History of The Religion of Cropping ?

[pegelli]

Jonathan, They already have. It's called the Nikon D3. The D3X does the same thing. Both cameras can be set the shoot at a 4 x 5 ratio. I prefer 2 x 3, but the option's there.

Yes, but don't they only do that by throwing away pixels from the sensor, I'd rather do that on the computer and pay the penalty on storage size.

[dalethorn]

Dale, do you even know who Henri Cartier-Bresson was? Have you any idea where his contact sheets currently reside?
Well, if you say so, but I'm surprised you'd admit it.

So Henri's contact sheets are unexpurgated, complete, original - no mistakes were ever deleted? Hmmmm. Most great masters in any field readily admit to gaffes from small to large. Einstein, Ansel, Beethoven.  But not Henri.  Nope.

Surprised I'd admit "cleansing" my files? My idols are a little different from yours I suspect. For photography I'd rather not say. In other contexts, Minnesota Fats comes to mind.

[RSL]

Yes, but don't they only do that by throwing away pixels from the sensor, I'd rather do that on the computer and pay the penalty on storage size.

Pieter, It's a good point. The advantage is that you can compose properly on the camera. Yes, I don't like the idea of throwing away pixels -- on the camera or off, which is one reason I prefer the 2 x 3 aspect ratio.

[RSL]

So Henri's contact sheets are unexpurgated, complete, original - no mistakes were ever deleted? Hmmmm. Most great masters in any field readily admit to gaffes from small to large. Einstein, Ansel, Beethoven.  But not Henri.  Nope.

Surprised I'd admit "cleansing" my files? My idols are a little different from yours I suspect. For photography I'd rather not say. In other contexts, Minnesota Fats comes to mind.

So I guess the answer is that you don't know who HCB was. Do you even know what a contact sheet is? Your idea that an outfit like Magnum would cheat on contact sheets for some unexplained advantage to a dead photographer is ludicrous beyond belief.

[dalethorn]

So I guess the answer is that you don't know who HCB was. Do you even know what a contact sheet is? Your idea that an outfit like Magnum would cheat on contact sheets for some unexplained advantage to a dead photographer is ludicrous beyond belief.

Of course I don't know.  I've only been doing this for 40 years. You're the one with all the answers. And your slave-like worship of Henri what's-his-name is really showing.

"You're asking me if I have a god complex. Let me tell you something - I am god."  --  Alec Baldwin in Malice.

[dalethorn]

Is that why this guy you posted over on User Critiques is so soft? Did you crop 40% or so?
[attachment=13707:Robin13.jpg]

DPReview just posted samples from the GH1 - look pretty much like G1 samples, i.e. soft.  The only default setting I changed in standard film mode was to reduce the noise reduction.  If I thought the camera could sharpen better than me, maybe I'd change that setting too.

[dalethorn]

In theory, it is entirely possible to design a digital camera that supports multiple aspect ratios, AND fully utilizes all the sensor's pixels in each ratio.

The Panasonic LX3, ZS3/TZ7, and GH1 all support multiple aspect ratios of 4x3, 3x2, and 16x9 without *purely* cropping, but each step to the right loses some total pixel count anyway. With the LX3, it's 3648x2736 (9.98 mp), 3776x2520 (9.52 mp), and 3968x2232 (8.86 mp). So for me the question is, would preserving the original count of 9.98 mp be possible, and if so, would that require a larger, heavier lens, and/or would that entail a necessary compromise in quality or performance elsewhere?

Maybe we should all campaign for the mfr's to introduce a slider to smoothly move from 4x3 to 16x9 with no "steps" in between. That would be the better solution.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I forgive you for assuming my website contains my work. To date, no.

Well that's the general assumption most people would make looking at photos on a web site with your name as the URL, and nothing to indicate any of the stuff had been shot by someone else. People have lost lawsuits over less.

My late mother-in-law shot the paintings with a 1mp Kodak DC260, and her daughter did the crops.

Are you sure about that?
Resolution of Kodak DC260: 1536x1024 (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DC260/DC260Acgi.HTM)
Resolution of P0001091.60134635_large.jpg: 1280x1433
Getting a crop wider than the original image: Priceless

All of the EXIF data has been stripped out of the JPEGs, so there's no indication what the camera was.

[RSL]

Of course I don't know.

Suspicions confirmed. You need to do a little reading on the history of photography, and you desperately need to look at photographs by the masters I listed earlier in this thread -- that is, assuming you aspire to become a serious photographer.

[RSL]

DPReview just posted samples from the GH1 - look pretty much like G1 samples, i.e. soft.  The only default setting I changed in standard film mode was to reduce the noise reduction.  If I thought the camera could sharpen better than me, maybe I'd change that setting too.

Well, something certainly caused a sharpening problem, but you didn't answer the question: how much was the original shot cropped?

[dalethorn]

Well that's the general assumption most people would make looking at photos on a web site with your name as the URL, and nothing to indicate any of the stuff had been shot by someone else. People have lost lawsuits over less.
Are you sure about that?
Resolution of Kodak DC260: 1536x1024 (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DC260/DC260Acgi.HTM)
Resolution of P0001091.60134635_large.jpg: 1280x1433
Getting a crop wider than the original image: Priceless
All of the EXIF data has been stripped out of the JPEGs, so there's no indication what the camera was.

Kodak DC260, Mr. Know it all.  Lawsuit from who?  My deceased relatives for whom I am their sole heirs?  Sure, why not. You be the lawyer.

Crop wider than original?  Let's see, if you had some editing software, you couldn't figure out how to do that?  They did, and I didn't ask how. Why should I?  You are so anal retentive you shou;d be an interrogator in Iraq.  Oopsie!

[dalethorn]

Suspicions confirmed. You need to do a little reading on the history of photography, and you desperately need to look at photographs by the masters I listed earlier in this thread -- that is, assuming you aspire to become a serious photographer.

Actually, I don't need any such thing.  I know a lot more than you.  Why should I trade off my knowledge for your arrogant ignorance?

Addendum: I prefer to stand on my own two feet - you really shouldn't throw those other peoples' names around as though they approve of you and your interpretation of them.

Addendum #2: I don'thave masters - I'm a free person.

[dalethorn]

Well, something certainly caused a sharpening problem, but you didn't answer the question: how much was the original shot cropped?

Whatever it was, 5 percent or 50, you wouldn't like it.  I don't think it has a problem, but you do.  That's OK with me.  I appreciate your critique, though.

[RSL]

Actually, I don't need any such thing.  I know a lot more than you.  Why should I trade off my knowledge for your arrogant ignorance?

Addendum: I prefer to stand on my own two feet - you really shouldn't throw those other peoples' names around as though they approve of you and your interpretation of them.

Addendum #2: I don'thave masters - I'm a free person.

Then you don't aspire to become a serious photographer?

[dalethorn]

Then you don't aspire to become a serious photographer?

I don't aspire to become what you've become - a worshipper of false gods.  I make money and contribute my share to the economy, so my existence is justified.  Maybe you think I should become like one of the "masters" so people will worship me.  No thank you.

[RSL]

I don't aspire to become what you've become - a worshipper of false gods.  I make money and contribute my share to the economy, so my existence is justified.  Maybe you think I should become like one of the "masters" so people will worship me.  No thank you.

Well, then, good luck with your snapshots. It takes a lot of work and study to become a serious photographer and not everyone has the time, skill, or inclination to become one.

[dalethorn]

Well, then, good luck with your snapshots. It takes a lot of work and study to become a serious photographer and not everyone has the time, skill, or inclination to become one.

You certainly don't.  The things I've done in photography you wouldn't understand, because your capacity for understanding is so limited. That's why you worship Henri what's-his-name, to fill the void in your own photographic talent.

[Jonathan Wienke]

We have a confirmed troll here; adding to ignore list.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

We have a confirmed troll here; adding to ignore list.

Good decision, jonathan. You beat me to it.

[John Camp]

[quote name='Jonathan Wienke' date='May 16 2009, 01:19 PM' post='284151']
A shot you have is always better than one you don't have <snip>

You obviously haven't seen my photography... 8-)

Ray (if I may call you Ray) you make an interesting point about evolving views of photographs already taken, i.e. adjusting a crop later which I think is quite often done. Although the crop didn't change, you can see in what may be the most famous American art photo ever taken (Moonrise) a series of changes and adjustments in the darkroom over the years, with later prints becoming notably more dramatic and (simultaneously) delicate.

JC