Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment

[LKaven]

Using a Leica- you never see exactly what will be on the picture so you should crop for that reason alone...  Wink

Alternatively you could look at the contact sheet and simply reject pictures that were not framed to your satisfaction, like Cartier-Bresson.

This seems like a real non-issue.  Best not to try to glean a point from it.

[amolitor]

See post #379 for the alternative to the dichotomy proposed by Isaac.

[Isaac]

Using a Leica- you never see exactly what will be on the picture so you should crop for that reason alone... 

Alternatively you could look at the contact sheet and simply reject pictures that were not framed to your satisfaction, like Cartier-Bresson.

This seems like a real non-issue.  Best not to try to glean a point from it.

This "non-issue" was raised by the OP.

This "non-issue" is a tell-tale of principled action when we are told: "IMO, cropping for reasons other than the necessity of fitting an aspect ratio represents a failure to capture the image properly in the first place."

This "non-issue" is a tell-tale of principled action when we are told: "In the case of the former, the image is wholly the product of immediate engagement with the subject, and in the case of cropping, it is not."

[LKaven]

So you quote me where I say this:

The existentialist character of the theory is apparent.  I don't know whether HC-B took after Sartre intentionally or not.

In your question, the act of tripping the shutter where cropping is disallowed, and the act of cropping a previous capture, are both acts of committing to the final form.  So in that (narrow) sense, they are the same. 

In another way, they are different.  In the case of the former, the image is wholly the product of immediate engagement with the subject, and in the case of cropping, it is not.  The question when cropping is "what /were/ you engaged with when you committed to tripping the shutter that further change should be necessitated?"

If one stops looking at the thesis as a matter of what one should or shouldn't do, it becomes an interesting way to understand the process by which a photographer engages his/her subject, and how that engagement is or is not reflected in the final photograph. 

In my view, there is not just one right way.  But I do feel that one often underestimates the aesthetic complexity one can realize in a photograph at the moment of capture.  For me, I feel that with few exceptions, the picture is either all there when I tripped the shutter, or it isn't there at all.  And to my mind, it is very rare that "the picture" should ever be a proper subset of another picture.

What part of this exactly are you taking issue with?

[RSL]

So Russ, I think we can get a range of possibilities that others have recognized.  Imagine if you carried your favorite street camera (a Leica or whatever), and you went about your work in your customary way.  Except when you press the shutter release, there is a feature that gives you the 1/10th second before that and 1/10th second after that as well.  Imagine it does this silently and transparently.  The only difference is that when you read your memory card, there are three images where you pressed the shutter release once.

This is a simple modification which preserves our intuitions about doing street photography a la mode.  There are times when you just might catch the moment you /really/ intended this way.  So we've maintained the veridical connection.

The questions start to arrive when you move from there closer to the idea of "harvesting" images with only minimal engagement in the moment.  And I think we all agree that this is among the possibilities that would be inconsistent with doing street photography a la mode. 

Right, Luke. In line with what these folks are suggesting, here's another way to do street photography: Set up a surveillance camera on a post, aimed at a crowded part of a downtown sidewalk. Run it for 24 hours and then sit down and review 24 hours worth of results. Reminds me of the old saw about monkeys with an infinite amount of time on a typewriter writing the Encyclopedia Britannica.

[mezzoduomo]

Ok, so the OP started this thread more than four years ago.. and left LuLa soon thereafter, forgetting to turn off the lights and lock the door on his way out. As with most abandoned buildings, it was soon occupied by squatters and drug addicts. 20+ pages and 400+posts later, it reminds me of the babbling of met addicts in Breaking Bad. 

+1000, but what do I know? 

[amolitor]

In completely practical terms:

There will be no photographs which are correct save only for the framing.

(Excepting, of course, in rare and special circumstances. See above.)

Why?

Because if the framing is wrong, the camera position is also wrong. The camera position is, by definition and as part of the method, ones best attempt at the correct position for the entire frame. The odds that it would provide the correct camera position for some crop of the entire frame are substantially against, and this would occur only as random happenstance.

What all who would simplify street and make it easy miss, is the critical role of camera position. To repeat myself: if you think street is interesting moments captured from any handy camera angle whatever, then in the context of this thread you are wrong and completely missing the point, and in the larger context, who cares?

[AreBee]

Andrew,

...if the framing is wrong, the camera position is also wrong.

Do you consider this to be true for all genres of photography, or only for Street photography?

[amolitor]

Only for the specific style of photography under discussion in this thread. There's a very specific method of shooting we're talking about.

[Ray]

The real issue here is whether the "less skilled" (and i assume it to mean not technically, but lets just say for simplicity sake "esthetically") will be able to recognize that "decent shot" in post if they are unable to see it in real life in the first place. And since I am already in animal metaphors, it is more like "pearls before swine" type of thing.

I'm surprised at the confusion on this issue. Even Slobodan is confused, as evidenced by his above comment. 

Surely it is obvious that what constitutes a 'good' photo is always in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure there will be some folks who think HCB's shot of a man jumping a puddle is rather banal.

Now, you might criticise such people for having a lack of taste and a lack of discernment, but that is a different issue to whether or not a burst of images will allow one to capture what, in one's own opinion, is a better shot than the single, first shot.

Why does Slobodan imagine that anyone would bother to take a photo, whether a single shot, a full-resolution burst or a short video, if he is unable to recognise a 'decent shot' in the first place? Surely it is always the recognition of a potentially interesting shot, in the eye of the person with the camera, that motivates the person with the camera to take the trouble to shoot the scene.

Whether or not Slobodan or Russ happens to agree with the photographer, that his shot was worth taking, or that his selection from a dozen shots is the best one, is a separate issue.

There might be exceptions of course, to this motivation to shoot a scene which one genuinely thinks is interesting, meaningful and/or beautiful. I can imagine that sometimes a photographer might think "there's nothing particularly interesting here, but I might as well take a shot just for the record", in which case, if he were to shoot a short video, there's at least a possibility that some unforeseen event might occur which would make the shot interesting, such as an unnoticed falcon suddenly swooping down to catch a squirrel that was hidden on the other side of a tree trunk. 

I can also imagine that certain professional photographers, in the interests of earning a living, might be in the habit of capturing images which they personally think are ordinary or uninteresting, but know that their clients will like them.

But generally, whether one is a novice with little artistic nous, or an experienced photographer with an artist's background, one points the camera at scenes that one finds interesting. If the scene involves movement, as most street scenes do, then something as simple as the main subject deciding to blink at the precise moment the photographer presses the shutter, can spoil the shot.

[LKaven]

[...] Surely it is obvious that what constitutes a 'good' photo is always in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure there will be some folks who think HCB's shot of a man jumping a puddle is rather banal.

The thing is that moral realism is very much alive and well.  Some things through dialectical stress can be argued objectively to have a special value.  The preponderance of critical discourse on Behind The Gare St Lazare can be taken to indicate a convergence of opinion.  

Now, you might criticise such people for having a lack of taste and a lack of discernment, but that is a different issue to whether or not a burst of images will allow one to capture what, in one's own opinion, is a better shot than the single, first shot.

Why does Slobodan imagine that anyone would bother to take a photo, whether a single shot, a full-resolution burst or a short video, if he is unable to recognise a 'decent shot' in the first place? Surely it is always the recognition of a potentially interesting shot, in the eye of the person with the camera, that motivates the person with the camera to take the trouble to shoot the scene.

Yes.  This is a minimal form of engagement.  We are interested in engagement /par excellence/.

There are actually people who mine Google Street for images not of their own making, to be presented as their artwork subsequently.  They find some good things.  And this says more about one's editorial eye than one's ability as a photographer.  

There might be exceptions of course, to this motivation to shoot a scene which one genuinely thinks is interesting, meaningful and/or beautiful. I can imagine that sometimes a photographer might think "there's nothing particularly interesting here, but I might as well take a shot just for the record", in which case, if he were to shoot a short video, there's at least a possibility that some unforeseen event might occur which would make the shot interesting, such as an unnoticed falcon suddenly swooping down to catch a squirrel that was hidden on the other side of a tree trunk.  

There are a lot of ways to get shots, including by the photographic equivalent of data mining.  But the aesthetic is different and less personal.  There was an exhibition by someone who took a very high speed camera in the back of a car going down a busy city street.  He shot people moving along the street in ultra slow motion, and created an exhibition from a few minutes of footage.  Slowed down as such, one could easily judge whether there were possibilities in this long continuous street for still images of special artistic value.  There weren't, even in the final master.  And the reason there weren't is because the camera was just not situated meaningfully, and there was no engagement.  There was no /reason/ in the camera being where it was.  Nothing was grasped.  

I can also imagine that certain professional photographers, in the interests of earning a living, might be in the habit of capturing images which they personally think are ordinary or uninteresting, but know that their clients will like them.

Some people shoot stock, but don't call it art.

But generally, whether one is a novice with little artistic nous, or an experienced photographer with an artist's background, one points the camera at scenes that one finds interesting. If the scene involves movement, as most street scenes do, then something as simple as the main subject deciding to blink at the precise moment the photographer presses the shutter, can spoil the shot.

We've all agreed by now that a "time bracketing" feature would not disrupt a photographer's engagement with the subject.  

[jjj]

I think it's very clear that there are many ways to produce good art.  I don't know of any argument that says that the philosophy of "the decisive moment" is such that it must be followed. 

What the thesis amounts to is a mid-level theory about engagement with the world, the moment of commitment to action, the explanation of the action, and how that influences the aesthetic interpretation of the product of that action.  This is topic-neutral.  It applies to doing any of a wide range of things.  And it touches on a number of questions of deep interest in philosophy and psychology.

There are similar theories about playing jazz and the process of extemporaneous compositions.  Those theories apply more broadly than in just music.

In both of these areas, there are no explicitly normative claims (i.e., the claim that you "ought" to create art this way).  There are lots of good kinds of music that aren't jazz.  There are lots of good photographers that don't do photojournalism according to the Magnum school.

 

Absolutely, anyone who says absolutely that "this is the [only] definitive way to do" something in art is usually only demonstrating how little they know about the creative process and how lacking in empathy they are.
When say for example a jazz musician describes how he works and produces his creations he is only completely correct when talking about himself and his motivations. They may also apply to other people, but there will be many others who have very different creative processes and motivations. However there can be many overlaps in the process and some guidelines that are very useful to most practitioners.

But.  Of course the psychological and philosophical claims, if they are true at all, are true in general.  You don't have to subscribe to theory of gravity, but you will be subject to gravity nevertheless.  In that sense, you don't have to subscribe to the philosophy of the decisive moment as a way to create art.  But if its philosophical and psychological foundations are true, then everyone is subject to their implications, whether one knows it or not.

Comparing gravity which is present regardless of any opinion we hold to a philosophy, which is simply a particular way of thinking is not a good analogy.

[jjj]

Jeremy, You're the one who's telling me it's not worth doing because of low pixel count. I showed you a perfectly good street shot done with 3 mpx.

I'll say again: show me an example of a good street shot made in either movie mode or burst mode.

Still missing the point. Your example was from a long time ago when I also had a low pixel count, jpeg only pocket camera. I only used it as it was all I had at the time. I wouldn't use it now as it is garbage compared to my current camera's abilities. Why would one deliberately use an inferior low MP jpeg when you have access to much higher quality raw files. My iPhone can capture much better quality images than your example. Yet the quality is not particular nice as far as I'm concerned when viewed on my desktop monitors, as opposed to a small phone screen. I do not like grading video footage for film work, because it is so limiting compared to grading raw files.
As for your 'perfectly good street shot'. Looks like a poor quality snapshot with missed focus to me. If you are happy with it fine. I wouldn't be.

[LKaven]

Comparing gravity which is present regardless of any opinion we hold to a philosophy, which is simply a particular way of thinking is not a good analogy.

Saying that gravity is present regardless of any opinion we hold /is/ a philosophy.  And like much philosophy, it is not simply a particular way of thinking -- not in your view or mine.

[amolitor]

It's about what's in the frame, not how sharp it is. I quite like Russ's shot, and I find it telling that jjj does not. Not to suggest that everyone ought to love the shot, merely that those who "get it" fall in one camp, and those who do not fall into a different one. And never the twain shall meet.

Also, Luke's statement was not "You are subject to X" but rather "If X is true, then you are subject to it" which is quite a different statement, and one which is tautologically true.

[RSL]

Still missing the point. Your example was from a long time ago when I also had a low pixel count, jpeg only pocket camera. I only used it as it was all I had at the time. I wouldn't use it now as it is garbage compared to my current camera's abilities. Why would one deliberately use an inferior low MP jpeg when you have access to much higher quality raw files. My iPhone can capture much better quality images than your example. Yet the quality is not particular nice as far as I'm concerned when viewed on my desktop monitors, as opposed to a small phone screen. I do not like grading video footage for film work, because it is so limiting compared to grading raw files.

If you think technical perfection is the factor that determines the quality of a street shot then you obviously don't understand street photography. And, after yawning my way through your "observed" shots I see that that's your problem. You seem to be a fairly competent wedding photographer, and that's fine, but it's not the same thing.

As for your 'perfectly good street shot'. Looks like a poor quality snapshot with missed focus to me. If you are happy with it fine. I wouldn't be.

Please. . . Be my guest.

[jjj]

We've all agreed by now that a "time bracketing" feature would not disrupt a photographer's engagement with the subject.  

Even Russ? Not sure he's convinced.

Right, Luke. In line with what these folks are suggesting, here's another way to do street photography: Set up a surveillance camera on a post, aimed at a crowded part of a downtown sidewalk. Run it for 24 hours and then sit down and review 24 hours worth of results. Reminds me of the old saw about monkeys with an infinite amount of time on a typewriter writing the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Here's another way to do street photography: Sit with a camera which aimed at a interesting location. Take photos for for 24 hours and then sit down and review 24 hours worth of results.
The problem with your monkey comparison is that  there is no editing or choice involved by the monkeys. Photography is editing reality, you choose what to leave out and what to keep. You can do it live by pressing shutter after composing or by choosing frames after composing. When doing street photography, I often see a situation and wait for people to fall into place to make the composition/idea work. Setting up a camera on tripod and videoing the same location is just changing the time when you decide to pick the moment. Doing it that way can make for a different end result as rather than a single decisive moment you have a collection of images with numerous decisive moments, which may actually be stronger than just the single shot. Now I've written that, I recall a recent series of shots done just that way, though they may not fit Russ's idea of what street photography is.

[jjj]

Saying that gravity is present regardless of any opinion we hold /is/ a philosophy.  And like much philosophy, it is not simply a particular way of thinking -- not in your view or mine.

No gravity's existence is science, not a philosophy. Getting meta about how people view gravity, does not alter anything about how gravity works.

[amolitor]

No gravity's existence is science, not a philosophy. Getting meta about how people view gravity, does not alter anything about how gravity works.

You and Luke are talking past one another. The word "philosophy" means different things to you two. You are arguing about the definition of "philosophy", possibly without knowing it.

And thus are born and sustained internet flame wars.

[jjj]

It's about what's in the frame, not how sharp it is. I quite like Russ's shot, and I find it telling that jjj does not. Not to suggest that everyone ought to love the shot, merely that those who "get it" fall in one camp, and those who do not fall into a different one. And never the twain shall meet.

Liking or not liking a single photograph proves nothing at all.
If you think I'm obsessed with sharpness, that only shows how ignorant you are of what I like. No more, no less. But then you don't like to let facts get in the way of your opinion, do you.
My favourite shots are in fact mostly quite lo-fi. Deliberate low quality as opposed to poor quality is very different. I want to be able to choose when my image is sharp or not as opposed to having poor quality forced on me by inferior equipment, which could result in missing a shot or making it inferior to how I saw it.