Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10   Go Down

Author Topic: History of The Religion of Cropping ?  (Read 618366 times)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #140 on: May 17, 2009, 11:17:50 pm »

Quote from: John Camp
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

Hi John,
Ray's actually my first name, so no reason why you shouldn't call me Ray   .

There's an interesting story about the taking of 'Moonrise over Hernandez' isn't there! It appears to have been a rushed job; a shot that was almost missed with no time to take a second shot before the magic of the scene had disappeared.

The shot appears to have been taken with reference to a remembered figure for the brightness of the moon. No light meter was used (couldn't find it I believe) and no exposure adjustment for the brightness of the foreground was made. I get the impression if Ansel had had more time to take the shot, the exposure would have been different. I think this was a technically difficult shot to process in the darkroom.

I'm sure Ansel would have been very happy with the processing power of Photoshop. It's interesting that the image does not appear to be cropped. It's still in its 8x10 aspect ratio, although it might be the case that the image has been cropped to the same aspect ratio. I'm assuming he used an 8x10 field camera for the shot.

What I find just a little bit absurd about Jonathan's approach to minimising the need for cropping, is an apparent over-emphasis on resolution. If one takes multiple shots of a scene, it is usually in order to get a better exposure, a better angle or perspective, a better rendition of light and shade or simply a more interesting shot if the subject is dynamic or moving to some degree.

When choosing just one of such multiple shots for display or print, I would always choose the most expressive and interesting shot and crop to taste. I would never choose a shot on the basis that it required less cropping and therefore had slightly greater resolution than a more interesting but similar shot which needed more cropping..
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #141 on: May 18, 2009, 02:01:01 am »

Ray, John,

Agree with the points you're making. I know it's technically/theoretically preferable to crop as little as possible but I still prefer a cropped good image versus an uncropped not so good one any day. I don't see cropping as a failure, just one of the PP steps to get the best result from a shoot.

Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #142 on: May 18, 2009, 12:09:59 pm »

Quote from: pegelli
Ray, John,

Agree with the points you're making. I know it's technically/theoretically preferable to crop as little as possible but I still prefer a cropped good image versus an uncropped not so good one any day. I don't see cropping as a failure, just one of the PP steps to get the best result from a shoot.

Pieter, I think we all agree on that point.

As far as Ansel's changes in Moonrise is concerned, Ansel was an experimenter. That's why he became the most outspoken supporter of the zone system and why he wrote those interesting books that put forth the results of his experiments. As Ray pointed out, Moonrise was a rush job. He had to get his stuff up onto the platform on top of his truck, get it in place, get a film holder into the camera, compose, and shoot. I never heard the part about not being able to find his light meter. It may be that he left it down below in the truck and realized he didn't have time to go back down for it. On the other hand, considering the nature of the scene, I'm not sure a light meter would have helped. Ansel had enough experience that he could make a truly informed guess at exposure, and that's what he did.

Ray, I agree with your point about resolution. On the other hand, as I'm sure you'd agree, if you're shooting something like landscape, really good resolution can help the result. On the street, though, and in most other situations, resolution is vastly overrated -- because it's something Pop Photography can measure, I'd guess. At the risk of causing Dale to have a stroke I'd point out that resolution is lousy in some of HCB's best early photographs, but they're still exceptionally fine work.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 12:11:00 pm by RSL »
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

walter.sk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1433
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #143 on: May 18, 2009, 01:57:28 pm »

Quote from: Ray
When choosing just one of such multiple shots for display or print, I would always choose the most expressive and interesting shot and crop to taste. I would never choose a shot on the basis that it required less cropping and therefore had slightly greater resolution than a more interesting but similar shot which needed more cropping..
Along these lines, I would like to raise another point, which can be immediately attacked by both sides in this issue.  The creative process is different for people, even of equal degrees of creativity.  Handel wrote the Messiah in a couple of weeks, if legend is correct, and Beethoven would labor over each measure, writing and rewriting.  Supposedly, some of his scores have pieces of music paper covering older versions of the same measure.

I mention this because when I see a scene I like, I try to fill the frame with it.  I also take several angles, from several viewpoints and distances, trying to improve upon what I saw when first attracted to photograph the scene.  I then go through a period when I hate every image because it didn't match what I saw in my mind's eye.  A day or two later I can look more objectively at the images, and the keepers become apparent to me.  However, I often see a smaller area in one or more of the images that now excites me more than any of the ones I shot.  My emotional distance from the scene, coupled with consolidation of my thinking about the scene, allows me to see the scene differently.  Often, then, a cropping to get a creative effect does just what I want for the image--unfortunately at the cost of some resolution--but the impact of the image is higher, regardless.

Should I have "seen" this fresher version and filled the frame with it to start with?  Hindsight might suggest "yes," but I don't feel I have to apologize for the way my creative process works any more than one could say Beethoven should have been able to come up with his final version of each measure as rapidly as did Handel.  

No, I am not comparing my photography skills to Handel's or Beethoven's compositional genuis; just trying to make a point.

Let the flaming begin!
« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 02:00:07 pm by walter.sk »
Logged

alainbriot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 796
  • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
    • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #144 on: May 18, 2009, 02:13:50 pm »

Walter,

I agree with you wholeheartedly.  Another point to consider is the capability with digital of composing by stitching together multiple frames seamlessly to create an image not only wider than any lens could create but also create an image with a geometry far different from what we see or what a single lens sees.  In that case cropping becomes not only a requirement but an integral part of the process since there will always be "bits" that are unecessary.  In addition I also stretch, warp, clone and more in order to complete the composition and make the image look the way I want it to look.  

This process is closer to painting than to the traditional photography approach.  In painting, the composition is arrived at over time, by adding, removing and modifying elements, light, colors and contrast.  In traditional photography, epitomized by HCBs approach, composition is arrived at instantly.

Here's an example of what I am describing.  Although not apparent when looking at this image, the little tree, or bush, to the far right was actually almost behind me.  The use of a linear projection when stitching the eight Phase One P45 photographs resulted in the bush being to my right.  Also, the 4 sky photographs were taken 20 minutes after the 4 land photographs.  I took multiple series of 8 photographs, over a 1hr span of time.  When it came to making a final choice I liked how the land looked early on and how the sky looked later on.

As a point of reference in regards to how wide this scene is, an 18mm lens on a full-frame 35mm would encompass slightly more than the width of the river bend (the Horseshoe shape of the river going around the central butte), from left to right.  As it is this scene shows over 160 degrees of view since, as I mentioned, part of the scene on the right and left were located almost behind me.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 02:21:43 pm by alainbriot »
Logged
Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com

Jeremy Payne

  • Guest
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #145 on: May 18, 2009, 03:52:27 pm »

I have only one thing to say on this topic:

Cropping is sub-optimal ... but then again, almost everything is sub-optimal ... and sub-optimal is usually more than acceptable.

I crop all the time - and not JUST to get the squares and 4x5's that typically please my eye and creative vision more than 2x3.

While I HATE to lose resolution, most of my post-crop images have more than enough resolution to suit my needs ... if they don't, they either get tossed or printed small.    
Logged

walter.sk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1433
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #146 on: May 18, 2009, 04:24:22 pm »

Quote from: alainbriot
Walter,

I agree with you wholeheartedly.  Another point to consider is the capability with digital of composing by stitching together multiple frames seamlessly to create an image not only wider than any lens could create but also create an image with a geometry far different from what we see or what a single lens sees.  In that case cropping becomes not only a requirement but an integral part of the process since there will always be "bits" that are unecessary.  In addition I also stretch, warp, clone and more in order to complete the composition and make the image look the way I want it to look.  

This process is closer to painting than to the traditional photography approach.  In painting, the composition is arrived at over time, by adding, removing and modifying elements, light, colors and contrast.  In traditional photography, epitomized by HCBs approach, composition is arrived at instantly.

A beautiful image, Alain, and I have enjoyed your articles on how you developed your techniques and views of aesthetics.  I don't hold any aspect of photography sacred, and I feel that any alteration that brings the final image into line with the "reality" that I saw in my head is valid, provided it is done well enough so as not to leap out of the picture to point attention to itself.  And then, only because it wrecks the effect I was trying for.

As far as perspective in an image, sometimes I use a warp or free transform, pulling on a corner or side,  rather than a crop; this can distort perspective in an "unnatural" way, but can emphasize some quality I would like to bring out of an image.  Most observers respond favorably to the images but if I explain what I did, some dismiss it as dishonest, or not even photography.  I make no claim to be representing any reality other than that of my mind's eye.  And I have fun doing this.
Logged

alainbriot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 796
  • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
    • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #147 on: May 18, 2009, 07:16:57 pm »

Walter,

Thank you for your compliments on my work.  Stretching and other modifications are very interesting.  They allow for straightening an horizon without rotating the image for example, thereby avoiding to have to crop the image after rotating it to remove the white corners.  I use it often.  It also allows modification of the composition by introducing curves and allowing creative distortion of the image. I use it to bring movement in an otherwise too-static image.

Alain
Logged
Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com

dalethorn

  • Guest
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #148 on: May 18, 2009, 09:56:58 pm »

There was some cropping involved in doing these - difficult to explain, but there was only one place I could stand for the capture, and so the birds were at an oblique angle. A little tug at an approx. 45 degree angle was the main trick.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #149 on: May 18, 2009, 10:34:46 pm »

Quote from: RSL
Ray, I agree with your point about resolution. On the other hand, as I'm sure you'd agree, if you're shooting something like landscape, really good resolution can help the result. On the street, though, and in most other situations, resolution is vastly overrated -- because it's something Pop Photography can measure, I'd guess. At the risk of causing Dale to have a stroke I'd point out that resolution is lousy in some of HCB's best early photographs, but they're still exceptionally fine work.

If you are worried that the resolution of your camera is a bit inadequate for the print sizes you usually make or desire to make, you should either upgrade to a bigger format camera with a higher pixel count, or stitch images.

Alain Briot makes the excellent point that stitching allows for the possibility of capturing a scene that no single shot, however wide the lens, could capture. Cropping is always essential with such a process. (I wish I'd included that point earlier in my list of reasons for cropping).

However, there is another reason for stitching. When your camera's resolution is either inadequate for the size of print you'd like to make, or bordering on inadequacy, then stitching is the way to go. It's better to have more resolution than required than 'just' enough.

If you have to take multiple shots of a scene just to be sure you don't have to sacrifice resolution in post processing (as a result of cropping), you need to either stitch or upgrade your camera. Even those who have an 8mp Canon 20D which they think is perfectly adequate for the A3 size prints they always make, could benefit from the greatly enhanced creative cropping opportunities offered by the 21mp 5D2.

As regards HCB, he's a very unusual photographer. He used a range-finder Leica with a viewfinder that shows a wider view than the area covered by the film. There's a 35mm matte in the viewfinder, isn't there? I get the impression that HCB was like a tiger watching his prey and waiting for the best moment to pounce. The 35mm matte in his viewfinder was the critical area. In a scene with movement, he could see what was happening outside of the 35mm frame. As various elements moved in and out of the frame, he would be watching carefully. If he pressed the shutter just half a second too soon or too late, he would miss the composition, as a tiger would miss its prey without perfect timing.

Resolution is of secondary concern with HCB's art form.
Logged

dalethorn

  • Guest
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #150 on: May 18, 2009, 11:35:03 pm »

Quote from: RSL
..... I'd point out that resolution is lousy in some of HCB's best early photographs, but they're still exceptionally fine work.

No argument there. Art is what it is, and the man's art has a loyal audience. I've removed a lot of my early digital efforts from my active collection due to a combination of poor resolution and less than exemplary art. But there are a few of those early photos that are very satisfying today in spite of low resolution. And I think sometimes about re-shooting some of those (as I'm sure many people do their own), and let the feeling pass, since I don't feel the same inspiration that I did when I made the original. And there are other things to do anyway. I should add, OTOH, that the temptation to "improve" an existing photo is much greater with the newer material I have for a couple of reasons - one is the much greater resolution that allows some cropping, and the other is the fact that most of the newer material simply hasn't been around that long to have "stood the test of time", so it lends itself to greater experimentation.

Now I wonder if part of this has to do with whether a photo is considered to be a document of some kind, or pure art as it were. If I considered a photo of mine to be an important document, I'd be much more likely to preserve it in its clearest, most detailed form. If not, anything goes.
Logged

walter.sk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1433
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #151 on: May 19, 2009, 10:30:22 am »

Quote from: dalethorn
There was some cropping involved in doing these - difficult to explain, but there was only one place I could stand for the capture, and so the birds were at an oblique angle. A little tug at an approx. 45 degree angle was the main trick.

Aha! The Truth emerges! (Just kidding.  Besides how many people have used a tool such as Image Align to change, say, horizontal perspective distortion, or vertical skew, etc yet believe that those who tweak such things for artistic impact are less than honest?)
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #152 on: May 19, 2009, 10:55:36 am »

Quote from: alainbriot
Walter,

I agree with you wholeheartedly.  Another point to consider is the capability with digital of composing by stitching together multiple frames seamlessly to create an image not only wider than any lens could create but also create an image with a geometry far different from what we see or what a single lens sees.  In that case cropping becomes not only a requirement but an integral part of the process since there will always be "bits" that are unecessary.  In addition I also stretch, warp, clone and more in order to complete the composition and make the image look the way I want it to look.  

This process is closer to painting than to the traditional photography approach.  In painting, the composition is arrived at over time, by adding, removing and modifying elements, light, colors and contrast.  In traditional photography, epitomized by HCBs approach, composition is arrived at instantly.

Alain, It's a very elegant and interesting piece of work. But as you point out, it's closer to painting than to photography. Actually, it's pretty close to computer painting. Ever since the dawn of photography painters have been procuring photographs, such as Atget's "documents pour artistes," and using them as a basis for their paintings. In most cases, with the exception of Charles Sheeler, the painters haven't attempted precise, photographic reproductions of the "documents." They've made their own interpretations, often producing works much more powerful than the original "documents." I wish we had a word for the kind of thing you've done. It belongs in a category of its own, and I'd have as hard a time calling it "photography' as I'd have calling the paintings that use photographs as their basis "photography." But it's excellent work whatever you call it.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #153 on: May 19, 2009, 11:11:32 am »

Quote from: Ray
As regards HCB, he's a very unusual photographer. He used a range-finder Leica with a viewfinder that shows a wider view than the area covered by the film. There's a 35mm matte in the viewfinder, isn't there? I get the impression that HCB was like a tiger watching his prey and waiting for the best moment to pounce. The 35mm matte in his viewfinder was the critical area. In a scene with movement, he could see what was happening outside of the 35mm frame. As various elements moved in and out of the frame, he would be watching carefully. If he pressed the shutter just half a second too soon or too late, he would miss the composition, as a tiger would miss its prey without perfect timing.

Resolution is of secondary concern with HCB's art form.

Yes, HCB used a rangefinder, but he did the vast majority of his work with a 50mm lens. In the United States he sometimes switched to 35mm, but from what I've read, he wasn't happy about having to do that.

When you put a lens on a Leica M series camera the correct set of framelines for the focal length of the lens appears in the viewfinder. The M series contains a number of frameline sets, including 50mm and 35mm. Earlier Leicas had framelines for the 50mm "normal" lens, but if you switched to something else you had to use an auxiliary viewfinder clipped into the flash shoe. I worked for many years with Leica M's, and I also used a Leica IIIf, which preceded the M series. Unfortunately I don't remember whether or not the IIIf had any framelines other than the 50mm. If you ever do much street photography with a rangefinder, walking down the street with the camera set to f/8 or f/11 and hyperfocal distance and able simply to raise the camera and shoot, you'll have a hard time switching to anything else.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

alainbriot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 796
  • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
    • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #154 on: May 19, 2009, 11:12:35 am »

Russ,

Thank you for your comments.  I agree with you that it is a unique approach and that there isn't an accepted name for it.  I'm sure it will come with time.  I call it "Image Collages" or "Digital Collages." Personally, I find this approach very appealing and offering unexplored potential.  A large amount of my current work is done this way.  Here's another example:


Logged
Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com

Dick Roadnight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1730
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #155 on: May 19, 2009, 03:39:33 pm »

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
Getting a crop wider than the original image: Priceless
Stitching sliding backs are not cheap, but certainly not priceless, and they give you two or three times the res (or more) without distortion, wasted or stretched pixels ...Very simple really, with what I would call a "pro" camera.    

Or you can enlarge the pixel dimensions of the pic and clone or air brush in the blank bits.
Logged
Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses

dalethorn

  • Guest
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #156 on: May 19, 2009, 04:19:55 pm »

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
Stitching sliding backs are not cheap, but certainly not priceless, and they give you two or three times the res (or more) without distortion, wasted or stretched pixels ...Very simple really, with what I would call a "pro" camera.    
Or you can enlarge the pixel dimensions of the pic and clone or air brush in the blank bits.

There are cases, unusual perhaps, where an image is enlarged just to make certain handwork more accurate and easier to do.
Logged

JDClements

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 312
    • http://www.jdanielclements.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #157 on: May 19, 2009, 10:07:24 pm »

Quote from: Tim Gray
Has anyone reading this thread changed their behavior ... based on the discussion?
Yes! I was just cropping some shots and found myself chuckling out loud. Never did that before.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #158 on: May 20, 2009, 01:39:38 am »

Quote from: RSL
When you put a lens on a Leica M series camera the correct set of framelines for the focal length of the lens appears in the viewfinder. The M series contains a number of frameline sets, including 50mm and 35mm. Earlier Leicas had framelines for the 50mm "normal" lens, but if you switched to something else you had to use an auxiliary viewfinder clipped into the flash shoe. I worked for many years with Leica M's, and I also used a Leica IIIf, which preceded the M series. Unfortunately I don't remember whether or not the IIIf had any framelines other than the 50mm. If you ever do much street photography with a rangefinder, walking down the street with the camera set to f/8 or f/11 and hyperfocal distance and able simply to raise the camera and shoot, you'll have a hard time switching to anything else.

Russ, I started my "serious" photography with a IIIf and a 50/3.5 elmar and later added a 90/4 elmar. As far as I remember it had a "built in" 50 mm rangefinder wich had "fuzzy sides" so accurate framing was always a challenge. The distance meter with the double view which you needed to overlay was a separate opening just besides the rangefinder. So for more accurate framing (and other f/l's than 50 mm) I had a stick-on rangefinder that was adjustable from 28 to 135 mm. It didn't have a zoom but just closed "black curtains"  to give you the right view. Since it was placed quite high above the lens you could adjust the angle to correct for parallax with a little handle. I can't even count how often I forgot to adjust that and had very weird framed portraits with ears or nose cut off  

That's why I changed to an M2 later, it had frames for 35/50/90 mm(automatically set by the lens you mounted) and automatic parallax compenstation coupled with the distance meter and was infinitely more user friendly. Especially for 50 and 90 mm it sometimes was a help to see what was "flying in" from outside in anticipation of pressing the shutter. I love that camera and still run a roll of film through it once in a while. Just wished the M8 was more affordable, so I could use such a system digitally.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #159 on: May 20, 2009, 08:11:58 am »

So is stitching not considered photography then? Coming from the bastard child of art (photography) I find that rather rich, stitching is probably far closer to art than photography is. For photography to start giving itself airs and graces of pretensious purity is just amusing. Methinks the medium is taking itself far too seriously if it thinks there is any difference between skewing perspective on the computer or using a different lens. If I leave room around an image because I know I'm going to correct perspective that somehow makes my image less 'true' than using a t/s lens and cropping exactly. What pretensious nonsense. Not entering into the technical world of IQ which is in any case irrelevant to the concept being discussed but what is printed is my artists vision. How I achieved that can only possibly detract from the image if the viewer is not interested in the imagery but rather the technique. We don't respect people like that do we?

When I shot this image I had two crops in mind. I actually preferred a tighter crop without the gate but on second thoughts decided to include it so that I could choose between the two later. It's a 17 image stitch. The frame with the moving guy took an hour of waiting but once I had it I then shot the rest of the frames at my leasure. No doubt the single shot I took at the beginning to decide on the framing prior to stitching is photography - whereas this image is not eventhough it looks exactly the same but with 60 megapixels instead of 12. Oh and if I'd cropped it to match one of the framings I had envisaged while shooting that would have shown my lack of visionary skills. What a load of nonsense.

« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 08:32:19 am by pom »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10   Go Up