Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Stephen Best on February 02, 2007, 02:49:05 am
-
Everybody crops, I just choose to do it in-camera. Trying to rescue something decent from a capture after the fact sounds like shoddy technique. Different aspect ratios certainly jar in exhibitions. You see it all the time in magazines for beginners: crop it so and so and it will be much better ... except the results are generally so simplified that they tend to the banal. Every photographic subject has a context and it doesn't hurt to allow the viewer to make up their own mind what's worth looking at. In the best photographs you're not even conscious of the framing being imposed. Even with street photographers like HCB, I don't recall the images being excessively cropped:
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/bresson.htm (http://www.afterimagegallery.com/bresson.htm)
I can understand why someone would want to get away from the 2:3 ratio but if you're using this, you might as well learn to make the most from it. Retaining what you've got will also maximize print quality. It's a discipline worth adopting.
-
Stephen - I agree with your proposition 100%. I would suggest (perhaps because he's now offline and can't reply!) that Michael's problem with the shot with the cart exists precisely because he shot it too soon to avoid losing it altogether.
I do not agree that his final, mono choice has made the best of what was available on the fame. The additional figures lend scale and all that was needed to save the pic was to cut off from the right and balance the weights. The shot of the guys inside the window might have been different - there is no distraction visible and if all that was cut from the frame was more wall, then I see nothing gained by taking it away.
Using all the real estate on full-frame 35mm is more than simply a matter of following the maker's provision. The entire concept of the shot is formed on that screen unless, of course, one is using a rangefinder camera which, in my opinion, does not really posses the added quality of compositional ease sometimes attributed to it. In fact, I would suggest that very nature of the non-reflex camera leads to a loss of control of the image rather than the other way around. There's no need for anyone to reiterate all the old chestnuts about keeping both eyes open etc., that is done during the framing anyhow - it's focussing that is easier with one. It's my opinion that many people simply subscribe to myths of one kind or another as a means of making photography more interesting. It's interesting enough already - there's no need to confuse the issue with ideolgies!
Ciao - Rob C
-
Everybody crops, I just choose to do it in-camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Everybody who uses a zoom lens tries to do it in-camera, but sometimes the lens one has attached to camera is not long enough and/or one doesn't have time to change it or even perhaps time to frame the shot carefully. One such shot I came across recently whilst organizing my images, is shown below. I was sitting across the road from a public toilet, quietly enjoying a beer, when from the corner of my eye I espied a young lady preening herself in the mirror, whilst some guy in the background was having a piss.
As an Australian, this was an unusual sight. Not wanting to miss a photographic opportunity, I picked up my 5D with 24-105 lens, which was lying on the table, and took a quick shot at maximum focal length. I tried to take a second shot more carefully composed, but the lady quickly left the scene.
After cropping, the 36mb image was reduced to just 11mb, but much improved and a nice bit of social commentary, don't you think?
If anyone wants to buy this, they can have it for a lot less than $10,000 .
[attachment=1720:attachment]
-
The ultimate objective I suppose is to have a ginormous sensor and a 180 FOV lens. Then you can just point and shoot, and crop at will later.
Personally I'm usually far more satisfied with a shot I don't need to crop at all, than one I do need to. And "unplanned cropping", well, I sometimes do it, but I have to say it is always with the wish that I'd got it right in the first place.
I find the comment (in What's New) "It constantly amazes me that some photographers feel that it's worthwhile, necessary, or even obligatory to print their images to the format and aspect ratio provided by their particular camera. But they do" somewhat patronising. One could answer that some photographers have the skill to do so. Others don't. Which would be equally offensive, and equally blinkered.
I don't have anything to object to in the article itself, but I have to say that many, many experts advocate using cropping to learn how to see, rather than to "fix it in the mix".
It is amazing what discipline over framing you tend to acquire when you're limited to 5 Megapixels...
-
The ultimate objective I suppose is to have a ginormous sensor and a 180 FOV lens. Then you can just point and shoot, and crop at will later.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98842\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No different really to press photographers that put the camera into continuous and point it in the general direction. Not my idea of photography though.
I think it's useful to follow the instincts that caused you to compose and take the photograph in the first place.
-
But I think one of Michael's points it that there's no good aesthetic reason to limit yourself to the aspect ratio that comes with the camera. That is to say, many of today's DSLRs offer a 3:2 aspect ratio not because the 3:2 ratio is the best for all images, but because it is common and standard.
Sometimes I find myself looking at a subject and envisioning a more square composition or a more panorama-like composition, but I just have one tool, which is my 3:2 DSLR. So I'll frame wide enough to capture all that I want but with the notion in mind that I'm going to crop it to the desired aspect ratio afterwards (i.e., in the RAW converter).
Eric
-
I'm still around for a few hours till I head for the airport, so I'll add to the mix.
It seems to me that some here have completely missed the point of the essay. There is nothing sacrosanct about 24X36, 4X3, 6x17, 8x10 or any other format or size. These are aspect ratios chosen by companies for commercial reasons, not esthetic ones. Forcing ones image to comply with one of these simply because that's what you happen to have in hand, is to enforce a rigidity on ones work that simply isn't necessary.
Visit an art gallery. Look at the paintings. You will see that the artists have chosen every aspect ratio and size imaginable. Beginning artists go to the art supply store and by pre-stretched cavases. But there comes a point when an artists breaks free of that commercial constraint and starts to stretch their own canvases to accomodate their vision.
That's what I'm suggest. Let the subject dictate the composition, not the box in your hands. If you're shooting with a 2 1/4 square camera and a natural panorama presents itself, shoot it and crop. If a subject cries out to be square, make it so, even if you're shooting with 35mm.
Listen to the subject. Hear what it wants to be. This isn't about "saving" a shot. There's nothing to save when you realize that you had no obligation to force the subject into the camera makers window. Let the subject fit into the window of your mind.
It's all about crearive freedom.
Michael
-
Sometimes I find myself looking at a subject and envisioning a more square composition or a more panorama-like composition, but I just have one tool, which is my 3:2 DSLR. So I'll frame wide enough to capture all that I want but with the notion in mind that I'm going to crop it to the desired aspect ratio afterwards (i.e., in the RAW converter).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Instead of thinking about the "composition" in some abstract sense, try instead to think about how you can compose the subject within the frame, whatever the frame's proportions. If you move yourself slightly, offset the subject within the frame etc you'll generally arrive at something that just feels "right". This is when to make the exposure. You don't have to provide the focus, the viewer will do this. If you go out not knowing whether you're shooting panorama or full frame, B&W or colour there's just too many variables and possibilities to guarantee consistently good results ... at least this is what I've found.
-
Adding options and variables does not necessarily enhance creative freedom. It simply provides you with so many choices that you can't see the wood for trees. Take say, a 28-200 zoom, and the freedom to crop as you wish in post processing, then you already have so many variables that your creative vision is likely to be dulled. There are clearly two camps here, but I'm firmly in the "restrictions encourage creativity and vision" school. That doesn't mean I never crop, but as I said before, this is almost always to correct something. If I'm using my E-1, my mind is framing 4:3. If I'm using the Xpan, 3:1, and so forth.... I'm not saying this is the "right" approach, but I cannot accept that it is "wrong", or indeed restrictive.
-
Instead of thinking about the "composition" in some abstract sense, try instead to think about how you can compose the subject within the frame, whatever the frame's proportions. If you move yourself slightly, offset the subject within the frame etc you'll generally arrive at something that just feels "right". This is when to make the exposure. You don't have to provide the focus, the viewer will do this. If you go out not knowing whether you're shooting panorama or full frame, B&W or colour there's just too many variables and possibilities to guarantee consistently good results ... at least this is what I've found.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I follow what you're saying, Stephen, but I feel we're approaching composition from two different angles here. What you seem to be saying is "given the frame that we have, find a way of composing the subject that suits the frame." What I'm trying to say is, "Find a way of composing the subject that suits the subject, but the way that suits the subject may not necessarily suit the frame." Make sense?
Eric
-
I follow what you're saying, Stephen, but I feel we're approaching composition from two different angles here. What you seem to be saying is "given the frame that we have, find a way of composing the subject that suits the frame." What I'm trying to say is, "Find a way of composing the subject that suits the subject, but the way that suits the subject may not necessarily suit the frame." Make sense?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you're not shooting 6x6, you've got portrait AND landscape ... what more do you need? :-)
-
If you're not shooting 6x6, you've got portrait AND landscape ... what more do you need? :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, if we had sensors or films that could automagically reconfigure their aspect ratios in the field at the push of a switch ...
Eric
-
I tried cropping in the camera once or twice, but the referees chased me back off the field.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)
-
I strongly agree with Michael on the concept, although I disagree with his crop in this particular photo. It seems absurd to me to try to jam any particular human composition into a 2:3 aspect ratio; most things just don't fit. If you wander around trying to find things that fit, you'll miss 99 percent of the possible good photos. IMHO, the aspect ratios of the MF cameras are much better than the traditional 35mm aspect ratio, which was chosen for several practical reasons which had little to do with the aesthetics of composition. (There were commercial reasons, but also, at the time, the 35mm was about the smallest film/camera combination from which you could get a really good magazine-sized shot.) In any case, the compose-in-camera-only idea strikes me as an old photo folk myth that needs to be discarded.
As to this specific image, I think Michael mistakes exactly what makes it. There are all kinds of guys in carts, but the colors are terrific, and color, not subject, is what holds this composition together. There is a nice progress from the red-orange of the wall behind the cart to the darker red of the door to the most-saturated color in the figure on the left, which functions as a kind of "period." If I were cropping it, I'd crop right behind the back wheel, and trim just a tiny strip off the left side, so that we loose those architectural lines just to the left of the small figure.
I think Michael also misunderstands the comment about "If your pictures aren't good, you're not close enough." That was originally attributed to Robert Capa, speaking of war photos, and what he was saying was that if your pictures weren't good enough, you weren't taking enough risks and getting right in where the action was. His point didn't involved cropping, it was being in position to get the photo *at all.*
JC
-
... and there are those who look with distain on cropping but actually order 8x10 prints from their 35mm negatives!
-
Ray - what a hell of a spot to pick to have a beer!
Ciao - Rob C
-
Saying that a camera's format is nothing more than a manufacturer's accident of design is beside the point. The real point is that with smaller formats you have to make maximum use of what's available to you if you want to retain good quality of reproduction. And you get used to working within that frame.
It is also true that once you have become used to your equipment you no longer ever ask yourself whether it is a vertical or a horizontal situation - you just KNOW. It is also true that square formats are very demanding from a design point of view and that it is not easy to crop them well. In fact, whilst people shots can sometimes be cropped as verticals from a square frame with a certain degree of success, cropping a square with people to a horizontal is far less easy to do, assuming you have been 'close enough' to make best use of your opportunities! Of course, this is anecdotal, my personal experience from heavy shooting of people on both 35mm and 6x6 cameras and mixing them is something which I have tried to avoid getting myself into having to do. It is almost as emotionally troublesome as shooting colour and black and white on the same job.
Michael shows a horizontal shot in letterbox country; yes, that one does work, but that sort of framing is uncomfortable to view over a period and soon loses its intrinsic charm, turning far more readily into gimmick than does a collection of bog-standard off-the-shelf formats. For me, that was always going to be a problem with the slit Hasselblads and tribe - possibly cool, on occasion, horizontally but hardly ever so vertically; not worth the price.
One can provide/prove exceptions to everything, even global warming; let's just get on with what we do and just make the most of it.
Ciao - Rob C
-
...It's my opinion that many people simply subscribe to myths of one kind or another as a means of making photography more interesting. It's interesting enough already - there's no need to confuse the issue with ideolgies!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=98830\")
Very good summary of the thread, and done before the thread really even got going! ;-)
Nill
~~
[a href=\"http://www.toulme.net]www.toulme.net[/url]
-
The real point is that with smaller formats you have to make maximum use of what's available to you if you want to retain good quality of reproduction. And you get used to working within that frame.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do not see how good quality in enhanced by having irrelevant, distract elements near some edges of the print. I can see no virtue putting stuff into my final images that is irrelevant or even distracting just because "I payed for the pixels and so I am going to use all of them". That is like forcing down food that you do not like or is more than your appetite needs, just because you have to pay for it anyway.
It is often not possible to position one's subject and camera so that everything you want in the image fits the particular rectangular shape of the camera (3:2 or 4:3 or whatever) and everything you do not want falls outside that rectangle. As an extreme example, I have a photo mounted with a circular matte, as that is the only way to present the subject without very annoying peripheral elements.
I doubt that the "never crop" approach is the usual practice with portraits from 35mm format cameras (or other 3:2 shaped cameras), as it would impose a "three high by two wide" shape that rarely suits portraiture and indeed, is often far from ideal for other "verticals") If "never crop" were dominant, 8"x12" prints would be far more common that they are, and 5"x7", 8"x10", 11"x14", 8.5"x11", A4, A3, A2, etc. would all be far less common, since none of them exactly fits any common camera format shape, either 3:2 or 4:3.
-
And I suppose all the "anti cropping" faction would never think to shoot portrait
-
When I shoot 35mm I try to use the whole frame as much as I can, I like the proportion and when im shooting im comfy in that box.
I also love the 4x5 proportion and when i shoot 4x5 I hold that proportion religiously.
I do crop though, sometimes the 35mm spec is to long for an image so i crop. if something is annoying me i'll crop it out. However, in 4x5, I always try to hold the strong, original proportions.
With my digital cam I crop like crazy...Im not sure why but i guess im totally grown into the other two ratios.
With regard to Michaels example of the "Cart" image. I think he got lost trying to accomodate that cart. I also think he was being to precious with his edges. A lot of people get precious with those edges IMHO. The edge is powerful thing and sometimes those balanced edges just kill an image...using the edge is important.
Yow, i messed with Michaels image and am posting it here. I feel that the most interesting part of this image is the tension between the figures with the walking man being the real object of my attention. the two other figures relate to him as well in an almost foreboding way...plus the door at the end of the street, that door is a very important part of the image. This picture has a sort of potential for being creepy.
As far as color goes..I'm not a fan of big chunks of color without other colors present. For me, color has to have pretty good reason for being there...meaning...colors that are working together, or, causing some kind of tension or relationship to happen. I feel that color is mostly misunderstood in terms of relevance and actual theory by many photographers. IMO this image is stronger in black and white. The version i picked to mess with was Michael's conversion, though, i played with values and some burning and dodging. I notice that the flat light in a lot of those pictures needs a bit of help, adding some shading and stuff. IMO, of course
When the cart crosses the edge things start to get more interesting for me.
With crop:
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o274/rentChicago/crop.jpg)
Original:
(http://luminous-landscape.com/images63/crop749-4.jpg)
-
When I shoot a 3 mega pixel camera I tend to want to crop in my view finder as much as possible and when I shoot my 5D I dont care as much as I can crop out a lot of 'real estate' and still print a nice larege image.
I did learn some time ago that prints with a lot of un interesting garbage is a lot worse that a tightly cropped shot at any aspect ratio.
Robert
-
I didn't realise this thread was a response to Michael's latest article. Having now read the article, I see nothing there that's not good, sound advice. I crop all the time into all sorts of aspect ratios. I was even considering recently making an elliptical crop of a stitched panorama because I couldn't figure a neat and easy way of bringing the bottom edge into a straight line without messy cloning and/or obvious distortion, or without losing some features in the foreground which I wanted to keep.
Since most of us here are concerned with lens resolution and pixel count, it makes sense to maximise the number of pixels one will get in the final cropped image. The way to do this is to use a zoom lens. If the aspect ratio of the camera is not ideal for the subject, it helps to be aware of this factor at the time of shooting.
However, one practical disadvantage of cropping images to all sorts of aspect ratios lies in the printing. If you print from a 24" wide roll as I do, you can waste paper trying to fit an assortment of different sizes images when they are all smaller than the width of the roll. However, I wouldn't recommend subordinating one's artistic sensibilities to such minor practical considerations .
-
Ray - what a hell of a spot to pick to have a beer!
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Convenient, though!
-
Hi all,
I have a question on cropping: do any of you simply crop to what you think works best, or do you crop and try to constrain the ratios/proportions to some formula ?
Thanks,
Simon
-
Hi all,
I have a question on cropping: do any of you simply crop to what you think works best, or do you crop and try to constrain the ratios/proportions to some formula ?
Thanks,
Simon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To what' s best, with some limitations.
I would have to think for a long time before I cropped something into a shape other than a rectangle; some people like ovals for portaits or even (occasionally) circular shots for landscapes, but I don't. That means accepting some extraneous or undesirable matter that might be eliminated with a non-rectangular crop. There are times when I would lose the edges of a photo, but I'd still want to see it on a rectangular form.
At one time, quite a few photos *were* round, because the plate simply showed everything that came though a lens; and you could make an argument, I suppose, that that's the most efficient use of a lens, if not of the photographic plate. But the general preference for rectangles (including squares) quickly asserted itself, maybe because of painting, which had a whole theory of the use of rectangles.
To use an analogy, beginning writers sometime obsess over the use of "he said" or "she said" in dialogue, finding, as they're writing, that it seems obvious and repetitious. But a reader really never sees those words, if they're skillfully placed; they're simply stage directions that the reader unconsciously takes in as he absorbs the dialogue. I think the rectangle functions the same way -- it serves up the image on a culturally neutral background, orienting us to "up" and "down" and left-right, and, with perspective cues in the photo, to depth. Most rectangles, until they become extreme, will do that; if they become too extreme (as Oriental paintings sometimes do to the Western eye) then they become visible again, and are no longer neutral backgrounds.
JC
-
I have a question on cropping: do any of you simply crop to what you think works best, or do you crop and try to constrain the ratios/proportions to some formula ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you absolutely have to crop and you're doing it for exhibition etc, consider using the aspect ratio of the original. A set of images on the wall all with different aspect ratios says that either you're uncomfortable with your chosen format or the images have been overcooked in post-production. It's a giveaway that the photographer is a beginner in my books.
-
It seems absurd to me to try to jam any particular human composition into a 2:3 aspect ratio; most things just don't fit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98882\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe manufacturers can sell the real estate of the ends of the frame as advertising. You just crop it off in Photoshop. This way everybody's compositions could improve and cameras would be cheaper.
-
I agree that when capturing, we should try and use the maximum area of the sensor available to us.
I also agree there is no point saving/printing distracting or otherwise undesirable elements in the image.
Corollary; leave at least one side full length when possible. And yet I agree that even that is not always possible -- like when the subject is too far away for your longest lens -- but feel one should at least strive for it when it is possible.
For me, this usually means some part of the long dimension of the 35 frame is going to get cropped out. While I frequently leave the image at 3:2, I have standard crop panels for 4:3 and often crop to that -- and almost always crop to at least that from my 4x5 or 8x10 film scans. I also have 1:1, 2:1 and 5:2 crop frames, though I use them less frequently -- basically, it depends on the image and how I feel when I'm processing it.
Cropping to fill standard inkjet paper sizes with reasonable borders also makes some sense to me, though I get frustrated when trying to fit an image I regularly print on 17x22 paper into a 13x19 or 11x17 sheet. I'd be curious how others handle that as I have resigned myself to leaving larger borders on the edges of those papers...
Bottom line is Michael's article makes perfect sense to me. I see no reason to toss an image because you later realize you didn't frame it ideally from the outset.
Cheers,
-
If you absolutely have to crop and you're doing it for exhibition etc, consider using the aspect ratio of the original. A set of images on the wall all with different aspect ratios says that either you're uncomfortable with your chosen format or the images have been overcooked in post-production. It's a giveaway that the photographer is a beginner in my books.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So are you suggesting if I capture a wide, six frame, 4:1 aspect ratio stitched pano with my DSLR, I have to crop it back to 3:2 when I display it? Or are you saying if I were to choose to exhibit three images in that pano aspect ratio along with other "non-pano" images, it is a giveaway I am a beginner?
Cheers,
-
If you absolutely have to crop and you're doing it for exhibition etc, consider using the aspect ratio of the original. A set of images on the wall all with different aspect ratios says that either you're uncomfortable with your chosen format or the images have been overcooked in post-production. It's a giveaway that the photographer is a beginner in my books.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is if you want to conform to the abstract notion that a set of mono-narrative images that likely have been "overcooked" in the conceptual stage somehow represent maturity. I see too many boring "body of work" sets of images where one decent idea/image is replicated with an accompanying set of diminished clones - in size and aspect ratio lockstep. I would much rather see a set of images that has been treated (cropped, etc.) with attention to the particular narrative of each. I guess any retrospective exhibit must smack of amateurism.
-
Pete JF's example (above) of his approach to cropping Michael's image is excellent. His crop yields a meaningful narrative that transcends mere documentation. The viewer is given more meat and fewer springs of parsley from which to construct his own sense of narrative.
-
Convenient, though!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=98931\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for that, Ray, first chuckle of the day!
Ciao - Rob C
-
Different strokes I guess -- I prefer the original. IMO the road is also an important element in that shot as a leading line into the people at the other end.
As long as we're on this image, I also liked MR's version that showed more of the small windows above the cart -- another leading line, but also a very interesting repeating pattern element. Though the above "original" crop is probably my favorite version, I think it works well as a square too:
Cheers,
-
Hi - Mention has been made of the suitability or otherwise of the 35mm frame as upright portrait. This depends, somewhat, on what you deem to be portraiture. If you are willing to include waist upwards then it fits (for me) quite comfortably but with tight headshots it's a little more difficult and, if anything, works better if you cut in very tightly. Frankly, with women as my principal subject, lowering the bottom edge of the frame down the model has yet to solicit complaint...
I'm also surprised that it seems some people imagine that in horizontal format there is almost always extra, unwanted stuff at the sides. Why should this be so? It's under your control at the time of shooting or, at least, it should be if you take enough care with what you're doing. Yes, of course there are difficulties if you happen to be doing shots of people in old factories or areas like that: the best light and background might well contain a pipe just where you didn't want it to be. But it can usually be incorporated into the design as a plus. Fine, if all else fails, then crop at home, but don't look on this technique as being any healthier a norm than leaving rubbish lying about in shot just because Photoshop exists.
I can't take to the notion of zooms being a panacea for framing problems; I think there is a vast difference between getting one's butt into the right place and standing either too far away or too close to the subject and trying to correct by changing focal lengths. It's a tired old saw, but it seems people forget: perspective depends totally and solely on position. You don't change that by standing still and swapping focal length!
My advice - clearly self-offered so don't bother telling me that - is if you can't get to the right spot walk away. For the non-pro it's just meant to be fun.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Yes, of course there are difficulties if you happen to be doing shots of people in old factories or areas like that: the best light and background might well contain a pipe just where you didn't want it to be.
Good point. I'll go out on a limb and link to an album with some images like you are describing from a recent shoot, though no people. It contains a mix of full-frame (3:2), cropped 4:3 and these are shown in both portrait and horizontal orientation. Also there are a few 5:2 panos and even one square -- I think it is going to be reasonably obvious why I chose the crops I did for each image...
ALL of these were captured with a 5D. The lighting is weird because of the mix of lighting from various combinations of Sodium, Mercury, Tungsten, Fluorescent, daylight through cruddy windows or open doors, and the gas-fired kilns. FWIW, the pano aspect ratios are all two frame shift-stitches. Click the thumbs for larger views:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/gallery/view_a...bumName=album21 (http://jack.cameraphile.org/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album21)
-
I can't take to the notion of zooms being a panacea for framing problems; I think there is a vast difference between getting one's butt into the right place and standing either too far away or too close to the subject and trying to correct by changing focal lengths. It's a tired old saw, but it seems people forget: perspective depends totally and solely on position. You don't change that by standing still and swapping focal length!
My advice - clearly self-offered so don't bother telling me that - is if you can't get to the right spot walk away. For the non-pro it's just meant to be fun.
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99034\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's the too-infrequently mentioned corollary to that: Your position totally and solely determines your perspective. "Zooming with your feet" does not work for a lot of subjects, simply because you're not zooming but changing perspective. Zooming is just an in-camera crop.
-Lars
-
A set of images on the wall all with different aspect ratios says that either you're uncomfortable with your chosen format or the images have been overcooked in post-production. It's a giveaway that the photographer is a beginner in my books.
Or alternatively, that I've discovered that all images are not best presented in 4:5 vertical; some are best presented as 3:1 horizontal panos, or square, or even circles or ellipses. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds...
-
There's the too-infrequently mentioned corollary to that: Your position totally and solely determines your perspective. "Zooming with your feet" does not work for a lot of subjects, simply because you're not zooming but changing perspective. Zooming is just an in-camera crop.
-Lars
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99043\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
From an article on dpreview:
"... changing the focal length while keeping the subject distance constant has—just like cropping—no effect on perspective."
-
There's the too-infrequently mentioned corollary to that: Your position totally and solely determines your perspective. "Zooming with your feet" does not work for a lot of subjects, simply because you're not zooming but changing perspective.
Very true. Additionally, foot zoom isn't real practical when you're on a mountain ledge and need to levitate over a 500-meter drop to get a few hundred meters closer to the mountain on the other side of the valley, or need to back up through solid rock to get the entire thing in the frame. Zoom lenses are irreplaceable for such situations.
-
Or alternatively, that I've discovered that all images are not best presented in 4:5 vertical; some are best presented as 3:1 horizontal panos, or square, or even circles or ellipses. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Consistency is (or can be) an element of design, as well. Especially when you're looking at a book of images, it always feels better when you have variety within limitations. If every photo were some different unexpected shape, then the (to my mind, non-relevant) shapes would become too important in the overall work, detracting from the image. When I go to an art gallery and see paintings that are framed as irregular polygons, I tend to think there's some trickery involved which is intended to disguise the lack of true creativity in the painting...
JC
-
Consistency is (or can be) an element of design, as well. Especially when you're looking at a book of images, it always feels better when you have variety within limitations. If every photo were some different unexpected shape, then the (to my mind, non-relevant) shapes would become too important in the overall work, detracting from the image. When I go to an art gallery and see paintings that are framed as irregular polygons, I tend to think there's some trickery involved which is intended to disguise the lack of true creativity in the painting...
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Aren't the vast majority of photographs (consistently) rectangular. As are the magazines and books they are printed in. The walls they are hung on.
-
Consistency is (or can be) an element of design, as well. Especially when you're looking at a book of images, it always feels better when you have variety within limitations. If every photo were some different unexpected shape, then the (to my mind, non-relevant) shapes would become too important in the overall work, detracting from the image. When I go to an art gallery and see paintings that are framed as irregular polygons, I tend to think there's some trickery involved which is intended to disguise the lack of true creativity in the painting...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not sure where polygons come into this, but if you just mean irregular proportions then you're getting to the heart if it. It's an integrity thing. Also, if you're able to see a meaningful subject amongst all the clutter when you take the photograph, so will the viewer. Moreover, the act of discovery by the viewer is invaluable. Having an image that can be fully read in a nanosecond just results in blandness.
Getting back to Michael's original article, if you're sitting down and looking at the image in Photoshop asking yourself what the image is about and how can you maximize (or for Michael simplify) this, it's a bit late. I see the tools in Photoshop as the means to follow through with the capture, not just to mine a set of images for something useful. If there was no original intent, you can't expect a consistent message or aesthetics in the results. The sharper the vision, the less important the framing ... you just use what you've got.
-
Cropping to fill standard inkjet paper sizes with reasonable borders also makes some sense to me, though I get frustrated when trying to fit an image I regularly print on 17x22 paper into a 13x19 or 11x17 sheet. I'd be curious how others handle that as I have resigned myself to leaving larger borders on the edges of those papers...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know the feeling. My solution for the 4:5 images (which go well on 17x22) is to cut the papers down when using the smaller papers. I use my Rotatrim to do that. And for 3:2 images that I want to print big, there are now a few papers starting to appear in 17x25.
Eric
-
So are you suggesting if I capture a wide, six frame, 4:1 aspect ratio stitched pano with my DSLR, I have to crop it back to 3:2 when I display it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Clearly not. The point I'm trying to make is that cropping isn't as necessary as some make out, and trying to stick to the original format (wherever possible) helps focus the mind at capture time. I've been known to crop the top of 35mm vertical portraits myself but in general I try to maximize both the frame's real estate and the impact of the composition with the frame. It's a lot easier with LF though because, as you know, you generally have the time to do so plus movements to get around line-of-sight issues.
Where I think cropping has got out of hand though is this urge to over-simplify to the point where the framing imposes itself on the image, rather than the other way round. It's hard to describe, but it just looks obviously cropped and jars with me. It also says that the photographer didn't have a clear idea of what they were trying to achieve when they made the exposure. I'm looking to share the photographer's vision, not marvel at rescued compositions.
-
It bugs you, got it.
-
Clearly not. The point I'm trying to make is that cropping isn't as necessary as some make out, and trying to stick to the original format (wherever possible) helps focus the mind at capture time.
One could just as easily say that's a mental crutch for the unimaginative. When I shoot, I try to maximize my intended output aspect ratio within the viewfinder to get as many pixels into the final print as possible, but I feel no need to try to force my compositions to conform to 3:2/2:3. It's generally best to make the composition match the subject, not the other way around.
-
Getting back to Michael's original article, if you're sitting down and looking at the image in Photoshop asking yourself what the image is about and how can you maximize (or for Michael simplify) this, it's a bit late. I see the tools in Photoshop as the means to follow through with the capture, not just to mine a set of images for something useful. If there was no original intent, you can't expect a consistent message or aesthetics in the results. The sharper the vision, the less important the framing ... you just use what you've got.
I can see where you're coming from, but to be frank: this is no different from using standard tools for, ehrm, postprocessing chemical enlargements.
That there is a disconnect in time of when you make your geometrical composition doesn't necessarily make the composition any less valid, useful, pleasing or successful.
I'll counter your Henri Cartier Bresson with Ansel Adams, who did crop his images after the time of photography, for various reasons. For instance, in Surf Sequence, he cropped his images to remove distracting elements and then to match the same format. Not that it should be necessary to cite well-known photographers to attempt to prove a point of view; points of views are exactly that.
Your approach may work for you, but I don't think you should broadcast it as the One True Way. It clearly isn't.
Personally, I try to work with the format of the camera I use, and on occasion crop to match what I thought I saw, or -- Gasp! Shock! Horror! -- something that I see during post-processing but didn't see when I was at the scene. It happens, but it rarely happens with images that otherwise would be duds.
I'm completely agree with Jonathan's "mental crutch" characterization, though. If I should get a sensor that matched the format I wanted to take my pictures in, in advance of taking each picture, I'd need at least five assistants to carry all the gear. And if that isn't a limitation, well ...
-
Jack Flesher
Thanks for the link you provided - some damn nice work there and exactly the sort of background that I'd love to have available for fashion-related photography, preferrably in b/w. If I'm obliged to pick an instant favourite, I'd say that I was very attracted to the shot titled 'into the light'.
I wouldn't give a damn about the light being or not being weird - it WORKS and that's all you need!
The truth of the matter is that the same logic applies to format, cropping, zooming or whatever means to an end: if it works then that's it, the pragmatic approach coming out on top, partisan thinking being somewhat irrelevant. The only glitch with the argument is, of course, does the technique work in the shot?
On the matter of zoom: glad there's general agreement that position alone governs perspective; if the perspective is right, as has been said, then fine, use a zoom to cut off the extra stuff - you'd do better using a prime, but that's another whole can of worms best left out in the garden.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Maybe my brain is too pedestrian, but I am having a difficult time believing that this topic could be so controversial.
If the scene you want to capture happens to fit into the aspect ratio of the camera you happen to have with you, great. If it doesn't, you crop.
If you absolutely have to crop and you're doing it for exhibition etc, consider using the aspect ratio of the original. A set of images on the wall all with different aspect ratios says that either you're uncomfortable with your chosen format or the images have been overcooked in post-production. It's a giveaway that the photographer is a beginner in my books.
This goes a bit far, it seems to me, and may be unnecessarily doctrinaire. If you mean that an exhibit of pics of different aspect ratios can be placed on a wall in a way that detracts from their collective impact, I can agree. But that's a problem with the layout of the exhibit on the walls, not the with the pictures.
-
The most important point of Michael's essay to me is the logic of using cropping as a tool for emphasizing the purpose of the photograph. That alone would relegate consideration of aspect ratio for its own sake very low on the prority list (unless a client specifies a fixed aspect ratio for a dedicated purpose). So then the question is whether we best get there by pre-visualization or by cropping or by a mixture. Obviously best to do it at capture stage whenever technically suitable, because this maximizes useful pixels, but sometimes this can't work, or sometimes post-visualization sees things that pre-visualization didn't, so crop to suit. I agree with those who see nothing that should be controversial about this, and I thought the essay presented a useful discussion of ends and means.
-
Where I think cropping has got out of hand though is this urge to over-simplify to the point where the framing imposes itself on the image, rather than the other way round.
I get what you're saying, and would even agree on this point. But for me I see after the fact cropping can also be a creative tool. IOW, I think cropping at the shot is important -- a clear concept of what one is capturing so to speak -- but also think that concept can be further enhanced by additional cropping at the processing stage. I simply see it as an additional creative tool to be used when it benefits the expression of my vision. In this fashion, I don't see it as crutch to correct any "weakness" in that vision...
Cheers,
-
I think back to one of Alain Briot's earlier articles about judging the size for printing by the content. Some frames beg for B&W. Some shots need aggressive PP, even if just limited to dodging and buring. And some need a crop.
Having said that, I completely agree that the philosophy "I'll fix it later in photoshop" is the crutch of a second-rater.
-
If you absolutely have to crop and you're doing it for exhibition etc, consider using the aspect ratio of the original. A set of images on the wall all with different aspect ratios says that either you're uncomfortable with your chosen format or the images have been overcooked in post-production. It's a giveaway that the photographer is a beginner in my books.
Or it means the exhibition has a variety of images, which have been treatred as individual images and not just had a cookie cutter template applied to look neat on a gallery wall. And if it it works and looks good, then it er, looks good. A bunch of images all forced into the same aspect ratio, just to look consistent may weaken some of the images, so what would be the point of that. If you want to have an exhibition with a strong central theme it may be appropriate, but imagine a retrospect of 30yrs work. Would you insist only ones the same aspect ratio should be included
There are many ways to approach photography and the only wrong way is to be absolute about how it should or should not be done. Like in quote above.
-
I'm looking to share the photographer's vision, not marvel at rescued compositions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How would you ever know the difference? What if the photographer were using a full frame DSLR with an aspect ratio of 2:3 for making a photograph he/she knows from the start will become a square photograph by virtue of the intended composition appropriate to the subject matter? I think you're imposing artificial distinctions on aspects of workflow that can't be and shouldn't be differentiated this way.
And by the way, just about EVERY image I make has a different aspect ratio - something about which I am NOT THE LEAST BIT uncomfortable, no-one has ever suggested my images are the least bit "over-cooked" and I have been making photographs for 5 decades. The camera has a chosen format, not the photograph and not the photographer - unless both are totally unimaginative and slavish to self-imposed conventions.
-
One could just as easily say that's a mental crutch for the unimaginative. When I shoot, I try to maximize my intended output aspect ratio within the viewfinder to get as many pixels into the final print as possible, but I feel no need to try to force my compositions to conform to 3:2/2:3. It's generally best to make the composition match the subject, not the other way around.
Jonathan
Well said. This is true for me whether I am shooting a 5d or an 8"x10". Having said that most of the low print quality images that I see displayed at the local camera clubs come from excessive cropping whether the source is film or digital. It is one thing cropping the sides or top and bottom to change the aspect ratio make a more effective composition. It is quite another to crop significantly all the way around because you didn't have a lens long enough or were too much in a hurry or whatever to frame it properly in the camera.
-
This will be my last post on this subject. It's clear that some have misconstrued what I'm saying or are simply responding with personal attacks. If you're challenged by different approaches, maybe you should just stick with what you're doing. Who's to say what's best for you anyway.
I didn't say you shouldn't mix formats or proportions in a display or collection, just that I don't see that it's necessary for EVERY image to have its own cropping. IMHO, cropping is a way overused tool. If the subject is strong enough and/or you have enough time to work with the framing at capture, you may find you don't need it at all. And cropping, whether done in-camera (ideally) or in post-processing is a means to strengthen the image. Note that strengthen doesn't necessarily mean simplify. In fact overused simplification is a recipe for anodyne images ... again, IMHO.
If I came across as hardline on thus issue, it's simply an overreaction to what I see as means being used to massage an original into "something" (look at the original examples given) rather than craft it into a finished product that maximizes the original intent (presumably there was one). I don't see any long-term personal vision coming from the former.
-
But that's a problem with the layout of the exhibit on the walls, not the with the pictures.
All rules are there to be broken. But I think Stephen has a valid point too, if you have a gallery, whether at web or otherwise: with all different aspect ratios, obvious and heavy cropping to simplify context, wide range of focal lengths used etc., it *may* look that you have been a little lost on actual shootout.
Or then it may not, so you really know what you are doing.. Anyway more traditional laid-back looking approach with uncropped and unprocessed looking stuff has a whole new meaning nowadays we have been through 10000's of web galleries with replicated post processing tricks and travel memories where 'moving your feet' at location was totally replaced with zooming and cropping. Continuous heavy cropping manifests itself with flat looking output. Been there, done that
-
If I came across as hardline on thus issue, it's simply an overreaction to what I see as means being used to massage an original into "something" (look at the original examples given) rather than craft it into a finished product that maximizes the original intent (presumably there was one). I don't see any long-term personal vision coming from the former.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is a dirty little secret that a lot of photographers have; they go to a location and don't have a fully preconceived and planned image in their heads when they go out shooting. Instead they take a whole bunch of shots of whatever seems visually interesting to them at the time. Later they look through the pictures they have taken (call them snapshots if you like) and try to choose the best images and work them into a shape that pleases them.
They may have had a broad notion of the type of images they were looking for that day, they may have a general social or artistic theme or body of work they are trying to build up. But they didn't necessarily know consciously before they took the shot what they were looking for. Given the resources they would not have been able to build a movie set to build that image.
I must confess, I am such a photographer, and always feel somewhat intimidated when people go around professing an "artistic vision" that they held clearly in their head before they framed the shot, sometimes apparently even before they got where they were going. As it happens I suspect that I am far from alone. And I suspect that MR generally works the same way I do. (He's rather better than I am at it however.) I would also suggest that this is in fact true of many of the great photographers.
I must also say that looking at the portfolios of those who profess to having the higher vision compared to those who simply react visually to what they see, it's really not that clear that their work is any better.
So there is my confession. I sometimes go back to a picture afterwards and crop or make other adjustments because my vision failed me at the time, but nevertheless am often able to "rescue" something that pleases me. Sometimes there just was no "original intent". Sometimes indeed, there was an "original intent" and I messed up the shot, and yet fortuitously there is still something interesting that can be "rescued" from the shot, and occasionally even *gasp* dare I say better than my "original intent".
I have a question for the visionaries: How does the "decisive moment" fit into your photography? I would suggest that it cannot. Do you really have a list of shots that you want to get when you prepare for the day? And if those shots have old carts proceeding down interesting alleyways I would love to see some examples.
I also have a question about the nature of this thing called "original intent": does it actually matter at all? If two photographers take identical images of a scene, one had it all carefully thought out and planned. Took the shot, packed his gear and left. The other happened by just as the first was leaving. Had a look around and saw an interesting shot which he snapped. The two produce the same photograph - is the first any better? If so, why?
And just to stay on theme; the first photographer felt the scene would be best represented in a square format and so brought along his 6x6 camera. The second was using a 3:2 format and felt the best image was a square crop, which he decided later on when looking at it. The two images are identical. Is the first any better?
P.S. To Stephen please do not take this as a personal attack, in this thread you happen to be representative of a particular viewpoint, and my comments are intended in that light.
-
Peripatetic
Not a dirty little secret at all - more a measure of the reality which all pros face (I don't know if that's you or not) on going off on assignment.
Take a normal fashion or, let's say, calendar shoot: there's a requirement to produce a given number of final pages/sheets which get selected from a larger submitted total. No, I certainly don't go looking for a decisive moment as such - I go looking to set up a situation where model and photographer can start playing about with ideas. Once that's established - and sometimes it fails to happen, at great mental cost - the process of shooting around that situation gets underway. Then, there does come that moment when you know you've got it in the bag. After that, the process starts all over again somewhere else. But with respect, all that creative juice is still being channelled through the format of either the layout of the print job or, in my case, as I have been fortunate enough to call the shots in many such cases, through the format of the camera I have chosen to use. But a set format, nonetheless.
I don't say this is everyone's experience of photography and neither do I say it's the only way, but it certainly illustrates the advantage of cutting down on the variables and concentrating on the subject in hand. I find it hard to think of situations where the subject matter is so tightly composed by nature that it won't fit the camera available (unless it happens to be square!), perhaps tight pics of pebbles etc. are a case where this is so - but that's not my bag anyway. I find it very hard to subscribe to the proclaimed views here that the 'subject' is screaming out for a one-off framing and nothing else will do; on the contrary, I believe that framing can be done perfectly well in many different ways, much as the various attempts to play with Michael's original image have shown to one and all. Getting up too close on the so-called subject can take it out of context and utterly remove its significance.
As for the talk about 'narrative' which fills so many pages of photography magazines - do me a favour! Somethings appeals to the photographer, he takes a picture and that's damn well it! Nada mas.
Ciao - Rob C
-
There is a dirty little secret that a lot of photographers have; they go to a location and don't have a fully preconceived and planned image in their heads when they go out shooting. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Like so many aspects of the creative process it isn't "either" "or" but a mixture of all influences. There is planning, there is visualization, there is the the stimulus of the time and place (otherwise what is photography?). Simply reinforces the point once again that there is no point being doctrinaire about any of this, because there is no one way.
-
Like so many aspects of the creative process it isn't "either" "or" but a mixture of all influences. There is planning, there is visualization, there is the the stimulus of the time and place (otherwise what is photography?). Simply reinforces the point once again that there is no point being doctrinaire about any of this, because there is no one way.
The only doctrine is: there is no doctrine.
-
The benefit of returning to a place to photograph is the decond tme you can bring soem real plans with you. Ideas and equipment to do something as planned. Like, arrive before sunup for a sunrise shot, where to put your tripod, which direction to point your camera, etc. A real plan.
I disagree with the no dotrine statement. I say that haphazard shooting gets haphazard results.
Even street shooters have plans. They take a certain camera with certain lens(es). He decides where to go, some times with a particular image in mind, which side of a street to walk down to get a chance to see what he wants to photograph.
Running around trying to "capture the moment" usually means you are running around when the moment happens. Think about it. Why am I moving from here to there? I'm in the wrong place - I think over there may be better. When you get there, someplace else looks better.
Some people believe they can point, zoom, shoot, then fix everything with photoshop, and crop PRIN. Haphazard.
Sure, sometimes something comes up to be photographed that was not fully anticipated. But the prepared photographer, the one with plans about why he is where he is, can and will adapt. A big part of prepared is a plan.
I agree with: "There is a dirty little secret that a lot of photographers have; they go to a location and don't have a fully preconceived and planned image in their heads when they go out shooting." Sometimes the plan and actual condition don't match, but at least the photographer started with a plan. That certainly does not mean he has to stick with that plan to the popint of packing up and going home.
-
I've had some more time to consider this thread and I'm going to backtrack on myself a bit and lend more support to Stephen's original assertion...
In looking back over my dozen or so most successful images, the ones that have sold the most copies or been most appreciated by viewers, none of them are significant crops off the original frame they were captured in. This includes captures from 35mm, 645, 6x7 and 4x5 as well as 3:2 digital. I am not sure how relevant this is to the discussion at hand, but it was an interesting revelation for me...
Cheers,
-
In looking back over my dozen or so most successful images, the ones that have sold the most copies or been most appreciated by viewers, none of them are significant crops off the original frame they were captured in. This includes captures from 35mm, 645, 6x7 and 4x5 as well as 3:2 digital. I am not sure how relevant this is to the discussion at hand, but it was an interesting revelation for me...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am not sure what this means either. It could be don't crop. It could mean plan more (crop in camera) so cropping not as required when printing.
-
I've had some more time to consider this thread and I'm going to backtrack on myself a bit and lend more support to Stephen's original assertion...
In looking back over my dozen or so most successful images, the ones that have sold the most copies or been most appreciated by viewers, none of them are significant crops off the original frame they were captured in. This includes captures from 35mm, 645, 6x7 and 4x5 as well as 3:2 digital. I am not sure how relevant this is to the discussion at hand, but it was an interesting revelation for me...
Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It probably means you are accustomed enough to those aspect ratios to know how to compose effectively within them. That' great, but one cannot generalize therefrom that less cropping makes a better photographer. That's where doctrine sets in and regardless of what howiesmith says I'll take pragmatic common sense over doctrine any day.
-
Okay - I join Mr Penguin and I give up too.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Even street shooters have plans. They take a certain camera with certain lens(es). He decides where to go, some times with a particular image in mind, which side of a street to walk down to get a chance to see what he wants to photograph.
And there, in a side street, he hears a noise, turns around, and sees something else worth shooting ...
I'm not arguing that "no planning is good planning"; but it's not a black-or-white situation, either.
Experienced photographers are probably better at catching special moments than n00bs, but even experienced photographers can be spontaneous.
Apart from that, I'd just like to quote the colonel: "Stop it! This is silly!"
-
I agree that when capturing, we should try and use the maximum area of the sensor available to us.
I also agree there is no point saving/printing distracting or otherwise undesirable elements in the image.
Corollary; leave at least one side full length when possible. And yet I agree that even that is not always possible -- like when the subject is too far away for your longest lens -- but feel one should at least strive for it when it is possible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99025\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you. That should be all that needs to be said on the subject, so I will abstain from any further debate with the "one shape fits all" dogmatists and their Procrustean approach.
P. S. a Definition:
Procrustean |pr??kr?st??n; pr?-| adjective (esp. of a framework or system) enforcing uniformity or conformity without regard to natural variation or individuality : a fixed Procrustean rule.
Read the legend of Prucrustes for some fun!
-
Well, I usually just sit down and make sure the toilet paper roll has at least thirty yards left on it and that I can reach it. Then I re-read War and Peace. The rest is history.
That's the art of crapping in a toilet, or, if you will, in a nutshell. The art of cropping is something different altogether but, there are, for sure, no doctrines required on any of this . Many of the greats crop, many of the greats don't. Many hobbyists do or do not and will continue to, too.
I have to say that if you let the rules lock you into a groove of following the rules then you are missing lots of fun. Sometimes they help you and sometimes they keep you.
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o274/rentChicago/Cropping_Picasso1.jpg)
-
....This includes captures from 35mm, 645, 6x7 and 4x5 as well as 3:2 digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But what about us poor sods trying to do everything with just one DSLR? Do we have to decide when we buy our camera which aspect ratio we want for all our photography? Or are we revealed as just not serious enough by not owning multiple cameras (and lens systems) matched to desired aspect ratios? And in digital there are not a lot of sensor options other than 4:3 and 3:2: are panoramas now only allowed by stitching, and 8x10 or 16x20 portrait prints no longer allowed?
-
But what about us poor sods trying to do everything with just one DSLR? Do we have to decide when we buy our camera which aspect ratio we want for all our photography? Or are we revealed as just not serious enough by not owning multiple cameras (and lens systems) matched to desired aspect ratios? And in digital there are not a lot of sensor options other than 4:3 and 3:2: are panoramas now only allowed by stitching, and 8x10 or 16x20 portrait prints no longer allowed?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"Thank you. That should be all that needs to be said on the subject, so I will abstain from any further debate with the "one shape fits all" dogmatists and their Procrustean approach." That didn't last long.
A plan is still the better way to go, even if you never get to that plan or change it frequeeently. This notion likely comes ffrom experience taking photos for clients. I have yet to have a client that wants a photo of whatever whim I have. They usually have very firm ideas about content and size. That doesn't mean as the shoot progresses, things don't sometimes change. But at least the day started with a plan.
Even the fashion photographer starts with a plan. He knows the shoot will be in a certain room, with models at some distance, he has ideas about lights, etc. And size and shape of the final image are sometimes dictated by the client.
I watched the Super Bowl yesterday. The quarterback didn't just tell the center to hike the ball and I'll figure out what to do next. The huddle is a planning session. Plans may change according to the defence, but at least there was a plan to start with.
-
Let's look at one of HCB's most famous photos, the guy jumping over a puddle, below.
[attachment=1760:attachment]
This shot represents recurring symmetries all over the place. It was a stroke of luck. Aparently, the shot was taken through a gap in a fence. HCB didn't even have time to look through the viewfinder. Just pointed the camera and pressed the shutter at the right moment. It was one of the few photos he cropped, apparently because of some vignetting caused by the fence posts.
I'm reminded here of one of Ansel Adams' most celebrated shot, 'Moonrise over Hernandez', which wasn't planned at all, Howard, as you well know.
In photography, sometimes we have the opportunity to plan and sometimes we don't. I think it would be a reasonable case to make that, those occasions when we didn't have the opportunity to plan, post cropping is more common. When we have the opportunity to plan, post cropping might be seen as an indication of incompetence.
It might be the case that users of miniature cameras such as 35mm, are more obsessed with resolution and therefore try harder to maximise their real estate; to search for compositions that fit the aspect ratio, to avoid cropping. I'm certainly aware of such internal pressures. I have been for a long time.
When I bought a 5400 dpi scanner for 35mm, some time ago, and began scanning a bunch of Kodachrome slides I'd taken 40 years ago, for the third time, which were still only slightly faded, I had a sort of epiphany. Why should I be so concerned about extracting the maximum detail from these slides when the Kodak cardbord frame was obscuring up to 1.5mm on each side. There were a few shots where I appeared to have sliced off someone's fingers or toes. Trying to reflect on my level of awareness 40 years ago, and I don't believe I would have done this. I ripped off all the cardboard Kodak frames and discovered I was right. I had in fact carefully framed each shot to maximise the real estate; and that was with just 2 lenses, a standard 50mm and a telephoto 135mm.
I tried to buy some slide frames that are 24mmx36mm, but did not succeed. The best I could do was get some plastic frames that obscured about 1mm on each side. I used a Stanley knife to pare off that obtrusive 1mm and reframed all the slides I wanted to scan.
Jack Flesher's point about his most successful photos not being cropped, rings a bell here. I know Jack is rather obsessed with resolution, as I am. Anyone who is obsessed with resolution does not want to post crop if it can be avoided.
Clearly, there are unavoidable circumstances where cropping is necessary.
(1) You don't have a sufficiently long lens.
(2) You don't have time to stuff around like a gentleman.
(3) You are in an unplanned situation where it's the moment that is paramount.
(4) The subject simply doesn't lend itself to the aspect ratio of your camera, the most basic example of which would be the passport photo in relation to 35mm.
-
Let's look at one of HCB's most famous photos, the guy jumping over a puddle, below.
[attachment=1760:attachment]
I'm reminded here of one of Ansel Adams' most celebrated shot, 'Moonrise over Hernandez', which wasn't planned at all, Howard, as you well know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99319\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, I am pretty sure I never said accidents, even happy ones, don't happen. They do, just not as often as I would like. I would guess even Adams had more well executed plans than happy accidents.
-
I just had a thought about another visual art - painting. Painters as far as I know, select a canvas (size, aspect ratio) while planning the painting. They paint to fit the image onto thecancass. Also as far as I know, they start with a plan, rather than just pick up a brush and start painting. I assume the plan may change from time to time, but never outside the lines. And I would be surprised if the orange crate became a canoe.
-
"Thank you. That should be all that needs to be said on the subject, so I will abstain from any further debate with the "one shape fits all" dogmatists and their Procrustean approach." That didn't last long.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was not debating a "one shape fits all" [corrected later] dogmatist.
Firstly, Jack Flesher is not advocating that "one shape fits all"; he is saying that he is in the position to get the various different shapes he wants by using different cameras.
Secondly, I was not debating: I just asked for advice as to how to deal with my "single camera poverty"!
P. S. What do clients have to do with what I was saying? I am a hobbyist, not a commercial photographer. And by the way, what would you recommend if my imaginary clients ask for prints of different shapes (maybe 8x10's of some portraits, 8x12's of a group photo) when I am working with a single camera? I know many professionals who only only one format of camera. (Again, I am just asking, not debating!)
-
P. S. What do clients have to do with what I was saying? I am a hobbyist, not a commercial photographer. And by the way, what would you recommend if my imaginary clients ask for prints of different shapes (maybe 8x10's of some portraits, 8x12's of a group photo) when I am working with a single camera? I know many professionals who only only one format of camera. (Again, I am just asking, not debating!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99324\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would not attempt to give you advice about how to deal with your clients, imaginary or not, or what you would/should do. I would give my what they asked for if I could. I have no problem with cropping either in the camera of elsewhere. If I couldn't give my client the photo they expected, I would give their money back and help them find another photographer.
-
Firstly, Jack Flesher is not advocating that "one shape fits all"; he is saying that he is in the position to get the various different shapes he wants by using different cameras.
Actually, that is not accurate: I was referring to images I have taken over time -- and during that time I used a variety of cameras to capture them. IOW, I used the aspect ratio of the camera I had with me at the time to frame the best image I could for the scene I was trying to capture. Unfortunately, I have never had an "endless supply" of capture devices at my disposal!
The point I was attempting to make was that I have historically used the frame "I had with me at the time" to generate most of my more successful images...
Cheers,
-
Actually, that is not accurate: I was referring to images I have taken over time -- and during that time I used a variety of cameras to capture them. IOW, I used the aspect ratio of the camera I had with me at the time to frame the best image I could for the scene I was trying to capture. Unfortunately, I have never had an "endless supply" of capture devices at my disposal!
The point I was attempting to make was that I have historically used the frame "I had with me at the time" to generate most of my more successful images...
Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I used the Hasselblad 205 camera (square format) I actually started seeing images/compositions that fit that format. Many of my images worked in the square and would not work to crop. I most always cropped in-camera.
Now back to rectangular images I have more choices but tend to do most of my cropping with the camera. Occasionally though, cropping can enhance images and would not dismiss this option.
Whatever helps one to get the most out of their images is ok by me.
-
When I used ... [square format] I actually started seeing images/compositions that fit that format. Many of my images worked in the square and would not work to crop. I most always cropped in-camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Me too. I suspect a painter that buys a 12-pack of suqare canvases will produce about a dozen square paintings.
I have a clear overlay in my view finder that is a bit smaller than 6x6 so that I automatically give myself some wiggle room.
-
In my opinion, cropping is a visual tool, in the same category as burning or dodging. It can be overused, but it can also make an image stronger. I don't see it as an automatic sign of poor capture technique or poor visualization (although it CAN be indicative of those things, just as having to make tons of tonal adjustments in printing CAN be, but isn't necessarily so). I like to print big, so I try to fill my frame with the subject to the extent that I can. I can't always do it (don't always have the right lens, physical constraints, blah, blah, blah) and there are times when I'll visualize an image as being square and having only a 2:3 camera, I'll make the shot knowing that I intend to crop it. I agree with the posters who have pointed out that edges are important and how we read them has a strong influence on the overall impact of a photo. If my approach bugs you from a philosophical standpoint, that's fine with me. Not everyone is going to like my work (cropped or not).
ANY technique can be overused or applied badly, resulting in a boring show or one I dislike. When I hang a show (or when I look at one), it doesn't bother me at all to have pieces in different formats if the overall visual effect works.
Finally, this argument (the one about whether or not cropping is a mortal sin) is as old as the hills. I've been hearing it for as long as I've been talking to other photographers, and I doubt if anyone is ever going to agree on much of anything .
--
Daniel Bell
-
The point I was attempting to make was that I have historically used the frame "I had with me at the time" to generate most of my more successful images...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the clarification. But I have to ask: what do you think you would do if you had a 24x36mm format camera in hand and needed to take a "head shot"? Would you make it fit 3:2 shape and suggest something like an 8"x12" print, despite usual aesthetic preferences of a somewhat squarer shape like 8x10" for such images? I know I also find myself trying to compose to fit the frame in hand, especially with 35mm film where my initial framing often has dead space at the sides, but that it does not always work.
Looking at the works of Ansel Adams (who worked with cameras in aspect ratios 3:2, 7:5, 4:3, 5:4 and 1:1) I see an intermediate tendency: print formats tend to follow film formats to some extent, with prints from 4x5 and 8x10 cameras typically squarer than those from 5x7 or 35mm cameras, but there is also a significant amount of shape changing in the cropping. In fact, I see a similar trend in all my photographic books: a substantial proportion of images from 24x36mm film are cropped to various shapes somewhat different than 3:2. Most often less wide shapes such as 7:5 or 5:4, but with some going in the more "panoramic" direction.
-
... I have to ask: what do you think you would do if you had a 24x36mm format camera in hand and needed to take a "head shot"? Would you make it fit 3:2 shape and suggest something like an 8"x12" print, despite usual aesthetic preferences of a somewhat squarer shape like 8x10" for such images?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99352\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe put a hat on them to make their head w/hat more 2:3,
or modify their head shape with a hammer.
Or if the person had an 8x12" frame and really wanted a portrait to fit it, explain the effects and give them what they wanted. There may be many reasons a person would want a print shaped differently than their photographer.
-
There may be many reasons a person would want a print shaped differently than their photographer.
I certainly wouldn't want a print shaped like my photographer, he was a bit too chubby.
-
I certainly wouldn't want a print shaped like my photographer, he was a bit too chubby.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Let me change the quote: "There may be many reasons a person would want a print shaped differently than their photographer's choice."
Sorry about that.
-
what do you think you would do if you had a 24x36mm format camera in hand and needed to take a "head shot"?
I think that is a perfect example of when I might consider cropping my DSLR to 4:3 or 5:4 -- but as I stated earlier, I would strive to fill up the 24mm dimension with relevant image data so nothing needed to be cropped out of those sides AND most likely include more neck and shoulders than I thought I needed for the final image to give me the most flexibility with after-the-fact cropping
-
I just had a thought about another visual art - painting. Painters as far as I know, select a canvas (size, aspect ratio) while planning the painting. They paint to fit the image onto thecancass. Also as far as I know, they start with a plan, rather than just pick up a brush and start painting. I assume the plan may change from time to time, but never outside the lines. And I would be surprised if the orange crate became a canoe.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There was an interesting TV series I saw recently hosted by the Australian ex-pat painter/entertainer, Rolf Harris, where each week a small group of contemporary painters were invited to paint a well known celebrity. The group of painters, usually about 3, would be different each week as well as the celebrity. The painters would begin their portraits in the TV studio, then take a number of snapshots of their subject (with camera), go home and finish the painting to be presented the following week to the viewers and the elebrity who would make the difficult choice as to which he/she liked best.
Quite often, a painter would change plans. Scrap his/her initial effort and start again. Considering the long, deliberative process of painting and the many corrections that are often made along the way before the painting is finished, I think it hardly surprising that an 'art' photographer might have second thoughts about a mere cropping issue.
Some of you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.
-
I watched the Super Bowl yesterday. The quarterback didn't just tell the center to hike the ball and I'll figure out what to do next.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You must not have been watching the Chicago offense.
I just had a thought about another visual art - painting. Painters as far as I know, select a canvas (size, aspect ratio) WHILE [emphasis added] planning the painting. They paint to fit the image onto thecancass. Also as far as I know, they start with a plan, rather than just pick up a brush and start painting. I assume the plan may change from time to time, but never outside the lines. And I would be surprised if the orange crate became a canoe.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm primarily a painter. The key word in your notion is "while." I actually paint on furniture-grade plywood. I work out a painting in advance with pencil and paper, drawing little thumbnails of the concept. Sometimes it's easy, and a particular landscape will dictate a particular approach or aspect ratio. Sometimes it's more difficult. In any case, I buy sheets of plywood and cut it with a table saw and then finish the edges, and coat it with gesso, and have, a few times, gone back and recut after trying to work out a particular painting. So while I always work in rectangles, the actual aspect ratio is almost infinitely mallable.
JC
-
I think that is a perfect example of when I might consider cropping my DSLR to 4:3 or 5:4 -- but as I stated earlier, I would strive to fill up the 24mm dimension with relevant image data ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
makes sense to me of course.
But I am posting to refer back to the photo in post #70 in this thread by Pete JF.
For those who do not know, the image in the marked crop is the rather famous final product. Only years after I had seen that portrait many times did I see an exhibit which shows the original (medium format) frame from which it was made.
What atrocious planning! Not only did the photographer end up cropping massively, wasting so many "silver halide pixels", but he even got the orientation wrong, and had to rotate the crop.
Never mind: we can all make our own choices about if, when, where and how to crop.
At least this thread has not indulged the silliness of suggesting that images must all conform to the shapes and sizes of available printing papers. (Very few of my B&W prints from 24x36mm film on on 8"x10" paper end up either 3:2 or 5:4 shaped.)