Moving your feet vs reaching for a longer lens
Last weekend I was shooting a narrow side street, old plaster crumbling off brick, and I caught myself reaching for my longest lens to isolate a section of wall from across the road. Then I stopped. Walked over instead. Got close enough to see the grain of the mortar, the way rain had carved tiny channels into the surface. Completely different photograph.
It made me think about how often I default to zooming in from a distance when the better move is simply closing the gap. Physically being near the subject changes everything: the light wraps differently, you notice details you never would have framed from ten meters back. With urban texture especially, proximity is where the feeling lives.
But I also know there are moments when getting closer isn't the answer. Sometimes that compression from a longer focal length is exactly what a scene needs, or the subject shifts when you approach it.
How do you decide? Do you tend to move your feet first, or reach for more glass? And what holds you back from getting closer when you know you probably should?
I think a lot goes back to how one was initially trained or taught. I was always taught to move my feet - if 10 feet is good enough then 5 feet is even better. Of course if you are in the field shooting wild life where moving your feet will lose the shot then you need a lens with a longer reach. Always better to first move your feet then your lens would be dictated by the situation.