"More pixels means more cropping ability,"
You see, that´s one MAJOR advantage of a long background with 35mm film: you learn to compose within what God or the maker (no pun intended, but enjoy it anyway) gave you.
However, if and when you choose to crop in tightly to some beautiful bit of body - tough out there in lanscape land, just dream on - you will start to get the most fabulous skin textures...
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147453\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe you should use wet plate collodion photography, being the purist that you preach that you are: Can't crop a piece of metal very well--opps, you can crop the reproductions!
The point is, that even the best and most observant photographers in history crop. It's part of the process. And everyone who is serious about photography knows the obvious--that you always compose the best image you can at the time the image is taken.
And with 16.7 MP or even 32MP digital backs, the dream is true.. You can crop and get a nice, smooth, crisp image. Your objection is one that all "purists" have made since the inception of photography--that any technological advancement in image recording is cheating, bad photography, not real talent, etc.
And I will give you that that point of view isn't always wrong. Rank amateurs with 200 dollars can get a good flash exposure whereas even in the early 70s, that would not have happened. You'd need someone with enough skill and talent to meter the light correctly, and then use the flash correctly. Perhaps photography is dead?
It is if you take your position simply because photography seems to be an equipment factor, not a creative one. Even if it were possible for a rank amateur to get a perfectly processed image by simply pressing one button, that image may not inspire anyone. My point is that the ability to crop doesn't make one a bad photographer, nor can it make one a good photographer. It's just an option.
And one last comment on cropping, I remember back before digital, where you would always find displays with many different sizes of image, because the "professionals" all cropped differently for different affect, and composition.
When I crop, I have never violated the aspect ratio of the digital capture, and I do that because I believe that getting a shot that is good enough to be cropped to the aspect ratio is a necessary condition. But that is just my take on it. I want to preserve the ratio for some reason. However, I'm wrong to think this way because ratios are simply predetermined standardized means to use images prints and papers, such as "wallet sized." Aspect ratio should take a back seat to aesthetic needs. For instance, landscapes generally need a wider ratio than product photography. So if you shoot a specific ratio, that being traditional film or digital, and the image needs a different ratio, you either crop or you violate the aesthetic properties of the image. This is doubly true for fine art photography, where a crop may take the form of an image 5" tall and 30" wide, for affect.
But by all means, purity at any cost. You could try tintypes if you're a real photographer.
