Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: OPEN  (Read 7630 times)
Haraldo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102



WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2010, 01:56:53 PM »
ReplyReply

This is one philosophy of photography (frame precisely and be true to the frame), but I personally don't follow it. In fact, I find it almost quaint now. I almost never do this but instead shoot loose because I know what I can do in Photoshop or how I might even combine different captures ("Sacré Bleu" some are saying). I prefer to have options and flexibility when in the field and then spend more time in quiet in front of the screen trying out possibilities. In some cases, even beyond the "not possible" examples given above, shooting loose is the only practical way of doing things, like when walking down a street and shooting while walking or running (which I like to do).

For me, shooting loose is a normal part of photography, and being a purist about "the frame" has no interest for me. I only care about the FINAL picture, not what I happened to compose in the camera, which is only a starting point in the artistic process.

But that's me, a Heretic. Elliott Erwitt has a different opinion (like how I lumped myself together with Mr. Erwitt? Smiley. And Russ, of course.

H

P.S. I like the original poster's image in color although I would have cropped off 1/2 of the lady at left leaving enough to show her and her skirt hem but so much to distract with her large mass.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 09:00:34 PM by Haraldo » Logged

Haraldo
aka Harald Johnson
Phoozl - photo games & more
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6394



WWW
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2010, 04:12:30 PM »
ReplyReply

In fact, I find it almost quaint now.

That's certainly a quaint attitude toward visual integrity, Haraldo,  but you're not the only one who feels that way. During the ten years my wife and I owned a gallery I saw piles of "artworks" produced by people who wanted to be called artists but didn't want to take the trouble to learn the "quaint" techniques that might have helped them produce something worthwhile.

Quote
I prefer to have options and flexibility when in the field and then spend more time in quiet in front of the screen trying out possibilities.

Again, it's in the field that you have options. Once you've tripped the shutter and left the field your options and possibilities are behind you. But on the other hand, I haven't the foggiest idea what kind of photographs you make since your web URL turns out to be a game site. There may be a type of photography where visual uncertainty is paramount, though I haven't run across it yet.

Quote
For me, shooting loose is a normal part of photography, and being a purist about "the frame" has no interest for me. I only care about the FINAL picture, not what I happened to compose in the camera, which is only a starting point in the artistic process.

You're not the only one who feels that way. I see that kind of picture all the time.

Quote
But that's me, a Heretic. Elliott Erwitt has a different opinion (like how I lumped myself together with Mr. Erwitt? Smiley. And Russ, of course.

Thanks, Haraldo. It's an honor to be included in the same sentence as Elliott. He's my favorite photographer because of his sense of humor. But I've seen a few pictures that Elliott cropped. Believe it or not I sometimes crop too, but only when there was no way to make the composition I was after on the camera. HCB to the contrary notwithstanding, cropping isn't the great fault. Not knowing what you're really after when you trip the shutter is the great fault.

Quote
P.S. ...but so much to distract with her large mass.

That's an unusual way to spell it.
Logged

Haraldo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2010, 09:29:30 PM »
ReplyReply

(let me know if this should be taken somewhere else; I'm finding it very interesting)


ME: In fact, I find it almost quaint now.

RSL: That's certainly a quaint attitude toward visual integrity, Haraldo,  but you're not the only one who feels that way. During the ten years my wife and I owned a gallery I saw piles of "artworks" produced by people who wanted to be called artists but didn't want to take the trouble to learn the "quaint" techniques that might have helped them produce something worthwhile.

"Worthwhile" is a subjective term. I've done very well in the visual world with my quaint attitude. One reason is because I come from the world of Art Direction/Creative Direction and Design. FIne-tuning, distilling, and "improving" images for a specific purpose is something I've be doing for 30+ years. So I have a different POV. Even when I was a working-pro photographer (PJ, Commercial), I always shot loose, because I knew that the A.D. would be fixing things to his/her liking. Many times, I was the A.D. So I carry that skill set around with me to this day. When I was ADing magazines (10 years) I would have fired any photographer who shot a cover for me composed tightly.
 

ME: I prefer to have options and flexibility when in the field and then spend more time in quiet in front of the screen trying out possibilities.

RSL: Again, it's in the field that you have options. Once you've tripped the shutter and left the field your options and possibilities are behind you.

Nope. They're just starting for me. Try to imagine me trying to "compose" some of these images:
http://www.dpandi.com/aboutus/ha/magicedge

RSL: But on the other hand, I haven't the foggiest idea what kind of photographs you make since your web URL turns out to be a game site. There may be a type of photography where visual uncertainty is paramount, though I haven't run across it yet.

Well, you've just found it, and here's my other site:
http://www.dpandi.com/aboutus/ha


ME: For me, shooting loose is a normal part of photography, and being a purist about "the frame" has no interest for me. I only care about the FINAL picture, not what I happened to compose in the camera, which is only a starting point in the artistic process.

RSL: You're not the only one who feels that way. I see that kind of picture all the time.

So what does that tell you? But honestly, without a film edge showing, you wouldn't know if a photo was composed in the camera or not, would you? (unless the aspect has changed significantly)


ME: But that's me, a Heretic. Elliott Erwitt has a different opinion (like how I lumped myself together with Mr. Erwitt? Smiley. And Russ, of course.

RSL: Thanks, Haraldo. It's an honor to be included in the same sentence as Elliott. He's my favorite photographer because of his sense of humor. But I've seen a few pictures that Elliott cropped. Believe it or not I sometimes crop too, but only when there was no way to make the composition I was after on the camera. HCB to the contrary notwithstanding, cropping isn't the great fault. Not knowing what you're really after when you trip the shutter is the great fault.

Ahh... but I do know what I'm after. It's just different than what you're after.


ME: P.S. ...but so much to distract with her large mass.

RSL: That's an unusual way to spell it.

Ha ha! A double meaning I didn't even catch. Good one.
Logged

Haraldo
aka Harald Johnson
Phoozl - photo games & more
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2787


« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2010, 03:55:47 AM »
ReplyReply

One other reason to shoot loose is when doing sport or fast action photography is that a fast moving object can get "clipped" if you try to frame too tightly. Believe me I have done it! A half second out tripping the shutter can ruin an image where as a loose frame will mean the object is still within it. When I was a camera club member judges often commented about not enough space around a subject. They wanted "breathing room". If one of your images was criticised for this and you had cropped then you could go back to the original and see what the judge was alluding to. This is all about flexibility when shooting and keeping your options open. A good thing in photography as well as life in general?
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2010, 05:17:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Risking a rupture with slipping text - here goes.

Cropping is something I only do if the format of the camera doesn't quite fit the space the pic has to fill.

Ever since I was able to design my own calendars, they always took the 1:1.5 format because that fitted the Nikon perfectly; on the occassions when I had to shoot 'blad, mostly back in the fashion period (mine) I did so because the damn things were going to be cut out and used with the loss of all that beautifully graded background tonality on the paper roll, but at least the print I handed over looked good, whatever the hell happened to it next.

In a nutshell, if you know what you are doing you fill the frame.

It strikes me that Heraldo's instincts (as a snapper) are more suited to the stock market than anything else.

Rob C
Logged

Lost
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 25, 2010, 07:53:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I seem to be doing quite a lot more cropping now than a year or so ago.  Some reasons I crop:

 - I could not see the view clearly enough when shooting, so play safe (try using a GF1 in full sun!)
 - I could not have changed lens (focal length) in time to get the shot
 - I need to apply geometry corrections in post processing (wide-angle buildings)
 - I realise that there is a "better" image hidden in what I was trying to take...

The last point arises because many photographs that I take do not allow much time to think about framing.  Experimenting with cropping images is another way to explore alternative compositions without the pressure of framing live, where often there is little time to think.  Hopefully this will eventually translate to better instinctive use of the camera itself...

There are enough pixels now that even quite heavily cropped images can be better quality than uncropped images from cameras that only a few years ago were state of the art.

-- Mark
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #46 on: August 26, 2010, 03:53:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Lost

You have a point in your number 4: a better image lies within.

I have done that sort of thing a lot using ancient work of my own, but the thinking isn't quite the same, as for me it is simply a matter of finding something to do in the absence of fresh models with whom to work and make new images.

That I find new stuff within the old does not, however, mean that I was sloppy in making the original shots. Had they not woked in their original form they would not have been used and survived until now.

You really should demand more control of yourself during the shooting moments.

Rob C
Logged

Haraldo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102



WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 26, 2010, 08:54:18 PM »
ReplyReply

It strikes me that Heraldo's instincts (as a snapper) are more suited to the stock market than anything else.

Hey Rob, I would love to hear your definition of "a snapper"!

I like Mark's list of reasons, especially #4. I always see "the picture within", which is why I'm taking the picture in the first place. But to shoot it tight and fill the frame just doesn't make sense to me. One can always crop in, but one cannot crop out. And in most of my cases, there are no reshoots.

P.S. Get my name right; I'm not a "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" kind of guy.  Wink
Logged

Haraldo
aka Harald Johnson
Phoozl - photo games & more
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2787


« Reply #48 on: August 27, 2010, 03:37:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote

Hey Rob, I would love to hear your definition of "a snapper"!

Unquote

Someone who bites back, you just did? Now where are these smileys?
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #49 on: August 27, 2010, 04:32:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Snapper: someone who makes photographs; can be raw amateur or senior professional. Not a judgement of quality. You could even use the word shooter or, if you like, lensman. Some have been known to embrace the word photographer, too! Funny, that.

Sorry Haraldo, new things are always difficult for me.

Rob C
Logged

Haraldo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102



WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 27, 2010, 11:02:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Snapper: someone who makes photographs; can be raw amateur or senior professional. Not a judgement of quality. You could even use the word shooter or, if you like, lensman. Some have been known to embrace the word photographer, too! Funny, that.
Sorry Haraldo, new things are always difficult for me.

Ah, the generic "snapper"; understood. Hey, where is "artist" on your list?  Undecided

And don't worry about the name; I keep changing it anyway!
Logged

Haraldo
aka Harald Johnson
Phoozl - photo games & more
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6394



WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 27, 2010, 11:20:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Snapper: someone who makes photographs...
Rob C

Rob, Exactly. Check out the title of one of Elliott Erwitt's biggest books: Snaps.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8068



WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 27, 2010, 07:35:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob, Exactly. Check out the title of one of Elliott Erwitt's biggest books: Snaps.
I even know of one snapper who calls his site "FineArtSnaps.com.'   Wink
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6394



WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 27, 2010, 08:17:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric, It was the best I could do.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8068



WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 27, 2010, 09:46:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric, It was the best I could do.
Russ, It's easier to spell than "myrvaagnes.com."
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #55 on: August 27, 2010, 09:55:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ, It's easier to spell than "myrvaagnes.com."

Was easier to pronounce when it was just "M" and not "Myrvaaagggggenesessedfasrerewrwrewstudebaker".
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #56 on: August 28, 2010, 03:07:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Studebaker I recognize. The original going-both-ways-at-once look of the late 40s/early 50s.

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad