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

[amolitor]

As always people are just talking past one another.

Russ, I am almost certain, agrees that using a movie mode in addition to all the rest of the technique he uses, would be fine. It would produce a pile of excess frames to be tossed, and the marginal benefit would be insignificant to him.

What he disagrees with, I am nearly certain, is the idea that you can substitute a movie mode for some of the techniques he uses.

It's a lot less fun because the argument probably just peters out, but it would probably be helpful to point out which one you're talking about when advocating some sort of movie camera for street shooting à la HCB.

[LKaven]

As long as a good photo results, it doesn't matter one jot how a photographer produced it. The only maxims as such, apply to photography in general. Good composition taken at the right moment.  

As for photographer's not cropping their work, that's an daft and arbitrary rule.

There is a principle (or set of principles) such that if one favors it, one may choose also to follow its practical implications.  I assume that one would not consciously adopt any habit unless there were a principled reason one accepts.  Since there is nothing that necessitates that one do photography this way, it's not much of a rule really.

It might not be the /only/ principle, but it's a good one.  It gets to the heart of both the philosophy and psychology of photography, and to some important elements of the idea of aesthetic value.

For me, I believe in the value of extemporaneous composition.  I've produced many jazz records and studied the music deeply, and I know that there is a level of inspiration one can reach in the moment that one could never attain otherwise.  [Only one or two jazz musicians that I've worked with would ever edit one of their solos in post, even given the technical capability.]  I've spent years studying things that musicians did in a minute.  

Similarly, when I'm doing my best, it is done this way, and I can spend quite a long time after the fact learning from the decisions I made in that moment.  

[RSL]

Nonsense, a photographer should always have enough memory/film to do the job at hand and affordable large cards are easy to come by. Just for reference, you can shoot for more than two hours at 4k with Protune on a GoPro with a 64gb card. With say a two sec video clip for each 'photo' that's about 400 'shots' for a measly £25, which is far larger capacity than HCB with film. So more time to concentrate on shooting than HCB had.
Alternatively use a GoPro at 12mp in 30fps burst mode, which if you want to be discreet for Street Photography, there's probably nothing better, sadly JPEg only. I filmed undercover with a GoPro whilst making a documentary a while back as it was small enough to fit in my hand. I then used my phone to frame/control camera via wifi, so as far as people were concerned as I was simply faffing with my phone as people tend to do these days.

What does that have to do with paying attention to what's going on around you?

[amolitor]

To summarize, in the most pragmatic possible terms, why movie mode for street is silly:

IF you propose to replace attentiveness with long bursts of frames, THEN it won't work because your camera position will likely be wrong.
IF you do not so propose, THEN it will work fine but be pointless because if you're attentive, you got the shot anyways.

Replace 'attentiveness' with other elements of technique, to suit.

[RSL]

As always people are just talking past one another.

Russ, I am almost certain, agrees that using a movie mode in addition to all the rest of the technique he uses, would be fine. It would produce a pile of excess frames to be tossed, and the marginal benefit would be insignificant to him.

What he disagrees with, I am nearly certain, is the idea that you can substitute a movie mode for some of the techniques he uses.

It's a lot less fun because the argument probably just peters out, but it would probably be helpful to point out which one you're talking about when advocating some sort of movie camera for street shooting à la HCB.

Thanks, Andrew. You're right. I don't really care about equipment as long as I have what it takes to do what I'm setting out to do. I stick with the D3 instead of going to a D4s because the D3 does everything I need to do with it and I don't need the extra complexity of movie mode. I stick with the D800 instead of moving on to a D810 because it gives me everything I need in a stand camera. I stick with the EP-1 because I can't see any substantive improvements in later versions of that camera. I do love digital because I no longer have either to whip out a light meter or guess at exposures. I particularly love TTL flash because when you have to use guide numbers to calculate an exposure it takes time I'd rather spend concentrating on what the camera is seeing.

Bottom line, I guess, is the fact that in this thread I've read a bunch of theories about using movie mode to do street photography but I have yet to see an example -- good or bad. It's a lot like reading Isaac's unsupported theories about photography instead of seeing some work by him that can support his theories.

Oh, and Isaac, mea culpa. You're right. I didn't read your remarks about "Behind the Gare Saint-Lezare" carefully enough. I have to confess it's a habit I've fallen into gradually as I've read more and more of your theories. I now tend to scan. By the way, where did you read that HCB shot a series through that crack in the fence? I've never read that, and I've always noticed that the water was glassy still.

[Isaac]

It's a lot like reading Isaac's unsupported theories about photography instead of seeing some work by him that can support his theories.

A straightforward hypothesis: Cartier-Bresson would not crop, if he had been able to see through the view finder to frame the photo when the exposure was made.

All it takes to disprove is an example where Cartier-Bresson had been able to see through the view finder and he still decided to crop the print.

[amolitor]

I crop all over the place. I love cropping.

However, some people choose not to. Generally (always? almost always, surely) for artistic reasons, reasons having to do with the way they make photographs.

To propose that these people should just go ahead and crop is to propose that they do their art differently. You might as well call them "daft" for refusing to paint, or sculpt, or for crying out loud if you'd just LEARN TO DANCE you'd be able to do that SO MUCH BETTER.

So to all of you who think that everyone should just buckle under and learn to love cropping, I ask: Why are you not dancing your art? Why are you STUCK in this STUPID photography rut?

[amolitor]

Oh, Isaac, I insinuate nothing. I bluntly accuse. And the evidence is clear, to all who care to read the relevant posts in the proper order.

[amolitor]

And this is the part where you spend a few seconds dashing off a response, intended to make me go spend a bunch of time, putting together a detailed evidence trail, which you can lazily dismiss.

Nope.

As you know, Isaac, I am on to your game. I've been on the Internet and before that Usenet for a long, long, long, long time. You have to get up much earlier in the morning to put one over on me.

[amolitor]

Oh lawsy me, I am the victim here

Anyone interested, go peek at post #220 and the precursors to it. Please note what Jonathan is saying "No" to and then note the conclusion Isaac draws from the three "No" responses. Isaacs conclusion is the exact opposite of what Jonathan intended.

God help you if you're interested, though. Troll watching is a boring passtime.

With any luck, someone will lock this thread shortly.

[amolitor]

Slobodan! Not true! About one post in ten has some interesting content loosely related to the actual thread title!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Oh, boy! 18 pages of pure, unadulterated, UFC style, mudslinging, mud-wrestling, hairsplitting, anal-retentive, much-ado-about-nothing fun. How did I miss this one? 

I read the first few posts when this thread started, and then I stopped since nothing new seemed to be happening.
Recently I checked in again because I couldn't imagine how the topic could have run to well over 300 posts.

It seems I was right. Nothing meaningful has really been added.

Some time ago I put a certain troll on my "ignore" list, and out of curiosity I have checked at least a dozen of his recent posts in this thread, and I see that I have not missed anything worth reading.

So, Russ, Jonathan, and Andrew: I heartily recommend using the "ignore" feature on the troll. You won't miss a thing.

[amolitor]

While there's been a lot of dreck in the last 10 pages or so, I think Ray (?) did spark an interesting discussion. Thinking through why a movie camera is or is not a good approach to street turns up some interesting ideas and discussion.

It's a bit like picking corn out of poop now, but it was pretty interesting at the time.

[LKaven]

Did Roy DeCarava crop his photos?

I don't know.

[LKaven]

This is intrinsically one of the most interesting topics in photography.  It touches on philosophy of mind, ethics, aesthetics in some deep ways.  It should be possible to have an intelligent discussion of it. 

[Isaac]

Did Roy DeCarava crop his photos?

I don't know.

I guess so: afaict DeCarava used a 35mm Argus Model A camera, and as-a-sample "The prints … range in image size from 8 11/16 x 12 inches … to 10 3/4 x 13 11/16 …"

[Ken Bennett]

I crop all over the place. I love cropping.

However, some people choose not to. Generally (always? almost always, surely) for artistic reasons, reasons having to do with the way they make photographs.

Nobody is proposing to make the non-croppers crop. We croppers would just appreciate it if they would stop telling us that we're doing it wrong.

[Ray]

There are a few maxims in this philosophy.......  (3) the "decisive moment" is as much about the photographer and the act of commitment as it is about the events in the world being photographed; (4) the photograph is an artifact whose significance is partly about the events in the world, and partly about the photographer, and his/her engagement with them.

These points merit discussion. A photograph is always a capture of a moment in time, whatever the skills and character of the photographer. If you accidentally trip the shutter, you've captured a moment in time. The 'selfies' in the attached link were taken by a macaque monkey. The monkey stole the photographer's camera. Most of the photos were out-of-focus, not surprisingly. However, the few that were in focus do not tell you anything about the photographer whatsoever. It is a verbal communication that tells you the photographer was a monkey.So this notion you have, that a photograph is as much about the photographer as the event, seems false.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8615859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap-himself.html

However, perhaps you would argue that a rare exception does not invalidate a general rule. Perhaps you would say that 'on average' the photo is as much about the photographer as the event.

Well, that doesn't seem true to me either. Whenever I go travelling and visit places of touristic interest, I'm amazed that about 90% or more of the other tourists are only concerned with photographing themselves in front of the scene they've visited. They seem to be asserting the fact that they, themselves, are always more interesting and more significant than the famous, or historical, or naturalistic background they are standing against.

So, I would say that, for about 90% of all photos taken, the photo is more about the photographer than the event, although one might argue that such people with iPhones attached to 'selfie sticks' are not 'real' photographers.

Here, we come up against the perennial problem with all philosophy on all subjects, the precise definition of the key words used. What is a photographer?

[LKaven]

Nobody is proposing to make the non-croppers crop. We croppers would just appreciate it if they would stop telling us that we're doing it wrong.

But how many crops could a crop-stopper stop if a crop-stopper could stop crops?

In all seriousness, understanding the ideas behind the "decisive moment" and what they mean in some measure is fundamental to the study of photography.  One may elect to do things differently in the end, but at least one will do so knowingly.

I'd also say I can't call you a real jazz musician unless you understand Thelonious Monk well, but you don't have to sound like him.  

[Ray]

Bottom line, I guess, is the fact that in this thread I've read a bunch of theories about using movie mode to do street photography but I have yet to see an example -- good or bad. It's a lot like reading Isaac's unsupported theories about photography instead of seeing some work by him that can support his theories.

Russ, it's been explained by both Jeremy and me, that using a camera in video mode to capture the best moment of a rapidly changing scene is simply an alternative approach to setting the camera in 'continuous frame' mode. The advantage is, you won't fill up the buffer within a couple of seconds. The disadvantage is, there will be a sacrifice in resolution, and possibly dynamic range, but that shouldn't bother those who subscribe to the Ansel Adams maxim that there's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.

For me, the 2mp frame size of an HD video 'still' is not enticing, because I'm a bit obsessed with resolution, which is why I don't use HD video for this purpose. However, my recommendation related to the new 4k video format with double the resolution and 4x the file size of standard HD.

The second DSLR I bought in my life was the 8mp Canon 20D. I was very impressed with it. The Samsung NX1 in 4k video mode produces similar file sizes to the Canon 20D, and I imagine similar, or even better quality.

All modern DSLRs have a 'continuous frame' mode. Do you think this is just a gimmick, Russ, and an unsubstantiated theory of a method for capturing the 'moment'?