Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Schnick" data-source="post: 474464" data-attributes="member: 40126">I completely appreciate and agree with what you're saying here. I suppose at the moment I'd be considered a generalist too, and honestly, I don't know yet if I want to focus on a particular subject. It's why I carry both my 18-55 and 55-300 lens around all the time. I'm still learning, and still developing. Nothing in the diploma I did said anything about the types of landscapes. I know about choosing a subject, having something in the foreground and not leaving loads of negative space, etc...stuff that makes a good composition, but the types of landscape photography available are never explained. Maybe in the higher course? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />And to Adit - The problem with being able to choose the focal length is where, I believe, Prime lenses stem from. Having a set focal length forces you to think about your composition, position, distance, angle....everything. More so than just "Oh, that looks good, I'll zoom in and get a good crop on it". Instead you're forced to think "Oh, that looks good, where can I stand for the best composition? Where will me the most detail? Is there anything around I can use to frame it...?" etc. In my opinion, it's being forced to think like that which is going to help me develop my skills as a photographer better than having the ability to shift the focal length of the lens I have on my camera.Back on topic though, I think the 35 is going to get the most votes out of the 3 I listed. I'd welcome any feedback on larger / shorter prime's if anyone has any experience with them. They're not cheap, so I'd rather collect as much information as I can about this before I spend my money.</blockquote>

Verification