(let me know if this should be taken somewhere else; I'm finding it very interesting)
ME: In fact, I find it almost quaint now.
RSL: That's certainly a quaint attitude toward visual integrity, Haraldo, but you're not the only one who feels that way. During the ten years my wife and I owned a gallery I saw piles of "artworks" produced by people who wanted to be called artists but didn't want to take the trouble to learn the "quaint" techniques that might have helped them produce something worthwhile.
"Worthwhile" is a subjective term. I've done very well in the visual world with my quaint attitude. One reason is because I come from the world of Art Direction/Creative Direction and Design. FIne-tuning, distilling, and "improving" images for a specific purpose is something I've be doing for 30+ years. So I have a different POV. Even when I was a working-pro photographer (PJ, Commercial), I always shot loose, because I knew that the A.D. would be fixing things to his/her liking. Many times, I was the A.D. So I carry that skill set around with me to this day. When I was ADing magazines (10 years) I would have fired any photographer who shot a cover for me composed tightly.
ME: I prefer to have options and flexibility when in the field and then spend more time in quiet in front of the screen trying out possibilities.
RSL: Again, it's in the field that you have options. Once you've tripped the shutter and left the field your options and possibilities are behind you.
Nope. They're just starting for me. Try to imagine me trying to "compose" some of these images:http://www.dpandi.com/aboutus/ha/magicedge
RSL: But on the other hand, I haven't the foggiest idea what kind of photographs you make since your web URL turns out to be a game site. There may be a type of photography where visual uncertainty is paramount, though I haven't run across it yet.
Well, you've just found it, and here's my other site:http://www.dpandi.com/aboutus/ha
ME: For me, shooting loose is a normal part of photography, and being a purist about "the frame" has no interest for me. I only care about the FINAL picture, not what I happened to compose in the camera, which is only a starting point in the artistic process.
RSL: You're not the only one who feels that way. I see that kind of picture all the time.
So what does that tell you? But honestly, without a film edge showing, you wouldn't know if a photo was composed in the camera or not, would you? (unless the aspect has changed significantly)
ME: But that's me, a Heretic. Elliott Erwitt has a different opinion (like how I lumped myself together with Mr. Erwitt?
. And Russ, of course.
RSL: Thanks, Haraldo. It's an honor to be included in the same sentence as Elliott. He's my favorite photographer because of his sense of humor. But I've seen a few pictures that Elliott cropped. Believe it or not I sometimes crop too, but only when there was no way to make the composition I was after on the camera. HCB to the contrary notwithstanding, cropping isn't the great fault. Not knowing what you're really after when you trip the shutter is the great fault.
Ahh... but I do know what I'm after. It's just different than what you're after.
ME: P.S. ...but so much to distract with her large mass.
RSL: That's an unusual way to spell it.
Ha ha! A double meaning I didn't even catch. Good one.