Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment  (Read 57561 times)
Vuurtoren
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



WWW
« on: August 31, 2010, 02:13:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah cropping, we've all been duped into believing that we need to crop out the distractions, Tch Tch, cropping in the 21st century has become a playtime with magazines insisting that we crop here and we crop there and we crop crop crop.

Henri Cartier Bresson refused to crop insisting that this lends authenticity to the scene. His image could be trusted, his images were as is, that was his extra skill, that was one thing he was admired for.   In all of my environmental portraitures I decided never to crop, regardless, for this very same reason.  As an experiment once I cropped a few of those images and yes - wow was it a stunner.  And That was my problem, the Stunning effect became the distraction and my image lost its individuality. And so if the background in my image was not lending itself to harmony, then I dumped the image, If I wanted space, I would create space in camera by predicting the person's next movement, if the space was too much, I left it in.  Why, I guess just to be obnoxious and rebel against trends.  

Chris
« Last Edit: August 31, 2010, 02:14:46 PM by Vuurtoren » Logged

What we see and what we are looking at are often two very different things.
Riaan van Wyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 682



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2010, 02:30:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Chris, from the little I have read on the subject, I gather that it is a personal thing to compose in camera or in cropping. And from that I don't think anyone can say they are "right" - either way?   


Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2010, 03:00:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Not this religious discussion again  Lips sealed
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2010, 03:02:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Not this religious discussion again  Lips sealed


Come on, feppe, I know he was good, but this is a bit far out...

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6511



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2010, 03:14:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Henri Cartier Bresson refused to crop insisting that this lends authenticity to the scene.

Chris

Chris, As Harri pointed out, this is a discussion that's been going on for ages, with no result -- that I can see anyway. You're never going to convince the loose shooters that cropping isn't the way to make photographs with visual integrity. But HCB wasn't talking about "authenticity." He was talking about integrity of vision. That's the thing that the croppers don't understand, and as a consequence, miss.
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4915



« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2010, 03:56:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there more "integrity" to ones vision when shooting 1:1, or 3:2, or 4:3 or 3:1?

Or do you choose the format to shoot with first and then wait for shots that have the greatest integrity?

Or, do you carry all formats with you at all times and choose the one that's most appropriate for ones vision's integrety.

Or, if you have the wrong format in hand for a particular shot, do you just let it pass by rather than risk losing integrety?

Just asking.

Michael
Logged
Vuurtoren
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2010, 04:00:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, integrity of vision.  i just used my own words to translate my understanding of this and my appreciation for the practise of 'authentic photography',  I would not want to convince anybody really, that would be so so wrong of me, it's just that I have a little dislike for 'in-balance', but really, my argument is against photography magazines, from where by the way I started and worshipped, that is until I was exposed to a 2 year course at college.

Ok then, further discussion might prove beneficial to listeners.  (I will try and think of something more edifying).  
Logged

What we see and what we are looking at are often two very different things.
Vuurtoren
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2010, 04:12:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there more "integrity" to ones vision when shooting 1:1, or 3:2, or 4:3 or 3:1?

Or do you choose the format to shoot with first and then wait for shots that have the greatest integrity?

Or, do you carry all formats with you at all times and choose the one that's most appropriate for ones vision's integrety.

Or, if you have the wrong format in hand for a particular shot, do you just let it pass by rather than risk losing integrety?

Just asking.

Michael

Hi Michael, Yes I see your point - very good one.  Well the point for me personally is still "Authenticity", and confined to my feelings at that time with that genre at that stage.  Had I followed the photography magazines I would be cropping to produce something a little artificial.  i am not a philosophical thinker and composer of my own arguments and reasoning.  It's just feelings.  So I am unable to write about it.  But the crop could have produced stunning images, better sharpened etc, I just felt that this was fooling the audience.  I wanted to present something less artificial than what people are used to seeing.  (Yes I know there are much better photographers out there than me) there was an element of rebellion against the highly publicised photographer magazine standards of what is taken for as pleasing.

 
Logged

What we see and what we are looking at are often two very different things.
Vuurtoren
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2010, 04:44:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Chris, from the little I have read on the subject, I gather that it is a personal thing to compose in camera or in cropping. And from that I don't think anyone can say they are "right" - either way?   



Hi Riaan, Yes it is a very personal desicion.  Allow me a moment to clarify.  Before I went to college to study "photographic studies" I thought that I was pretty ok at photography, I believed that my decisions on what to photograph and how to edit and print them were pretty cool.  I had taught myself everything from both the web and to a very large extent photography magazines - I hungered for info and new ideas.  Then I went to college pretty confident of a head start. Bang!  My world was turned upside down.  I knew nothing, I realised very slowly that the photography magazine had influenced me, and many of my fellow students, in a very unhelpful manner, we all needed de-programming from a subconcious cultural wet blanket where vision and technique had been dictated to us by the ethos of magazine editors.  It was just when I saw the post on this forum elsewhere with this title that I began this post with, it was like reminding me of everything that I had absorbed only to have it balanced out by a course.  Cropping of course I am not anti-cropping agent.  I just felt the urge to tether in some balance that's all.

Chris
Logged

What we see and what we are looking at are often two very different things.
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6511



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2010, 04:53:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there more "integrity" to ones vision when shooting 1:1, or 3:2, or 4:3 or 3:1?

Michael, Integrity of vision has nothing to do with aspect ratio. Well, maybe that's not the way to put it. Integrity of vision occurs when the geometry of the forms within the frame relate to each other properly, no matter the aspect ratio. I prefer a ratio of 2 to 3, but here's a 1 to 1 where the elements fit. In the end, it's what you see in the viewfinder, whatever the aspect ratio

Quote
Or do you choose the format to shoot with first and then wait for shots that have the greatest integrity

Or, do you carry all formats with you at all times and choose the one that's most appropriate for ones vision's integrety.?

Well, I usually carry a 2 to 3 Nikon D3, because after having shot mostly 35mm for roughly 60 years, it's the aspect ratio I'm most comfortable with. But nowadays I also do some street shooting with an E-P1 with a ratio of 4 to 3. The two ratios aren't all that far apart. So, the answer is: I guess if you're comfortable with a particular format, that's the format to carry with you.

Quote
Or, if you have the wrong format in hand for a particular shot, do you just let it pass by rather than risk losing integrety?

Just asking.

Michael

Depends on whether or not you're a photographer.
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2010, 05:35:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Dogma has no place in art, and insisting on sticking within the frame set by some engineer for purely non-aesthetic reasons generations ago is as dogmatic as it gets.

Then I went to college pretty confident of a head start. Bang!  My world was turned upside down.  I knew nothing, I realised very slowly that the photography magazine had influenced me, and many of my fellow students, in a very unhelpful manner, we all needed de-programming from a subconcious cultural wet blanket where vision and technique had been dictated to us by the ethos of magazine editors.

So instead of your photographic vision being ruled by photography magazines, now it's ruled by college professors? I don't see this as an improvement, merely a change of a master with a hint of misguided elitism. There's a reason why one needs a degree to be a doctor or a lawyer, but art is hardly one where any kind of formal education is necessary; perhaps it's not even useful.
Logged

Joe Behar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2010, 05:54:24 PM »
ReplyReply

So instead of your photographic vision being ruled by photography magazines, now it's ruled by college professors? I don't see this as an improvement, merely a change of a master with a hint of misguided elitism.

Easy Harri...

We all have to start somewhere before we find our own path.

Once Vuutoren has exhausted the other possibilities, he will find his own "photographic voice"....Just like so many of us have done in the past.
Logged
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 873


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2010, 06:53:33 PM »
ReplyReply

HCB didn't crop because he didn't print and cropping in the world of film is a printing process.

Working in graphic design/illustration, I can tell you that there are millions of images out there that are being cropped, deep etched, photomerged, blended. This is done to fit templates, layouts, grids, and paper sizes etc.

There is a small percentage of people who can have their integrity but in the real world that we live in cropping is the dominant paradigm. Like it or not graphic/web designers all around the world are at this moment cropping to their hearts content.

Cheers,

Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6511



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2010, 08:18:47 PM »
ReplyReply

HCB didn't crop because he didn't print and cropping in the world of film is a printing process.

Tom, Are you aware that HCB insisted that his pictures be printed with the black borders outside the frame visible? In some cases you can see sprocket marks in the prints. Let's just say that to conclude Cartier-Bresson didn't crop because Voja Mitrovic printed for him is a bit of a stretch.

Quote
Working in graphic design/illustration, I can tell you that there are millions of images out there that are being cropped, deep etched, photomerged, blended. This is done to fit templates, layouts, grids, and paper sizes etc.

Quite! The graphic design/illustration people think nothing of cropping Leonardo, Monet, El Greco, Renoir, Picasso, you name it. I've even seen cropped versions of the Mona Lisa. Are you suggesting that the design/illustration people have more integrity of vision than Leonardo? I'd suggest that what you're talking about is advertising, not art.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2010, 09:41:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Yawn.
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2870


« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2010, 03:28:08 AM »
ReplyReply

At the risk of being simplistic.....the final out put is what counts? When I look at an image I see the final product of what someone else saw and captured. I see what they captured but I have no way of knowing what they were thinking about unless they are there telling me about it and that is unlikely. Therefore their integrity of vision or their artistic thoughts aren't relevant? If an image has been cropped then there isn't much chance of me knowing about it or to be blunt I probably don't care. If the image looks good to me that is all that matters. I feel that this subject is being over complicated by some? If they want to jump through mental hoops when composing an image then that is up to them. In my camera club days it was emphasised to me that it was the final product that counted. In competitions there weren't any extra marks for what the photographer thought about when taking the image. One photographer who thought that his image didn't get the marks his image deserved tried to talk his image up by telling everyone how much effort he had made to get the image and his thinking behind it. No cigar. The image was judged by what could be seen within the frame of the photograph.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2010, 04:18:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Influences, influences, in flew influences and out flew the self.

I started by reading magazines and photo annuals, latching on to every word that I devoured (a neat trick, if difficult in practice). I then moved to an inplant photo unit in an industrial giant, where part of the deal was that I go to night school and study photography there. After a while, I realised that the people 'teaching' were just run-of-the-mill snappers working in local studios by day...

Meanwhile, back in the day job, I learned a hell of a lot about hand printing black/white both in bulk and as one-offs; I learned how to process colour and produce colour prints from negs, inter-negs and transparencies.

The night that a 'lecturer' told me that were his photographs anything like David Bailey's, he would quit the job, was the last night I went to night school. The studios where those 'teachers' worked eventually went down. I did not, thank God, until much much later on when I was able to take it financially. It was exactly the same in my last job as an employee: the 'boss' once told me I wouldn't last six months on my own. I didn't last six months with him. I resigned and went out on my own. Some years later, I bumped into him at a Sam Haskins show; he asked me how I was doing, and I mentioned I was just back from a calendar shoot in the Bahamas and about to go to... he turned away.

The point I think I see lying behind all this is that you have to start somewhere; you might as well start by looking around you at what works. And what works is what is getting published, not on the friggin’ web, which is a depository for all the junk people know not what else with which to do; look at the printed stuff, at films, at television shows that are not reality tv. As I get older, I tend to feel that even photo galleries are probably more misleading to the novice than helpful, other than in one vital way: the need for networking becomes obvious if it had not been before.

From all of that you will deduce two invaluable things: what really interests you; what might earn you a living.

(This means nothing – I imagine – to anyone not thinking of photography as a job, a way of life.)

Then, when you guess you might know not only who you are but also what you are about, you have a base from which to go forth and conquer the world. Or to die in the fight which surely awaits you.

If a photo career is the last thing on your mind, just do as you please. You have total freedom, and money is not really any obstacle because you do not need pro gear to make nice pictures; you just need eyes that see.

Rob C


Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2010, 06:42:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Though interesting, this discussion looks a bit futile to me and I think there is
neither "yes" or "no" concerning cropping, but that does not meant it doesn't play a role.
I believe every artist has the right and obligation to decide how he/she wants to work.
I myself love cropping, if I cannot avoid it, but I can highly respect in the same moment
someone who says  "I don't want to crop" for this or that reason.
Because there might be a reason which works for exactly that artist.
Once you decide not to crop you will work and look different at your subject.
The whole relation gets changed.

To crop, or not to crop--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous photograph
Or to take arms against a sea of distractions
And by cropping end them.  .....

Cheers
~Chris

Addendum:
Who is Henri Cartier-Bresson? I don't know no HCB.
Who is Ansel Adams? I don't know any AA. 
Why don't you go out and take some photographs on your own?
« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 06:44:44 AM by Christoph C. Feldhaim » Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6511



WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2010, 07:04:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Chris, You're right, and so is Stamper. Arguments like this about cropping get to be assinine. There are times when you simply must crop. But, at least in my estimation, it's worthwhile trying to achieve maximum visual integrity while you have your object in front of you. For instance, sometimes a very small change in point of view changes the light in a subtle but important way or brings into the frame another small mass the composition needs for balance. You can't change those things later in a darkroom or in Lightroom. For those who'd shoot loosely hoping to improve their pictures after the fact, I'd suggest sitting down with a book of HCBs photographs and going through it carefully. There's a lot to be learned from him about visual integrity.

Most discussions on the subject talk around it and miss the point. Here's the point, as HCB put it:

"If you start cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which was feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the darkroom’s enlarger; the integrity of vision is no longer there."
Logged

Vuurtoren
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2010, 09:07:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Dogma has no place in art, and insisting on sticking within the frame set by some engineer for purely non-aesthetic reasons generations ago is as dogmatic as it gets.

So instead of your photographic vision being ruled by photography magazines, now it's ruled by college professors? I don't see this as an improvement, merely a change of a master with a hint of misguided elitism. There's a reason why one needs a degree to be a doctor or a lawyer, but art is hardly one where any kind of formal education is necessary; perhaps it's not even useful.

Hi Feppe No not all, I was exposed to so much MORE than what the photography magazine preaches.  I already said that I thought I knew it, UNTIL I went to college.  Elitism by the way happened to be something my tutors hated.  You really should not presume this: =====now it's ruled by college professors?=====

Oh about art not needing any formal education.  Mmm, every talented or gifted person in any discipline needs guidance, training, coaching, even some need extra tuition, without it?  they might never reach their Full potential to astound.

Chris
« Last Edit: September 01, 2010, 09:15:24 AM by Vuurtoren » Logged

What we see and what we are looking at are often two very different things.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad