[sam-joseph]

I understand now how Mr. Grimes achieved the image in that first post. It's a great looking image, but I don't think there's any way a Sigma 10-20 could produce that shot without severe distortion of the man's left side. Maybe the trick is to shoot from much further away, with the subject dead-centre of the frame, then crop to place the subject off-centre if needed.
In any case, I can't offer a definite answer as I currently don't own a Sig 10-20, but plan to early next year. Good luck.

Regards

[clackers]

I've used my 10-20 a few times to photograph people. Usually not right at the wide end but here are a couple...

10mm
BeatLeSS Ghost by -dcBear78-

14mm
Aussie Day Fez by -dcBear78-

20mm
20130525-IMGP2767.jpg by -dcBear78-

Only one could be considered a portrait, and you can see the lens choice makes his head seem tiny and arm huge.

Thanks for illustrating the issue, dcBear!

[clackers]

That's a little harsh, isn't it? He's a talented photographer, producing images you were impressed enough with to post here. The fact that he uses more technique to produce his art than you care to doesn't warrant insults.

If it might be pointed out, Narual, not just Dominic but the actual judges of the contest say Byrne's a cheat - and yes, a talented one. :-)

[narual]

If it might be pointed out, Narual, not just Dominic but the actual judges of the contest say Byrne's a cheat - and yes, a talented one. :-)

It wasn't Dominic he called a cheat, it was Grimes. He put the link in some sort of false equivalence to "prove" his point. Had

Being upset because he spent 400+ dollars on a lens that he thought would create a certain type of image similar to someone whose work you admire is perhaps understandable, but certainly not a reason to levy insults when a few moments of someone's googling shows that you misunderstood how the image was created.

And if I call someone a jerk and say "no insult intended", that doesn't magically make it not an insult. But I suppose there may be language/cultural issues with that as Dominic is in Austria. Maybe in Austria, an accusation of base dishonesty has a less negative connotation than it does in the US.

Am I having a "fit of moralization" for considering it rude behavior? I don't think so.

---

Last edited by narual; 12-19-2013 at 01:17 PM.

[mrNewt]

He's a cheat.

No he is not... he is using his images, his mind to come with the concept and his effort to put them together.
Is a whole creative process...

If you want to use just pure photography, you need to go back to film...

You would be well advised to concentrate on what is relevant to the matter on hand rather than engaging in puerile speculations on the inner life of other human beings. It is the prerogative of the half-erudite to imagine that they are somehow endowed with a sixth sense. There are actually plenty of debates on whether excessive post-processing can been labelled cheating or not, and both sides give voice to opinions that should be taken into account.

It wasn't Dominic he called a cheat, it was Grimes. He put the link in some sort of false equivalence to "prove" his point. Had

Being upset because he spent 400+ dollars on a lens that he thought would create a certain type of image similar to someone whose work you admire is perhaps understandable, but certainly not a reason to levy insults when a few moments of someone's googling shows that you misunderstood how the image was created.

And if I call someone a jerk and say "no insult intended", that doesn't magically make it not an insult. But I suppose there may be language/cultural issues with that as Dominic is in Austria. Maybe in Austria, an accusation of base dishonesty has a less negative connotation than it does in the US.

Am I having a "fit of moralization" for considering it rude behavior? I don't think so.

If it might be pointed out, Narual, not just Dominic but the actual judges of the contest say Byrne's a cheat - and yes, a talented one. :-)

Good point. Being a cheat and being splendidly creative do in no way rule one another out.

[narual]

You would be well advised to concentrate on what is relevant to the matter on hand rather than engaging in puerile speculations on the inner life of other human beings. It is the prerogative of the half-erudite to imagine that they are somehow endowed with a sixth sense. There are actually plenty of debates on whether excessive post-processing can been labelled cheating or not, and both sides give voice to opinions that should be taken into account.

The matter at hand was you being displeased that you couldn't replicate Mr. Grimes results with the lens you bought.

Perhaps this will help you get a few ideas how the lens can be used for photographing people in an interesting way. I have the same lens, though I haven't taken many people photos with it):

http://johnjayli.com/2011/12/shooting-people-with-an-ultra-wide-lens/
??? ??: Ultra Wide Angle for Portrait.
Wide-angle lenses for portrait photography
Embrace the Ultra-Wide Lenses for Fashion & Glamour | glammodelz.com
Wide Angle Lenses Are For Portraits Too – Tutorial

As for the rest of your nonsense… not worth any more of my time.

[Wired]

To state that "art does not have any rules" is in itself a dogmatic and a patently false statement, because it disregards those first rate thinkers who proposed definite criteria in accordance with which art ought to be created and judged.

Sorry, art does not have any rules, and that is in no way a false statement. There are guidelines that are stated to be rules, but they are not actual rules, they are tips and tricks to create a "better" photo. There is a "rule" out there that UWA lenses should not be used for portrait work, but you yourself and many others have done just that, used UWA lenses for portrait work, and there is many great shots used at wide angles creating art in and of itself.

By the same merit, Grimes used photoshop technique of blending multiple photos to get his image and is being called a cheat. Is creating an HDR image then cheating as well? There are many out there that do not like the HDR treatment, but it is an accepted technique and there is absolute beauty in it. Would I turn around and enter a HDR image into a "classic" competition? no way. If I did they could say "I cheated" when in fact I just broke the rules of the competition.

Music has no rules, painting has no rules, photography, literature, acting, there are no rules. If rules were put in place and people did nothing but follow them the arts would never evolve.

[clackers]

By the same merit, Grimes used photoshop technique of blending multiple photos to get his image and is being called a cheat. .

Wired, not just being accused, it's official.

He cheated and the prize was passed on to someone else.

And that cowboy in the OP is most likely in a studio, not seated in front of the barn.

After all that time he spent in Photoshop, I'll leave it to others to judge how convincing the result is.

Sorry, art does not have any rules, and that is in no way a false statement. Music has no rules, painting has no rules, photography, literature, acting, there are no rules. If rules were put in place and people did nothing but follow them the arts would never evolve.

I do not know from which websites you gleaned your knowledge of art theory. If you read great thinkers such as Aristotle and Horace, you will find that they proposed definite rules in accordance with art is created and judged.

When Aristotle states that "art imitates nature" or that "art issues forth from a homogenous cause that cannot be spontaneous or instinctive", he proposes the very contrary of your view. Hence to categorically state that "art has no rules" is indeed a patently false and dogmatic statement.

Everything in this world comes about in conformity with rules and laws. Just because you are unaware of these, does not mean that they do not exist.

Perhaps this will help you get a few ideas how the lens can be used for photographing people in an interesting way. I have the same lens, though I haven't taken many people photos with it):

http://johnjayli.com/2011/12/shooting-people-with-an-ultra-wide-lens/
??? ??: Ultra Wide Angle for Portrait.
Wide-angle lenses for portrait photography
Embrace the Ultra-Wide Lenses for Fashion & Glamour | glammodelz.com
Wide Angle Lenses Are For Portraits Too – Tutorial

.

Thanks for the links.

Wired, not just being accused, it's official.

He cheated and the prize was passed on to someone else.

And that cowboy in the OP is most likely in a studio, not seated in front of the barn.

After all that time he spent in Photoshop, I'll leave it to others to judge how convincing the result is.

They will probably take you to task again for mixing up Grimes with Byrne. It was Byrne who was disaqualified.

Like I said, now that even teenagers can take their iPhone images to new heights with recourse to post-processing, there is likely be an added emphasis on purism in photography. That the competition in question had as stringent criteria as it had, could be seen as a sign of the things to come.

When a smartphone seemingly outshines a D610 or 6D, this is not something that people are going to take lightly.

[Wired]

I do not know from which websites you gleaned your knowledge of art theory. If you read great thinkers such as Aristotle and Horace, you will find that they proposed definite rules in accordance with art is created and judged.

When Aristotle states that "art imitates nature" or that "art issues forth from a homogenous cause that cannot be spontaneous or instinctive", he proposes the very contrary of your view. Hence to categorically state that "art has no rules" is indeed a patently false and dogmatic statement.

Everything in this world comes about in conformity with rules and laws. Just because you are unaware of these, does not mean that they do not exist.

The problem lies with the initial statements of being a cheat with the follow up of art has no rules. In the context of the original image posted he did not break any rules and still created art. The disqualified photograph may have broken rules set by the competition he entered, but it broke no rules of artistry.

The problem here is not the statement "art has no rules" it's the context in which it is being used. The statement is no more false than it was before as I believe that myself as well as others in this thread are using the term in the context of guidelines that are widely accepted as photographic rules....that are meant to be broken. But to take art theory into it and run it all the way up to a composite image is ludicrous as it is no longer in context with the discussion.

[mrNewt]

I do not know from which websites you gleaned your knowledge of art theory. If you read great thinkers such as Aristotle and Horace, you will find that they proposed definite rules in accordance with art is created and judged.

When Aristotle states that "art imitates nature" or that "art issues forth from a homogenous cause that cannot be spontaneous or instinctive", he proposes the very contrary of your view. Hence to categorically state that "art has no rules" is indeed a patently false and dogmatic statement.

Everything in this world comes about in conformity with rules and laws. Just because you are unaware of these, does not mean that they do not exist.

LOL... art has NO rules... the end.
I don't care much of what Aristotle or Horace said... those guys were anything but artists to begin with...