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

[stamper]

And his work was the better for making that effort.

You can't possibly know that because you don't know what he left out when he framed his images. I find this homage to a long dead photographer
a little strange. The photographic world has moved on by leaps and bounds.

[Jonathan Wienke]

You can't possibly know that because you don't know what he left out when he framed his images.

Except that his images are well-known for their composition despite the fact he almost never cropped in post.

Do you have any examples of HCB images that would benefit from cropping? Citation, please.

[stamper]

Except that his images are well-known for their composition despite the fact he almost never cropped in post.

Do you have any examples of HCB images that would benefit from cropping? Citation, please.

I don't but it would be a fruitless exercise because if I did have and I cropped them then it would highly subjective? Framing and cropping - imo the same thing - is definitely subjective and shouldn't be a matter that is down to "rules". For your proposal to be valid then I would need access to the original un cropped output and not what is presented on the internet or in books.

[LKaven]

Steady on! Jonathan. You're being a bit hard on Isaac.

One should bear in mind that HCB didn't develop, process and print his own photos. His situation was quite different to those of us with a modern DSLR and the opportunities offered by Photoshop.

As I understand, HCB was more of a photojournalist than a fine-art photographer. Cropping an image for him would have been a cumbersome process. He would have needed some shots to be printed twice, perhaps indicating with pencil and ruler on the first print how he wanted the final print to be cropped.

For him it was probably easier to spend more effort in framing the shot as precisely as possible to avoid as much as possible any perceived need to crop later.

He did pen an entire philosophy to explain why he did this.  I don't think there's much point in second guessing him on the grounds of convenience.

[LKaven]

You can't possibly know that because you don't know what he left out when he framed his images. I find this homage to a long dead photographer a little strange. The photographic world has moved on by leaps and bounds.

The photographic world has not moved on aesthetically much at all.  There is scarcely a single photojournalist out there who doesn't still take chapters out of HC-B's book.  The entire Magnum school was founded on it. 

To understand HC-B's thesis, one has to understand a certain amount of philosophy of mind and psychology on the subject of agency, the commitment to act, and the /reasons/ for doing so.  His views are best underwritten by an enormous body of literature that followed him.

There are many enduring approaches to photography that follow a certain aesthetic principle.  That principle is that the photograph in one important part is about the photographer and the subject together: the photographer's engagement with the subject, and the photographer's /reasons/ for committing to the picture just as it appeared and at just that moment.

This is fundamental theory in photography, all the more today. 

[Ray]

He did pen an entire philosophy to explain why he did this.  I don't think there's much point in second guessing him on the grounds of convenience.

Being a practical sort of person, I tend to feel that most philosophical considerations, and some religions ones, have a 'practical' origin, or at least a practical influence and concern relating to their origin. For example, as I understand, there were good practical reasons why Jews and Muslims refrained from eating pork. Disease.

With modern technology, the HCB method of capturing the moment should be a breeze. We now have cameras such as the Samsung NX1 producing high quality 4k video and the ability to extract any single frame from that video for an 8mp still. 8mp is not quite the resolution of Jonathan's 1Ds, but no doubt the Samsung pixels are better quality pixels, and 8mp should outperform any HCB shot, technically, on balance. 

[RSL]

I don't but it would be a fruitless exercise because if I did have and I cropped them then it would highly subjective? Framing and cropping - imo the same thing - is definitely subjective and shouldn't be a matter that is down to "rules". For your proposal to be valid then I would need access to the original un cropped output and not what is presented on the internet or in books.

Stamper, I agree with you about arbitrary "rules," though I think you have to make a distinction between good practices and arbitrary rules. But it's not hard to confirm that HCB didn't crop his pictures after they came out of the camera. You can see the "original un-cropped output" in several of his books. He usually insisted on having his pictures printed with the uneven black borders around the exposed part of the frame showing. Sometimes you can see sprocket holes. The ones he did crop were the ones in which he was unable to look through the viewfinder. Check out this film clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qZ3Z8shZE&feature=related. This was one time he had to crop.

[RSL]

With modern technology, the HCB method of capturing the moment should be a breeze. We now have cameras such as the Samsung NX1 producing high quality 4k video and the ability to extract any single frame from that video for an 8mp still. 8mp is not quite the resolution of Jonathan's 1Ds, but no doubt the Samsung pixels are better quality pixels, and 8mp should outperform any HCB shot, technically, on balance. 

If you believe you can do street photography with a movie camera and that it can be a "breeze," then you don't understand what street photography is all about. In most situations you simply don't have time to capture a film clip. In street photography there's an instant when the picture is right. That's all. You have to anticipate it and grab it very quietly and unobtrusively. If you try to capture a film clip you're going to insert yourself into the situation and at that point what you're doing ceases to be street photography. I'm not going to beat this point to death. You can read what I have to say about it at http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/OnStreetPhotography.html and http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/WhyDoStreetPhotography.html.

[RSL]

I find this homage to a long dead photographer a little strange. The photographic world has moved on by leaps and bounds.

Luke already has made the point, Stamper, but I'd add that though the photographic equipment world has moved on by leaps and bounds the esthetics of good photography haven't changed at all. Good photography has become easier in a mechanical sense, but in an esthetic sense it's no less difficult than it ever was.

[LKaven]

If you believe you can do street photography with a movie camera and that it can be a "breeze," then you don't understand what street photography is all about.

Right.  Street photography is about the photographer's engagement with the millieu.  The more engaged one is, the more likely one is to find inspiration in a moment above all others that preceded it.  The taking of the picture should be a strong commitment to a simultaneous realization of meaning and form.  That /is/ the artistic act in this view of photography. 

[RSL]

Says the guy who evidently has never made a photograph or is too embarrassed by the disappointing results he gets to post them.

[Ray]

If you believe you can do street photography with a movie camera and that it can be a "breeze," then you don't understand what street photography is all about. In most situations you simply don't have time to capture a film clip. In street photography there's an instant when the picture is right. That's all. You have to anticipate it and grab it very quietly and unobtrusively. If you try to capture a film clip you're going to insert yourself into the situation and at that point what you're doing ceases to be street photography. I'm not going to beat this point to death. You can read what I have to say about it at http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/OnStreetPhotography.html and http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/WhyDoStreetPhotography.html.

You seem to have completely misunderstood my point, Russ. I wasn't referring to the use of a dedicated movie camera, but one of the new, rather compact mirror-less cameras, such as the Samsung NX1 with much improved video capability and the facility to extract any single 8.8mp frame from a 4k video sequence.

There's no reason why shooting in video mode should be any more intrusive, or awkward, or time-consuming than waiting for an anticipated moment to press the shutter for a single shot. If you anticipate that something interesting might be about to occur, you can put the NX1 in video mode and. with eye to viewfinder, start shooting. At 24 or 30 fps, you're sure to capture the precise moment, if what you anticipate might occur does in fact occur.

In video mode, the NX1 effectively gives one a faster continuous frame rate but without the risk of the buffer filling up. If 8.8mp is too much of a resolution sacrifice, then the full resolution (28mp) continuous mode is still very impressive at 15fps for about 70 consecutive shots.

Of course, we should all understand that aesthetics is a different issue. Capturing the 'desired' moment is a factual issue. You either captured it or you didn't. Whether or not that captured moment is interesting and/or meaningful to others is in the realm of opinion.

As a matter of fact, all photos are 'captures of the moment'. That's what the camera does, in accordance with its shutter speed. The issues are, did you capture the moment you wanted to capture, or did you press the shutter too soon or too late.

[LKaven]

You seem to have completely misunderstood my point, Russ. I wasn't referring to the use of a dedicated movie camera, but one of the new, rather compact mirror-less cameras, such as the Samsung NX1 with much improved video capability and the facility to extract any single 8.8mp frame from a 4k video sequence.

There's no reason why shooting in video mode should be any more intrusive, or awkward, or time-consuming than waiting for an anticipated moment to press the shutter for a single shot. If you anticipate that something interesting might be about to occur, you can put the NX1 in video mode and. with eye to viewfinder, start shooting. At 24 or 30 fps, you're sure to capture the precise moment, if what you anticipate might occur does in fact occur.

In video mode, the NX1 effectively gives one a faster continuous frame rate but without the risk of the buffer filling up. If 8.8mp is too much of a resolution sacrifice, then the full resolution (28mp) continuous mode is still very impressive at 15fps for about 70 consecutive shots.

Of course, we should all understand that aesthetics is a different issue. Capturing the 'desired' moment is a factual issue. You either captured it or you didn't. Whether or not that captured moment is interesting and/or meaningful to others is in the realm of opinion.

As a matter of fact, all photos are 'captures of the moment'. That's what the camera does, in accordance with its shutter speed. The issues are, did you capture the moment you wanted to capture, or did you press the shutter too soon or too late.

The "moment" in question is the simultaneous realization by the photographer of the elements of form and meaning in the real events as they occur.

The 'desired moment' is the one that you desire at the moment that you committed to tripping the shutter.  You tripped the shutter because you believed you would get the moment you desired by doing so.  This is supported by your other background beliefs and desires (e.g., about the subject, the significance of the moment, etc).

These facts, in this theory of photography, supply a good part of the aesthetic content of the photograph.  An HCB photograph, or a Robert Frank photograph are just about an inquiring, artistic engagement with the world in the moment.  The photographs are about the photographer as they are about the events being portrayed.  The acts of standing in a certain place, framing in an exact way, and selecting just a certain moment are always loaded with meaning.

[RSL]

You seem to have completely misunderstood my point, Russ. I wasn't referring to the use of a dedicated movie camera, but one of the new, rather compact mirror-less cameras, such as the Samsung NX1 with much improved video capability and the facility to extract any single 8.8mp frame from a 4k video sequence.

I wasn't referring to a dedicated movie camera either, Ray, though I can see I gave that impression. Doesn't matter. The point's the same.

There's no reason why shooting in video mode should be any more intrusive, or awkward, or time-consuming than waiting for an anticipated moment to press the shutter for a single shot. If you anticipate that something interesting might be about to occur, you can put the NX1 in video mode and. with eye to viewfinder, start shooting. At 24 or 30 fps, you're sure to capture the precise moment, if what you anticipate might occur does in fact occur.

"Start shooting" is the operative phrase. When you do street photography you don't "start shooting," you shoot. That's it. It's done. If you haven't alerted your subjects by then you might shoot a second time, or even a third or fourth, but it's almost always true that that first shot is the one that counts. You can't stand there with a camera in your hands, banging away over a period of time -- even a relatively short period of time -- without blowing up the whole situation.

Considering what you're saying, I have to ask: have you ever done any street photography?

In video mode, the NX1 effectively gives one a faster continuous frame rate but without the risk of the buffer filling up. If 8.8mp is too much of a resolution sacrifice, then the full resolution (28mp) continuous mode is still very impressive at 15fps for about 70 consecutive shots.

All I can say is, show me. Let me see what kind of street photography you can do with a movie camera. Yes, I'm referring to an NX1 or its equivalent.

[LKaven]

Well, the NX-1 can do 15 full-resolution still shots per second.  So it is technically easy to silently take high-speed shots for at least a few seconds.  And technically, you could harvest a picture out of that.  I think the more important point is how the photographer is engaged with the subject. 

[Ray]

You can't stand there with a camera in your hands, banging away over a period of time -- even a relatively short period of time -- without blowing up the whole situation.

This is where you seem stuck in the past, Russ. Banging away? Cameras like the NX1 have very quiet shutters, if not completely silent, especially in video mode.

The video feature, or simply continuous shooting, helps when anticipating fast action, as in the HCB example of the man jumping a puddle, which you referred to in your article.

Considering what you're saying, I have to ask: have you ever done any street photography?

Of course I have. Street photography, desert photography, mountain photography, fine art photography, incidental photography, opportunistic photography, manipulated photography, etc etc. You name it and I've probably done it.

Some of my more interesting street photography shots, in my opinion of course, are of transvestites (or transgenders) showing off their wares in the streets of Phuket. Of course, I wouldn't want to post such images on this site. They'd probably get censored. 

However, here's a recent shot I took just a few days ago, which might more correctly be termed a 'restaurant' shot, but I think it broadly fits into your 'street shot' category.

What! You don't like it! It's too cluttered? But you have to admit the sky is very nice. Not blown at all. 

[RSL]

Okay, if it bothers you, let's drop "banging away," and just say, holding the camera to your eye for any length of time. (Actually the camera is banging away even though it may be doing it quietly.) What's absolutely essential in street photography is for the photographer to be so non-threatening that though his subjects may know he's there, he's so much in the background, so unobtrusive, that his subjects aren't really aware of him. Holding a camera to your eye for more than a second at a time isn't the way to be unobtrusive and non-threatening. I often relate what a good street photographer does to what "The Shadow," in that long-ago radio series did: cloud men's minds.

I'm not going to try to beat the meaning of street photography to death, but as I said in "On Street Photography," "There must be interesting human behavior in the picture -- something beyond a simple shot of a person or people, no matter how weird the people are, no matter how much they fit stereotypes, no matter how briskly they walk, no matter how they slouch against the stoop. Often there's an element of mystery in the story, and unless the picture makes you think, it's not much of a street photograph."

I hate to say it, but I don't see anything terribly mysterious in this shot or anything that makes me think. Maybe you could consider the rugs and wall decorations to be mysterious or interesting, but if so they're not mysterious or interesting in the same way, say, HCB's "Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare" is interesting. In that shot there are three things: a story, mystery, and ambiguity. The story is that that guy is about to jump into the water, the mystery is why he's doing that, and the ambiguity involves his connection to the strange surroundings. I suppose that in your picture you could say the story is that the girl is making a phone call, the mystery is why she's doing that, and the ambiguity is her connection to these surroundings. If so, I have to say that the story is boring, the question regarding why she's doing that is nothing I'd be interesting in having answered, and the ambiguity is minimal if you've ever spent time in the East. I also get the feeling this is tone-mapped HDR, but I won't pursue that diversion.

In short, I'm not convinced that you can shoot street effectively with a camera in movie mode.
 

[amolitor]

In practical terms, the reason selecting the right ft frame after the fact won't work (or works a lot less well) is this:

If you are seeing the moment unfold, anticipating it, then you are moving yourself and the camera into the right spot before you shoot. Well. Really you are shooting and moving all at once, knowing, feeling, it's nearby in space and time, hoping to hit it or near enough. You cannot move the camera in post.

Occasionally, you will find that you were in the right spot anyways with your movie, so it does work occasionally. It's much less efficient than even the traditional methods, which are appallingly inefficient themselves.

I don't pretend to understand any of the philosophy, and honestly I'm not sure HCB would recognize any of it. My impression is of a much more pragmatic man. But what the heck do I know?

[Isaac]

Says the guy who evidently has never made a photograph or is too embarrassed by the disappointing results he gets to post them.

Evidently you regard your malicious speculations as fact.

[LKaven]

If you are seeing the moment unfold, anticipating it, then you are moving yourself and the camera into the right spot before you shoot. Well. Really you are shooting and moving all at once, knowing, feeling, it's nearby in space and time, hoping to hit it or near enough. You cannot move the camera in post.

This is pretty good.  The odds that "the picture" is a proper subset of another picture are just astronomical.  In all reality, one would have been better to be situated somewhere else. 

There is a level of inspiration that can come from engagement with the subject /par excellence/ in the moment and brought to bear on the instant of capture.  This is the same kind of inspiration that comes during a jazz solo.  This kind of engagement can only rarely be matched after the fact.