Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment  (Read 59038 times)
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #80 on: October 07, 2010, 05:46:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Jeff. You're pretty close. Going back, of the statements I've made in this thread, this one comes closes to what I see as my view on cropping:

Look, nobody on here is saying you must not crop! What the sensible voices are saying is this: It's worthwhile trying to get the picture right in the viewfinder before you trip the shutter. That's when you have options that'll never be open to you during post-processing. In other words, shooting loose and hoping to find a picture later not only is sloppy work, it's lazy work and a sign that you're not quite sure what you want to do -- a deadly state of mind for a photographer.

If you find that condescending, so be it. I'll stick by it.
Logged

rsn48
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #81 on: October 15, 2010, 07:22:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Late to the party and new to Luminous Landscape, but not new to photographic forums.

And now about cropping.  If the original image is "authentic" then the cropped image is also authentic, a crop is a pic from within a pic. Inauthentic is when something is added or subtracted from the scene with the intention of changing emotional and intellectual reaction.  You just need to talk to photojournalists who have been bounced from jobs because of "inauthentic" photos to understand my last statement.  Or talk to Ansel A about some of his pussy cat skies when after much burning and dodging looked like a dark looming storm cloud (something that wasn't there at the time).

I teach photography to teens.  I tell them there are two primary skills in the moment of capturing an image.  First, you must learn you are painting with light so use the light to your advantage, and secondly, to see with the photographic eye.  The teaching method I use to help develop some aspects of the photographer's eye is to ask the students to crop at least three different pics from the original image they captured.  The images don't have to be sharp and can be falling apart at the seams in terms of IQ, the exercise is to help them see images they didn't see, but were there, in the first place.  As they do this exercise more and more, the lessons can be transferred to the "field" so that they can see these "cropped images" in their minds eye and learn how to capture them "live."
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #82 on: October 15, 2010, 08:01:57 PM »
ReplyReply

48, Whatever... What I don't understand is how the question of "authenticity" keeps popping up. The OP used that term, but since then no one has suggested that anything other than a heavily Photoshopped file is "inauthentic." If you've actually read this thread you must know that the question is one of visual integrity and knowing what you're after, not "authenticity."
Logged

rsn48
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #83 on: October 15, 2010, 09:24:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Is what Ansel Adams did during his printing process, "visual integrity?"
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #84 on: October 16, 2010, 02:53:35 AM »
ReplyReply

.... What I don't understand is how the question of "authenticity" keeps popping up. The OP used that term, but since then no one has suggested that anything other than a heavily Photoshopped file is "inauthentic." If you've actually read this thread you must know that the question is one of visual integrity and knowing what you're after, not "authenticity."

We all must become more autistic ... oh yes ... yeah ....
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #85 on: October 16, 2010, 10:54:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Is what Ansel Adams did during his printing process, "visual integrity?"

Absolutely. Ansel knew exactly what he was after and had all the visual elements distributed on his ground glass before he tripped the shutter. Are you suggesting he shot more or less randomly with an 8 x 10 or 11 x 14 view camera and then tried to find a picture later in the darkroom? Have you ever heard of the zone system? Ansel took many light meter readings around the scene before he made the exposure. The dodging and burning he did in the darkroom converted his carefully composed negative into a print that contained what he had in mind when he made the shot. Maybe you've never heard about his statement that "The negative is the score. The print is the performance." That certainly doesn't imply random shooting.
Logged

rsn48
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #86 on: October 16, 2010, 07:12:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Ansel was one of the original "photoshop freaks," what was on his negative versus the final print, which he said in his biography he could spend two days manipulating the image, could differ significantly.  He wasn't shy about his skills and the amount of time modifying his final image from beginning to end; he was quite proud of his printing skills - justifiably so.  Did he crop, with many of his prints we don't know.

I don't think my question suggested random shooting, Ansel was methodical.  But was the final print image, the image he captured on his negative - no; he said so himself.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #87 on: October 16, 2010, 09:36:01 PM »
ReplyReply

In other words, you don't think he knew what he was after when he made the exposure. You think he made that determination in the darkroom.
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #88 on: October 17, 2010, 05:46:13 AM »
ReplyReply

In other words, you don't think he knew what he was after when he made the exposure. You think he made that determination in the darkroom.

You make it sound like that's a bad thing.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #89 on: October 17, 2010, 08:08:47 AM »
ReplyReply

You make it sound like that's a bad thing.

I think it would be.

It represents an uncertain mind, something that the heat of the shoot absolutely abhors!

There may well be a current space, even need for it in today's amateur world. After all, it seems to me that the name of the game is playing with gear, be it cameras, zooms, computers or any other stage in the game of photography.

For the serious, there's no room for anything except getting the image you wanted, needed, in the first place. Second-guessing yourself is a whole other pastime. I have done it on my own websit; but that`s for me, not at the time and money of a client; I suppose it really does divide the two worlds.

But wasn't that St Ansel's big problem? Not a helluva lot of clients when it mattered.

Rob C
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 08:10:51 AM by Rob C » Logged

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

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #90 on: October 17, 2010, 08:45:41 AM »
ReplyReply

.... It represents an uncertain mind, something that the heat of the shoot absolutely abhors! ....

Art often needs space for uncertainty, doubt, re-evaluation and the like.
Surely most commercial photography doesn't fall into this category ....
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #91 on: October 17, 2010, 09:20:21 AM »
ReplyReply

You make it sound like that's a bad thing.

Come on Harri. I've seen enough of your work that I can't believe you don't know what you're after when you trip the shutter.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 09:22:11 AM by RSL » Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #92 on: October 17, 2010, 10:08:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Come on Harri. I've seen enough of your work that I can't believe you don't know what you're after when you trip the shutter.

Thanks, and I think I do. But that's not to say that I have the final image in mind when I take the picture every time. Sometimes when I open the images in LR I see a different picture than what I saw on location.

It's the dogmatic approach to photography I reject. If I get a better shot in post than I imagined on location, I'll crop, convert to B&W, what have you, even if I didn't plan to do so when I took the shot.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #93 on: October 17, 2010, 10:35:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, and I think I do. But that's not to say that I have the final image in mind when I take the picture every time. Sometimes when I open the images in LR I see a different picture than what I saw on location.

It's the dogmatic approach to photography I reject. If I get a better shot in post than I imagined on location, I'll crop, convert to B&W, what have you, even if I didn't plan to do so when I took the shot.

Harri, sorry, but I can't believe you don't have a final image in mind when you shoot. I can believe that sometimes you see a crop that improves the shot once you bring up the file. I crop fairly often, but not because I didn't know what I was after when I tripped the shutter. When I crop it's because I couldn't get quite what I was after -- often because I had to snap-shoot. I've posted a number of demos of that on LuLa. Other times it's because I didn't quite have the camera level when I shot -- again, often because of the need for haste. I very often convert to B&W. Silver Efex Pro is my favorite plugin. A couple of the pictures that'll appear on my spotlight pages in issue 81 of B&W were converted from color transparencies. So, I can't convict myself of dogmatism. Sounds as if you and I do pretty much the same thing.
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #94 on: October 17, 2010, 11:20:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Harri, sorry, but I can't believe you don't have a final image in mind when you shoot. I can believe that sometimes you see a crop that improves the shot once you bring up the file. I crop fairly often, but not because I didn't know what I was after when I tripped the shutter. When I crop it's because I couldn't get quite what I was after -- often because I had to snap-shoot. I've posted a number of demos of that on LuLa. Other times it's because I didn't quite have the camera level when I shot -- again, often because of the need for haste. I very often convert to B&W. Silver Efex Pro is my favorite plugin. A couple of the pictures that'll appear on my spotlight pages in issue 81 of B&W were converted from color transparencies. So, I can't convict myself of dogmatism. Sounds as if you and I do pretty much the same thing.

I rarely do B&W, but I'd say half the cases are where I planned to make it B&W when shooting, and half when I found out in post it works better in B&W rather than color. I often do cropping due to same limitations you described (why isn't artificial horizon standard on cameras?), but almost as often to get rid of unnecessary elements or make the composition stronger.

I just went through the photos I edited earlier today from a recent trip to Ireland, and all 11 good enough to put on my site were as planned at time of shooting - so I guess we do pretty much the same thing, indeed.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #95 on: October 17, 2010, 11:39:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Harri, One thing I forgot to mention is that often I'll make a B&W of a picture I'm not sure about and then look at both color and B&W versions side-by-side before I decide which is the definitive version. In the sixties and seventies I used to shoot B&W almost exclusively and I got used to seeing in B&W, but nowadays my B&W pre-judgment isn't that good. Often I can tell in advance, but not always.

There's an artificial horizon on my D3. I use it when I'm shooting off a tripod, or hand-holding a static picture, but on the street, it's useless.

I just went through the photos I edited earlier today from a recent trip to Ireland, and all 11 good enough to put on my site were as planned at time of shooting - so I guess we do pretty much the same thing, indeed.

That reinforces what I've said many times in discussions like this one: A very, very large percentage of the time your first shot is the right one. I find the same thing. When I shoot a series it's unusual for one of the later shots to be the best one.

Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2910


« Reply #96 on: October 17, 2010, 12:13:41 PM »
ReplyReply

.
. When I shoot a series it's unusual for one of the later shots to be the best one.


Unquote.

An interesting point. With me it is the other way around. If I take a series then it is usually one of the last that is my best. I find that I "work my way" into a scene and the more I "see it" then the better shots I seem to get. If I arrive at something I quickly take a couple of shots in case the light gets worse which means I have got something. Then I can take my time and then you really seem to "see it". Bracketing for light and composition.  Smiley
Logged

ChrisS
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #97 on: October 17, 2010, 02:31:03 PM »
ReplyReply

RobC:

"You seem to be confusing photography with some major science; you can teach a friggin' monkey how to point a camera; when you try to interfere beyond that, in my opinion, you are interfering with the virgin mind and you just shouldn't do that [...] as both Russ and I have written here ad nauseam, the way to find out how to do it is to look at the world of existing images already around you and discover where you fit, not where some third party is trying to encourage you to go, however subtle (or otherwise) the encouragement."

This seems a really odd position to adopt - did you have some bad educational experiences? The idea that a third party - particularly one with considerable experience in the subject - couldn't possibly help somebody who's new to the subject think through where they stand in relation to existing images is clearly daft. Maybe you had tutors who tried to force you to do things you didn't want, rather than helping you decide what you did value? Most university lecturers would encourage their students to look at as much existent work as possible and to consider what importance it has for them - I do this all the time with my students. But I also work hard to help them think through and achieve what is important to them. I guess you think this last stage is useless (from what you and Russ have written ad nauseam), but maybe you're wrong?
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 02:35:13 PM by ChrisS » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #98 on: October 17, 2010, 03:34:26 PM »
ReplyReply

The idea that a third party - particularly one with considerable experience in the subject - couldn't possibly help somebody who's new to the subject think through where they stand in relation to existing images is clearly daft. Maybe you had tutors who tried to force you to do things you didn't want, rather than helping you decide what you did value? Most university lecturers would encourage their students to look at as much existent work as possible and to consider what importance it has for them - I do this all the time with my students. But I also work hard to help them think through and achieve what is important to them. I guess you think this last stage is useless (from what you and Russ have written ad nauseam), but maybe you're wrong?


Indeed, the possibility is always there. I have often been wrong; but that's not usually on basics such as this we are discussing.

It's all there in your post: "help...... think through where they stand in relation to existing images..." I already said they should do that: read magazines, look at film, tv and all sources available to them. But they have to do the looking; it's a lonely, singular person, journey. Neither you nor anyone else, to my mind, can really help; they can certainly influence, and there's the rub. Influence in such a direct and personal situation is too strong. It will overpower the native thinking of the neophyte. On the other hand, such searching through available images, done alone, will create an understanding of the type of thing, the genre, that really appeals to the person. It has to come from within, cleanly and uniquely. Or at least, that's how I see it.

Tutors that I had? The good ones were fellow photographers in my first photographic employment; the worst was in the night school course I was obliged to attend in parallel. A 100% waste of my evenings and the taxpayers' money.

In fact, you are right: I have stated ad nauseam that you canít teach people how to see, which I believe is the part of teaching/learning that we find difficult to agree upon.

A far as teaching the mechanics, sure, thatís pretty essential, particularly in the digital age: wish I knew a hell of a lot more about it, but then, for what I do, I know more than enough.  Were I to be into professional retouching and things like that, then I would need tuition, badly; but fortunately, itís another world.

The important thing, thinking an image in a genre I love, has never been a problem for me; as I think I posted somewhere on LuLa, when I did my first model shoot I had never, by definition, done one before. But it never struck me that I wouldnít be able to wing my way to that particular heaven. It just comes naturally, and itís the same with models, as I discovered around fifty years ago: those that can do, and those that canít fail. They recognize it in you; the feeling is what itís all about, and Iím sorry, but you canít fake it. Thatís why good shooters still canít get heavenly results from lousy models. Itís a team of talents, nothing more and nothing less. Itís why one stellar lady looks great with top snapper A, but only so-so with top snapper B; they are all good people in that situation, but personality comes into play, as ever, and the magic might still not be there.

Well, I guess we all have axes to grind Ė somewhere, but mine has pretty well rusted to the shaft and so thereís not a lot of point in my whipping the fog, if I may mix a variety of metaphors for a moment.

Maybe you might be wrong? It's all possible.

Rob C
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 04:00:21 PM by Rob C » Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #99 on: October 17, 2010, 04:18:46 PM »
ReplyReply

An interesting point. With me it is the other way around. If I take a series then it is usually one of the last that is my best. I find that I "work my way" into a scene and the more I "see it" then the better shots I seem to get. If I arrive at something I quickly take a couple of shots in case the light gets worse which means I have got something. Then I can take my time and then you really seem to "see it". Bracketing for light and composition.  Smiley

Stamper, It depends. If I'm shooting for something like the Downtown Partnership and trying to make a specific point it may work that way for me too. But when I'm not doing that kind of "assignment," what I see that makes me raise the camera in the first place usually turns out to be the best shot. I may try to improve on that initial impression, but doing that rarely improves anything.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad