. You can’t get new ideas if you always know what you’re doing and why; that’s how you produce more of the same stuff. Sometimes it’s actually fun to go somewhere and be a fake HCB or Ansel Adams. Make a postcard. Imitate something you liked. Get it out of your system. Shoot all the cliche frames first, flush them out, and then you’ll start noticing other things and having actual ideas. Using a 50mm and B&W to fake yourself out is just fine, because after you’re done taking all the fake shots that are in your head, you might actually get it out of your system enough to start doing something else. The way towards originality is often through copying all the stuff you found somewhere and liked. You might fail at copying them just right, but by being a poor copy of someone else you might actually start finding an improved version of yourself.