Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Chris Calohan on September 17, 2014, 01:15:36 pm
-
These legs and feet are right out of a sci-fi movie
-
I love it, Chris! That's looking.
-
Yup! You're heron a real roll! ;)
-
Great moment - put it in B&W and with the right contrast and tone adjustments (and cropping to accentuate/create movement) and it could be even more effective.
-
Did you forget to crop it, Chris? You should know better. It's just not complete until it's cropped.
-
I love it, Chris! That's looking.
Many people look, very few see ;)
-
Great moment - put it in B&W and with the right contrast and tone adjustments (and cropping to accentuate/create movement) and it could be even more effective.
Crop it where?
-
Crop it where?
To my eyes, everything is central. Yes, that works because there is a "coming from" place and a "going to" place, but because both spaces are equal, there is a limbo created making the photo more static than it needs to be. Cropping even slightly off the left would accentuate the movement enough to make the photo more dynamic.
I wish those with the "never crop under any circumstances" attitude would relax a little and lighten up. The world is not a perfect set of circumstances, especially with moving objects.
I shoots lots of stuff that never sees a dropping tool, but to rigidly follow that mantra is ridiculous in a CREATIVE medium. Why put up barriers?
-
I wish those with the "never crop under any circumstances" attitude would relax a little and lighten up. The world is not a perfect set of circumstances, especially with moving objects.
I shoots lots of stuff that never sees a cropping tool, but to rigidly follow that mantra is ridiculous in a CREATIVE medium. Why put up barriers?
+1. My camera takes photos with a 3:2 aspect ratio. Not all my photographs need to be that shape.
Jeremy
-
When I look at this image as, two legs with a reflection on a wet beach - I agree it does not need to be cropped.
However when I see it as two jagged vertical lines creating an abstract pattern of positive and negative spaces - I would crop some off the left side to balance the two dark verticals against the larger light space to the right.
Given that cropping some off the left would not adversely affect the vision of the known legs reflected on the known wet sand etc - I would vote for the crop. Nothing to loose and something abstract to gain.
The problem I see with the "never crop" philosophy is that as soon as we pick up a camera we are cropping the world as it is happening, both in time and in space - so the "never crop" philosophy maybe comes down to - this is what the photographer chose to leave out, this is when they chose to capture so there is a purity in that choice staying unmodified. A different photographer at the same place, at the same time would make a different choice which I guess tells us something about the difference between how we respond to the world.
Mal
-
I wish those with the "never crop under any circumstances" attitude would relax a little and lighten up. The world is not a perfect set of circumstances, especially with moving objects.
I shoots lots of stuff that never sees a dropping tool, but to rigidly follow that mantra is ridiculous in a CREATIVE medium. Why put up barriers?
You're right, Terry, there are times when you simply have to crop, but if you didn't know that before you tripped the shutter, you screwed up.
I don't know of anybody on here who's said "never crop under any circumstances." If you can give me a link to that statement please do. But more than one of us believe you always should try to frame in a way that fits the aspect ratio of your camera.
HCB was the guy who absolutely refused to crop, and insisted that his pictures be printed with a tiny bit of the black borders outside the frame demonstrating that he hadn't cropped. I happen to think he was a little bit unhinged on that subject, but on the other hand, look at his work. Can you beat it?
Actually, in two cases he did crop. One was "Behind the Gare St. Lazare," where he had to poke the lens between two boards in a fence and one board ended up blanking the right side of the frame. The other was "Cardinal Pacelli at Montmartre." In that case he had to raise the camera over his head and shoot more or less blindly. In both cases he knew he'd have to crop before he ever tripped the shutter. That's the key to cropping.
When somebody as competent as Chris posts a picture you have to assume he saw what he wanted to see when he clicked. In this case I'd probably have moved the camera bit to the right to give the bird more space into which to walk, but I don't think cropping is going to improve what I see.
-
I shot it pretty much as you see it. I did nip just a tad off the top to eliminate some tail feathers. I left the left side more open to help emphasize the talon dragging ever go gently through the sand and water. B&W surprisingly didn't work as well and I did do a bit of boosting to provide a bit more bump between the yellow foot and the water. Looks good on my monitor and printed nicely so I have to chalk up what you're not seeing to jpg compression.
I don't have as much issue with cropping as Russ or some others on here, but I never shoot with a crop in mind. I will work my way to the shot as I want in in the camera whenever possible. When not, most likely you'll never see the shot because most likely, I didn't take it.
I do appreciate everyone's comments. I never cease to be amazed by the grace and agility of the Great Blues and Great Whites. While they can be brutally ruthless in taking a meal, at the same time they can drag a foot ever so gently along the shoreline.
-
You're right, Terry, there are times when you simply have to crop, but if you didn't know that before you tripped the shutter, you screwed up.
I agree. A competent photographer makes the most of the frame ...in a perfect world - but I don't live in one, nor am I perfect. Sometimes I see things afterwards on a large screen (or on a print in the darkroom) that weren't apparent through a minuscule viewfinder or LCD. It's one of the things I miss most about 4x5 – having that large view, but even then, no photographer is perfect every time.
I don't know of anybody on here who's said "never crop under any circumstances." If you can give me a link to that statement please do.
Obviously, Russ, no one has come out and "said it", but it is clearly implied with sarcastic comments like "Did you forget to crop it, Chris? You should know better. It's just not complete until it's cropped." You might have said this tongue-in-cheek, but I think not.
But more than one of us believe you always should try to frame in a way that fits the aspect ratio of your camera.
Good for them, but many of us think: "How limiting!" Since when does the world fit into a nice neat 3:2 or 4:3 or 1:1 or 7:6 or 5:4 space? "Harummph, let's fit this square peg into a rectangular hole." If some want to live their photographic lives that way, that's their choice, but don't force it on others.
I understand that some photographers make this part of the "game" or even part of the "seeing" - in fact it is a valuable exercise in seeing, and as an exercise it is quite helpful. But on "game day", I need to rely on what I learned from the exercise, but use it as the tool it is meant to be: to adapt to new and changing situations. I mean really, this is a creative medium not an engineering design contest. For Henri Cartier-Bresson, it was part of his mantra/schtick - great, good for him - but we shouldn't all live our lives in the way the "masters" did, otherwise there would be no innovation.
When somebody as competent as Chris posts a picture you have to assume he saw what he wanted to see when he clicked.
Really? I don't assume anything, after all, when you assume... Besides, this is a discussion forum and we're in the User Critiques section. If it's perfect, then why post it here?
In this case I'd probably have moved the camera bit to the right to give the bird more space into which to walk, but I don't think cropping is going to improve what I see.
Exactly my point in the beginning. We usually agree on things, Russ, and it looks like we still do (but maybe not about that four-letter "c" word). ;)
-
Really? I don't assume anything, after all, when you assume...
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/when_you_assume.png)
Jeremy
-
"How limiting!" Since when does the world fit into a nice neat 3:2 or 4:3 or 1:1 or 7:6 or 5:4 space? "Harummph, let's fit this square peg into a rectangular hole." If some want to live their photographic lives that way, that's their choice, but don't force it on others.
HCB did it consistently. Not only that, instead of landscape, where you have at least all day to frame your picture, he was shooting street, where you usually have less than a second to get your subject and surroundings into a proper composition. One of the things that makes good art is limitations on the medium you select. Henri understood that.
-
HCB did it consistently. Not only that, instead of landscape, where you have at least all day to frame your picture, he was shooting street, where you usually have less than a second to get your subject and surroundings into a proper composition. One of the things that makes good art is limitations on the medium you select. Henri understood that.
True - but take HCB's name off his photos, post them here and see how much they would be regarded as "perfect" right out if the camera!
-
The hand of DOOM approaches!
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3835/15133218408_57f965fe17_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/p4gGAL)
-
Larry
I like the way you have added a photo as a way of commenting on a photo - a picture after all is worth a 1,000 words.
Mal
-
True - but take HCB's name off his photos, post them here and see how much they would be regarded as "perfect" right out if the camera!
Hi Terry, I guess you're saying that most people on LuLa are unfamiliar enough with the principles of good composition to be able to appreciate what they'd be seeing. I'm not sure that's true. No doubt there are a few who fall into that category, but it seems to me that it's a long way from a majority.
-
Hi Terry, I guess you're saying that most people on LuLa are unfamiliar enough with the principles of good composition to be able to appreciate what they'd be seeing. I'm not sure that's true. No doubt there are a few who fall into that category, but it seems to me that it's a long way from a majority.
There are, no doubt a number of HCB's photographs that would stand the test of "good composition", after all, that's what makes him a "master". However, that' snot what I'm alluding to.
Photographers on LuLa DO know their stuff. In fact it's why so many of us stay here, because we are working with an uber-informed audience - drives us nuts, sometimes, but it' small good.
The point I'm making though, is that "good compensation" varies with the photographer. Put the name HCB on the byline and, by default, we assume anything he is doing must be what defines "good composition". Take his name off and we might just surprised at how much we are blinded by the name. We might just consider nit picking, as I've done here, by suggesting "cropping even slightly off the left". The moment we accept as "perfect" the work by any "master" (HCB, AA, CC) is the moment we stop thinking for ourselves. Dangerous territory, for sure.
-
I agree with most everything you said, Terry, but I remember being grabbed by HCB's photographs in various media back in the early fifties, before I paid any attention to the name attached to them or had any idea this guy was special in the world of photography.
I don't agree that "good composition (I assume you didn't really mean 'compensation')" varies with the photographer. Good composition is good composition just like real gold is real gold.
And regarding the idea of cropping Chris's picture on the left: If there's a problem it's not that there's too much space on the left, but that there's not enough space on the right -- in the direction of the bird's movement.
In any case, if you're prefer to bang away and crop later, be my guest. Bang away and crop away.
-
Photography is all about cropping, you select your crop of reality by how you frame your shot, so to then crop into the image in post if you decide it needs it, is simply a continuation of that process.
I always try to crop with the camera when out in the field, but sometimes the scene just doesn't want to fit neatly into the 3:2 aspect ratio I am forced into with the type of camera I use, so I will happily crop in post if I think it improves the image and I feel no guilt by doing so, but as you can see by the vast majority of images I post here on Lula, that I do indeed try to mostly stick with the 3:2 aspect ratio and the image as it was shot in-camera, but this isn't because I feel a need to slavishly follow the 'rules', it is more to do with saving me time and money when framing prints etc, so I can buy and use stock frame sizes rather than custom sizes.
I think this whole cropping in post thing is bunkum if I am honest, photography is an art form and we are supposed to be enjoying ourselves as we pursue it and not treating it as some kind of hairshirt wearing penance. So just go out and enjoy yourself and don't get bogged down by listening to anyone telling you what you must or must not do, do whatever you think is best for you and your photography, be yourself not a rule following robot. ;)
Dave
-
In any case, if you're prefer to bang away and crop later, be my guest. Bang away and crop away.
I may be defending a photographer's right to crop, but please, do not lump me with the shoot-first-crop-later crowd. That concept is as anathema to me as it is to you. I will crop when required or, more often, when planned (the scene doesn't match the aspect ratio), but I do not "bang away and crop away". :)
-
I think that Terry's honor can only be defended in a proper duel ;)
-
will the duel involve a sword, pistol or Canon????
-
will the duel involve a sword, pistol or Canon????
Hopefully not this Cannon:
-
As long as Terry's not a member of the shoot-first-crop-later crowd, we're agreed, so we won't need to duel. Terry probably would be surprised to know how often I crop. But I only crop if I know I'm going to crop when I shoot the picture -- a practice Dave also claims to follow. When you're on the street with a 50mm prime you can't avoid those situations. I was flabbergasted when nobody called me out on the crop I did with this one.
But none of that refutes the fact that HCB did, in fact, frame his pictures incredibly well in a 3/2 aspect ratio. But I also believe he missed pictures more often than he'd have been willing to admit by insisting on perfect geometry, but always within 3/2.
-
Don't duel with Russ - he might be getting on a bit but he would probably shoot you first and crop you later....! ;D
Personally I love the idea of framing and leaving everything as it was in the viewfinder, and that works for some things. But when I'm out shooting people, catching the moment or expression and maybe the inter-relationship between the subject and the background always takes precedence. As I mostly use prime lenses too I have to accept that my image will often need to be cropped to some degree.
To the original picture - I love the simplicity.
Jim
-
Hopefully not this Cannon:
Thank you for posting that again, Slobodan. It had been lurking in my memory and I couldn't think where I'd seen it.
Jeremy