If you want to choose the ratio of foreground and background relative to the subject size, you must change the distance while changing the focal length. This way, you have many more compositions to choose from than just distance and direction.
In regard of the above and in tendency, good telephoto shots are easier to accomplish than wide-angle shots, as there are far fewer influences at play. Think about reduction to the subject (more clearly speaking photos), fewer distractions, less area of differences in lighting conditions, levels, color, etc. However, a successful wide-angle shot tends to be much more interesting than its successful telephoto counterpart, because much more is shown, more information is conveyed and more can be put into relation.
This is also a response to
>>3650659 point 8:
>Choose one focal length and stick with it. If you don't like the images or the limitations of the lens, feel free to sell it and try a different focal length. I like 50mm more than 35mm on full frame. People have preferences."Fixed focal length lenses are better," many say, and many conclude "photos get better through the use of fixed focal length lenses." But reduced lens flaws or a slightly creamier background will only slightly improve a photo, as opposed to deliberate photography.
Also for depth of field I repeat the above concept:
In tendency, good shots with shallow depth of field are easier to accomplish than shots with wide depth of field, as there are far fewer influences at play. Think about reduction to the subject (more clearly speaking photos), fewer distractions, less detail of differences in structures, levels, color, etc. However, a successful shot with depth tends to be much more interesting than its successful counterpart with shallower depth of field, because much more is shown, more information is conveyed and more can be put into relation.
And finally: photography is a skill that you can train!
