Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: deeyas on July 16, 2010, 11:02:20 am
-
Since our host has been posting some neat street shots on the front page, I thought I'd share another one of my recent ones. Comments/critique welcome.
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ENMrGq9-nds/TD9jb_LT-sI/AAAAAAAABb8/inA3BHc5IyM/s720/highres_16438561.jpeg)
-
Deeyas, Good shot, though it'd have been better if whatever that is on the left side hadn't been there. The problem with that intrusion is that it's impossible to tell what it is. Looks as if it might be another girl in shorts and a frilly blouse, though the bulge of the blouse makes her look pregnant. My other criticism is that the colors look muddy. That's the problem with shooting in that kind of light. How about this as an alternative?:
[attachment=23183:highres_16438561.jpeg]
But let me go back to my first statement: good shot! It's refreshing to see something other than the kind of snaps we've been seeing for the past month: "what I did on my vacation" type tourist pictures followed by "criticisms" consisting of "I like it" or "it doesn't do anything for me." Bravo! and keep shooting this kind of stuff.
-
Deeyas, Good shot, though it'd have been better if whatever that is on the left side hadn't been there. The problem with that intrusion is that it's impossible to tell what it is. Looks as if it might be another girl in shorts and a frilly blouse, though the bulge of the blouse makes her look pregnant. My other criticism is that the colors look muddy. That's the problem with shooting in that kind of light.
Thanks, Russ! I see your point about the intrusion on the left. It is the butt of another girl... Although if she were pregnant, that would really add to the drama! I had to include a part of her in the frame since that was the scene I walked in on...and moving to find another angle would have alerted them of my presence. The light is pretty harsh - there were 3 sources: the neon light, a tungsten right above the girls, and an orange halogen street lamp. This along with my uncalibrated monitor maybe causing the colors to be muddy. I did think of B&W but feel the neon sign colors (in this case) add to the photo. I do have another one from the sequence which I will post soon. But once people have been alerted of your presence, its not quite the same!
-
...since that was the scene I walked in on...and moving to find another angle would have alerted them of my presence...
...
But once people have been alerted of your presence, its not quite the same!
Deeyas, How well I know. I've lost an awful lot of otherwise good street shots because the people in them were too alert. Just had that happen this morning with this guy. I walked past him and waited, looking in a shop window. But when I carefully swung the camera he saw me. First he tried to duck but then realized he couldn't. After I made the shot he wanted me to buy him breakfast. When he ducked he got behind some crap on the left side and I had to crop it out. Drat. Could have been a pretty good street shot.
[attachment=23186:Manitou.jpg]
-
Next time, ask Miss Butt to move.
-
Here's another version ... with a wider view that shows what is on the left.
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ENMrGq9-nds/TEDsAunRcFI/AAAAAAAABdo/Zio1oeHnTcM/s720/Open-4784-4.jpg)
-
In my humble view the second one, if rendered in colour, would be brilliant.
The writing "open", with its double, triple of quadruple sense in the context, is crucial to the image. You can read this image as an ironic image à la Cartier-Bresson (the way I saw it at first) or you can read it as a picture depicting social problems, and this ambiguity adds interest to the picture.
Cheers
Fabrizio
-
Here's another version ... with a wider view that shows what is on the left.
Deeyas, Splendid! Good shooting. The balance of tones between the girl's clothing and the OPEN sign is good. So is the ocean of darkness that the smoking girl looks into -- both literally and figuratively.
-
For me the b/w version of the cropped first image posted does it.
The smoke is a plus and the arm of "Mrs. Butt" doesn't get in the way.
The crop also drags you more into the scene.
For me it was clear the defocused something is the back of another
girl standing there. It didn't disturb or irritate me.
The back of the other girl being defocused also suggests you are very near to the scene
which is a great plus, not a minus !
It also adds a somewhat voyeuristic perspective into the scene,
which is appropriate in this case and adds expressive value which is not necessarily so.
Great shot!
Thanks for sharing.
-
It's refreshing to see something other than the kind of snaps we've been seeing for the past month: "what I did on my vacation" type tourist pictures followed by "criticisms" consisting of "I like it" or "it doesn't do anything for me."
As a recent submitter for critique of some pictures I took while on vacation in Norway, I was hurt by this comment. I have delayed my response until I thought I could respond objectively, not emotionally.
I am a hobby photographer, not a professional, and I sincerely wish to improve. I have noted over the past couple of years that the responses to my requests for critiques have been more positive, suggesting that I really am improving. I have been encouraged by this. In particular I was most grafeful for a recent positive comment from Kurt Gittings about some photographs I took at the Art Gallery of Ontario. I have seen this avenue as a way of getting valuable feedback that would help me improve.
With respect to my recent submission of photographs from my vacation in Norway, I was aware that many of the pictures I took, but did not submit, were simply "vacation snaps" of no value to anyone except me and my wife in preseriving memories. I had thought, however, that some which I had taken more trouble over were better than the rest and I sought feedback that would help me. I appreciated the comments I did get, which were helpful.
Russ's comment on this post, while perhaps not aimed specifically at my submission, gave the disparaging message that some high level of competence is a prerequisite for asking for critiques/comments, and that submissions such as mine are simple stuff that is beneath the attention of the "real" photographers who inhabit this site. The only purpose this serves is to inhibit me, and perhaps others, from posting images for comment in the future. Perhaps that is what Russ intended.
I do understand that this site is aimed at very proficient, experienced and talented photographers, and that I have not yet reached that rank and perhaps will not. Nevertheless, encouragement is to be preferred to condescension. I had hoped that I could get encouragement here and had understood this to be one of the objectives of the site.
Russ, I think you have been disappointingly "snotty", but if I am being over-sensitive or have misunderstood you, I do apologize.
Best wishes
Tony
-
Tony, I'm sorry my comment hurt your feelings, but it seems to me that for the past couple months we've mostly seen tourist pictures -- or their equivalent -- on User Critiques. No, my comment wasn't aimed specifically at your Norway pictures. It wasn't even really aimed at tourist pictures, but rather at a class of picture I call "tourist pictures."
There's nothing wrong with tourist pictures. Some of my family members used to bring back 35mm Kodachromes of their vacations, and when I visited, sit me down and give me an extended slideshow of the places they'd been while on vacation. The pictures always were of scenery -- sometimes with a building or two in them, but rarely, if ever, a human being to give a bit of the flavor of the place. The colors were unbelievable -- Kodachrome always raised color saturation far beyond what you actually perceive -- and the scenes were pleasant.
But as you pointed out, the intention in tourist pictures is to make a personal record of the trip -- one you can turn back to later on and say, "Wasn't that a wonderful vacation..." To the involuntary viewer of the slides, who wasn't on the vacation trip, who intends never to come near the locations in the slides, and who couldn't care less about photographs of scenery in general, that kind of slideshow is a sleep aid.
Let's go back to your Norway pictures. Yes, they're very pleasant. But when you say you'd like feedback that would help you, you have to understand that the feedbackers need some indication of what you're trying to achieve. What were you trying to show when you made that shot of a pleasant Norwegian town? That it's pleasant? The third picture in that series is a fairly good abstraction. Was that what you intended?
You say that you're a hobby photographer. So am I. So what? "Professionals" don't do the kind of photography you do and I do. They do weddings, debutant balls, and other intensely boring things, like product photography and fashion (sorry Rob). And I take issue with the idea that this site is aimed ("exclusively" was the implication) at "very proficient, experienced and talented photographers." Look back through the postings for the past several months and you'll find that most of the postings are from "hobby photographers" just like you and me.
It seems to me that the whole purpose of a photograph is to convey something important to the viewer. I'll go beyond that and say that the finest examples of visual art, photographs included, leave the viewer with a transcendental experience. I'm sure a number of people on here who've read my previous head-rattlings are convinced I dislike landscape photographs. That's not true, but I do believe that landscape is one of the most difficult forms in which to produce the kind of transcendental experience we all should be after. Constable and Turner occasionally could bring it off, but I don't know of any photographer who's been able to do the same thing -- not even Ansel.
Tony, how many books of photographs do you have in your library? How much time do you spend looking at them -- critically. How many of those books contain tourist snapshots? What do they contain? Is there a particular genre that interests you? Landscape? Street? My personal opinion, which I've expressed many times on LuLa, is that the best way to learn and improve your work is to spend time with the work of the masters: people like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Walker Evans, Steve McCurry, Robert Frank, Gene Smith, Paul Strand and, yes, even Ansel Adams. But for that to be productive you first have to decide what genre appeals to you most, and you have to decide what you want to achieve when you pick up your camera.
Again, I'm sorry to have offended you, and I've probably offended you again with this reply, but I really am tired of the tourist snapshots I'm seeing, for which the only reasonable "critiques" can be things like "I like it." "Good shot." "It doesn't do anything for me." "The steeple is tilted." "etc." Happily, today Seamus Finn came up with a contemplative Irishman who's about to set his beard on fire. And on this very thread Sayeed posted a couple shots that illustrate the unfortunate world of the Asian bar girl. Neither is a "tourist shot."
-
I was a member of a camera club for six years and participated in and looked at competitions. Most images were the same in respect to "seen it all before" and I suspect that the judges felt the same. They were obliged to comment on them however. What the experienced club members and the judges were looking for was something out of the ordinary to "excite" them. When you saw something that you really liked there was an emotional and dare I say it a physical reaction, sometimes an intake of breadth. The long time posters on here probably feel the same way and look for something out of the ordinary, otherwise they will ignore what they see or give the stock replies such as nice etc etc. Occasionally they will give a damning assessment. I am a member of another website on photography which in the main is a good site but is struggling to keep members posting. My opinion is that it is struggling because of too many tourist type images being posted and the site looks like it is mainly for photo assessment. It is like walking a tightrope in getting the balance right. I found out through being a camera club member you have to be thick skinned with respect to showing your images to the public. I think that Russ was broadly correct in what he was saying.
-
Tony, I'm sorry my comment hurt your feelings, but it seems to me that for the past couple months we've mostly seen tourist pictures -- or their equivalent -- on User Critiques. No, my comment wasn't aimed specifically at your Norway pictures. It wasn't even really aimed at tourist pictures, but rather at a class of picture I call "tourist pictures."
There's nothing wrong with tourist pictures. Some of my family members used to bring back 35mm Kodachromes of their vacations, and when I visited, sit me down and give me an extended slideshow of the places they'd been while on vacation. The pictures always were of scenery -- sometimes with a building or two in them, but rarely, if ever, a human being to give a bit of the flavor of the place. The colors were unbelievable -- Kodachrome always raised color saturation far beyond what you actually perceive -- and the scenes were pleasant.
But as you pointed out, the intention in tourist pictures is to make a personal record of the trip -- one you can turn back to later on and say, "Wasn't that a wonderful vacation..." To the involuntary viewer of the slides, who wasn't on the vacation trip, who intends never to come near the locations in the slides, and who couldn't care less about photographs of scenery in general, that kind of slideshow is a sleep aid.
Let's go back to your Norway pictures. Yes, they're very pleasant. But when you say you'd like feedback that would help you, you have to understand that the feedbackers need some indication of what you're trying to achieve. What were you trying to show when you made that shot of a pleasant Norwegian town? That it's pleasant? The third picture in that series is a fairly good abstraction. Was that what you intended?
You say that you're a hobby photographer. So am I. So what? "Professionals" don't do the kind of photography you do and I do. They do weddings, debutant balls, and other intensely boring things, like product photography and fashion (sorry Rob). And I take issue with the idea that this site is aimed ("exclusively" was the implication) at "very proficient, experienced and talented photographers." Look back through the postings for the past several months and you'll find that most of the postings are from "hobby photographers" just like you and me.
It seems to me that the whole purpose of a photograph is to convey something important to the viewer. I'll go beyond that and say that the finest examples of visual art, photographs included, leave the viewer with a transcendental experience. I'm sure a number of people on here who've read my previous head-rattlings are convinced I dislike landscape photographs. That's not true, but I do believe that landscape is one of the most difficult forms in which to produce the kind of transcendental experience we all should be after. Constable and Turner occasionally could bring it off, but I don't know of any photographer who's been able to do the same thing -- not even Ansel.
Tony, how many books of photographs do you have in your library? How much time do you spend looking at them -- critically. How many of those books contain tourist snapshots? What do they contain? Is there a particular genre that interests you? Landscape? Street? My personal opinion, which I've expressed many times on LuLa, is that the best way to learn and improve your work is to spend time with the work of the masters: people like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Walker Evans, Steve McCurry, Robert Frank, Gene Smith, Paul Strand and, yes, even Ansel Adams. But for that to be productive you first have to decide what genre appeals to you most, and you have to decide what you want to achieve when you pick up your camera.
Again, I'm sorry to have offended you, and I've probably offended you again with this reply, but I really am tired of the tourist snapshots I'm seeing, for which the only reasonable "critiques" can be things like "I like it." "Good shot." "It doesn't do anything for me." "The steeple is tilted." "etc." Happily, today Seamus Finn came up with a contemplative Irishman who's about to set his beard on fire. And on this very thread Sayeed posted a couple shots that illustrate the unfortunate world of the Asian bar girl. Neither is a "tourist shot."
Many interesting statements.
Lu-La embrasse both pro and amateur photographers. Sometimes the frontier between the 2 is narrow and difficult to see, sometimes it is clear.
The amateur photographer is probably the most interesting part in the sense that they shoot first for passion AND with no time equation. But the amateur is also where the biggest differences in experience and talent is found. There are real artists, and also many week-end shooters.
The pro are not specially artists or genious, but the technical skills is much more constant. Less unconsistent works.
Russ spoke about Rob. That's interesting. From an observer, and knowing that I have great respect and admiration for both, they are exactly on a symetrical position.
Russ is the arquetype of the amateur photographer, passionate, can't stop shooting, very good critics...Rob is the arquetype of the professional photographer, when retired he shoot much less, have harder time to find a reason to do it...
Both Russ and Rob know a lot and make great pictures. They are just in a different approach. But...all the paths lead to Rome don't they?
But Russ made his living piloting planes and shooting for passion, Rob earned his money shooting models, his source of incomes. That plays a huge role in the way both live and feel photography. One is not better than the other, they are just different experiences. But Rome is the final image and as I said, both paths leads to that.
But Rob had a human experience with his models, not only photographic, and when the career ends a big part of the equation is missing and that is why shooting wals, doors or tourists is not the same at all. I can underrstand this feeling of "something important is missing". Photography after all is just a medium. But for the amateur, photography is the pretext itself.
It is true that I also miss more human shots here. But hey, we are basically in a landscape website. Curiously, Michael is one of the most active in street photography. Maybe he should rename the website and call it the luminous boulevard.
Anyway, I will maybe appear a little bit provocative for some, but...landscape is the easyest genre to acheive decent result, and agreeing with Russ, the most difficult to acheive exeptional results.
So there is really no surprise if we see so many week-end shots. Nicely boring and repetitives.
I am not that often recently in this section so I do not know about the latest pics, but I understand Russ anyway.
Make good fashion shots require a minimum of skills that many do not have and shoot lands, fences and seas. (skills that are not only photographics but psychologicals and socials).
Nature has no ego, no humors, no time table.
To me, the reason why we see so much "tourist imagery" is exactly what Russ pointed: "what do you want to say"? and that is what I miss most in many landscapes. Very nice lights, textures, views etc...but...what do you wanted to say?
Because photography is a language and language is made for a purpose. Most of the time the purpose lacks if not a vague idea to catch a beauty in the instant given. (that would be enough if clearly expressed)
Put any gizmo with a compact on a moutain summit on the right time and he will be back home with some keepers. Nature likes you to photograph, and always play the game fairly. And you have many tries.
Put the same person in the middle of Chicago and it will be another story. Street is one try, one shot. You got it or you do not. There is no averageness.
Landscape photographers, even experienced will see how their amont of keepers will dramatically reduced in a street environement.
And human is not like nature. Human is moody, not ready that you take a shot. Trees and clouds are perfectly safed.
Fashion is not as easy as it looks and sometimes notice a certain condesendence from some members to that genre. First you have to work in team (at least 2) with time and money factor. A model, even professional and well paid is a human being with all the complexity involved without talking about the arrogance and uncompetence of many AD. Then, you have to think about the client, going out of your self.
Reportage, social, street, fashion, arquitecture, art...I consider all those genres much more challenging at least to a basic level than landscape.
Landscape is difficult, only to be really really good.
IMHO.
Ps: Russ, there is a Turner one in the Prado this summer. But I won't go because I hate to cue.
-
Sayeed, Congratulations on the Merit Award in Color Magazine. Interesting stuff.
-
I give up.
Spent a while writing an answer to Fred and Russ only to have a notice telling me I had already submitted the post when I most certainly had not!
On switching out of and then re-entering this site, I discovered that part of the post I was writing had been posted!
I'm afraid I can't hack this sort of nonsense - I try my best and am not prepared to see it mucked up, write blind or any of the other stuff.
I shall probably return when this is all sorted out, which I hope it will be.
Rob C
-
An interesting discussion.
Last spring I bought a day with Mr. Reichmann at his now-closed gallery in Toronto, his Printing 1-on-1 deal. We did a lot of things that day, but one question I had was how much time MR spent on each image in the process of readying it for print, and the reply was 20 minutes on average, and half of that time was deciding how to crop the image. Part of the "what am I trying to say" process.
Looking at the color version, my temptation would be to crop in from the left side, probably to the point that the woman's left hand is now butting up against the left crop. That eliminates the second woman entirely. When I put a piece of paper over that side of the image on my monitor so I can see it cropped in that manner, now all of a sudden the exhalation of cigarette smoke from the woman's mouth is much more evocative. And for me, evocative of film noir movies from the 1940's. A lovely image, so deep and dark.
It works for me, but if that is not the message the photographer is trying to convey, well, that is really the question, isn't it?
-
You say that you're a hobby photographer. So am I. So what? "Professionals" don't do the kind of photography you do and I do. They do weddings, debutant balls, and other intensely boring things, like product photography and fashion....
Okay, I need to take issue with that statement. The list of photographers who relied on steady income from their day job as "professionals" so they could afford to make fine art is as long as my arm.
Here are a few that come to mind immediately: Michael Kenna, Joel Meyerowitz, Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Robert Mapplethorpe. ! could dig up many more. Being a successful commercial photographer hardly precludes one from making great art. One the contrary, I would argue that a professional's work ethic and attention to detail generally helps.
-
Okay, I need to take issue with that statement. The list of photographers who relied on steady income from their day job as "professionals" so they could afford to make fine art is as long as my arm.
Here are a few that come to mind immediately: Michael Kenna, Joel Meyerowitz, Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Robert Mapplethorpe. ! could dig up many more. Being a successful commercial photographer hardly precludes one from making great art. One the contrary, I would argue that a professional's work ethic and attention to detail generally helps.
Pop, I was really surprised it took this long for someone to take issue with that. I never said being a commercial photographer precludes one from making good art. Neither does being a plumber. My favorite guy who did that was Elliott Erwitt. He did what he called his "personal best" when he put down his commercial gear for the day and picked up his Leica. What I said was that photographing things like weddings and debutant balls is intensly boring. I'll stick by that statement.
-
...20 minutes on average, and half of that time was deciding how to crop the image. Part of the "what am I trying to say" process.
Mark, As far as Cartier-Bresson was concerned, and I heartily agree, if you don't know what you're trying to say at the instant you frame the picture in the camera, you're lost, and no amount of cropping is going to salvage the wreckage.
-
I give up.
I shall probably return when this is all sorted out, which I hope it will be.
Rob C
Rob, I just finished doing several posts where the type ducked beneath the frame and I was astonished to find that it worked. Give it another try.
-
Pop, I was really surprised it took this long for someone to take issue with that. I never said being a commercial photographer precludes one from making good art. Neither does plumbing. My favorite guy who did that was Elliott Erwitt. He did what he called his "personal best" when he put down his commercial gear for the day and picked up his Leica. What I said was that photographing things like weddings and debutant balls is intensly boring. I'll stick by that statement.
Maybe I read your post wrong, but it looked like you said that professionals don't take the same kinds of photographs as non-professionals.
-
They don't when they're doing their "professional" shooting. But once they take up a camera to do what, for lack of a better term I'll call "fine art" photography they stop being professionals and become amateurs -- in the real meaning of the word: one who does something out of love for it. The trouble's with the term "professional." A pro is a guy who does what he does to make a buck. The most incompetent professional in the world is still a "professional" as long as he's doing what he's doing in order to make a living. Down the street may be an "amateur" who's infinitely more competent and knowledgeable than the "professional," but the guy's still an "amateur" since he's not shooting to make money. What I'm saying is that when people talk about learning from a "professional" I always have to stop myself from laughing. "Professional" doesn't imply knowledge or competence.
-
They don't when they're doing their "professional" shooting. But once they take up a camera to do what, for lack of a better term I'll call "fine art" photography they stop being professionals and become amateurs -- in the real meaning of the word: one who does something out of love for it. The trouble's with the term "professional." A pro is a guy who does what he does to make a buck. The most incompetent professional in the world is still a "professional" as long as he's doing what he's doing in order to make a living. Down the street may be an "amateur" who's infinitely more competent and knowledgeable than the "professional," but the guy's still an "amateur" since he's not shooting to make money. What I'm saying is that when people talk about learning from a "professional" I always have to stop myself from laughing. "Professional" doesn't imply knowledge or competence.
Of course, there are hacks in any profession. If you take the term "amateur" in its broadest sense, then any professional who loves his work is both a professional and an amateur.
-
Mark, As far as Cartier-Bresson was concerned, and I heartily agree, if you don't know what you're trying to say at the instant you frame the picture in the camera, you're lost, and no amount of cropping is going to salvage the wreckage.
Pardon my ignorance, but what does cropping & knowing what you are trying to say have to do with each other?
-
I give up.
Spent a while writing an answer to Fred and Russ only to have a notice telling me I had already submitted the post when I most certainly had not!
On switching out of and then re-entering this site, I discovered that part of the post I was writing had been posted!
I'm afraid I can't hack this sort of nonsense - I try my best and am not prepared to see it mucked up, write blind or any of the other stuff.
I shall probably return when this is all sorted out, which I hope it will be.
Rob C
Rob,
try typing in notepad or word and copy and paste your reply into the Quick Reply. Less chance of being caught out. Maybe it was the moderator censoring your reply as you were typing? LOL
-
Rob,
try typing in notepad or word and copy and paste your reply into the Quick Reply. Less chance of being caught out. Maybe it was the moderator censoring your reply as you were typing? LOL
Or try investing in a browser that works, i.e., any browser other than Internet Exploiter. Here are some that I have found useful:
Firefox (price: free)
Opera (price: free)
Chrome (price: free)
Safari (price: free)
If none of these are in your price range, I'll lend you the difference. ;D
Eric
-
Of course, there are hacks in any profession.
Pop, If you walk past the local photographer's shops in most towns you'll discover that there seems to be an unusually large number of hacks in "professional" photography -- which may help to explain why the truly excellent pros like Steve McCurry stand out so much.
-
Pardon my ignorance, but what does cropping & knowing what you are trying to say have to do with each other?
Mark, You said, and I quote: '...one question I had was how much time MR spent on each image in the process of readying it for print, and the reply was 20 minutes on average, and half of that time was deciding how to crop the image. Part of the "what am I trying to say" process.'
I'm not sure how the two things connect either, but you evidently knew when you wrote that sentence. Maybe I'm misreading it but it comes across to me as: "MR goes out and shoots at random, then comes back and spends up to ten minutes on his exposure deciding how to crop in order to make clear what he was trying to say." Having looked at a lot of Michael's pictures I can't believe that's true. Anyone who makes good photographs knows exactly what he's trying to say when he makes the exposure and he frames his statement clearly with the camera. If he fails to do that, cropping isn't going to help. Of course there are instances where circumstances intervene and leave you with an image that has to be cropped in order to give you what you were after in the beginning, but those instances are very, very rare.
-
Of course there are instances where circumstances intervene and leave you with an image that has to be cropped in order to give you what you were after in the beginning, but those instances are very, very rare.
For example:
(1) You would need to step ten feet or so past the edge of the cliff to get the best viewpoint, or
(2) You would need to cut down the nearest Redwood tree, which is in the way, but you left your chainsaw at home today, or
(3) The image doesn't fit the aspect ratio of your camera.
Does that about cover it, Russ?
Sometimes (but rarely) I also crop when I see that I didn't really see the scene correctly when I was there with camera. I try to learn from these mistakes so I won't have to repeat them.
Eric
-
Quote
MR goes out and shoots at random, then comes back and spends up to ten minutes on his exposure deciding how to crop in order to make clear what he was trying to say.
Unquote
I don't see the connection between exposure and cropping. I am willing to bet that Russ has seen many images that he really likes but didn't realise that they had been cropped? I think that a few weeks ago on the site Michael stated that he cropped for subject? I think it was in the blurb in one of the images he posted when he explained his thinking behind the taking of the image?
-
Pop, If you walk past the local photographer's shops in most towns you'll discover that there seems to be an unusually large number of hacks in "professional" photography -- which may help to explain why the truly excellent pros like Steve McCurry stand out so much.
We need the hacks to make us look good. ;)
-
Sometimes (but rarely) I also crop when I see that I didn't really see the scene correctly when I was there with camera. I try to learn from these mistakes so I won't have to repeat them.
If I admit to including, quite deliberately, parts of a scene which I think I'm likely to remove later, in order to retain a greater degree of flexibility, thus anticipating, indeed planning for, cropping, am I confessing to a heinous sin? I get the impression that I am and I confess that I'm not sure why.
My 5d2 has plenty of megapixels. I can afford to lose a few with a crop. I have more time to think when I'm sitting in front of my computer than I usually have when I'm on site. Certainly, cropping a little is likely to be a great deal easier than going back to re-shoot.
Save from a purist's viewpoint ("You WILL print the WHOLE of your image"), I really don't understand the "Cropping is a Bad Thing" mantra. Should I?
Jeremy
-
For example:
(1) You would need to step ten feet or so past the edge of the cliff to get the best viewpoint, or
(2) You would need to cut down the nearest Redwood tree, which is in the way, but you left your chainsaw at home today, or
(3) The image doesn't fit the aspect ratio of your camera.
Does that about cover it, Russ?
Sometimes (but rarely) I also crop when I see that I didn't really see the scene correctly when I was there with camera. I try to learn from these mistakes so I won't have to repeat them.
Eric
Eric, I'd agree with the first two and, provisionally with the third, though if your camera isn't giving you the aspect ratio you want you really ought to find a different camera. Situation 1 is what happened to HCB when he shot "Cardinal Pacelli, Montmartre, Paris. 1938." He couldn't force his way to the front of the crowd so he held his camera above his head and shot down. The result needed cropping. Situation 2 is what happened when he shot "Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare, 1932." In this instance there was a post in the way -- on the left. From the picture itself it's obvious he didn't have time to move -- only time to raise his camera and shoot. That one called for the post on the left to be cropped out. As far as I know these are the only two HCB published pictures that called for a crop. The man's ability to capture geometric relationships in a fraction of a second was phenomenal. It puts most of us to shame. But it's an objective to work towards. I'd add that in every case, he knew exactly what he was trying to say when he raised the camera. The camera is the place to do your cropping, not the darkroom or lightroom.
-
I am willing to bet that Russ has seen many images that he really likes but didn't realise that they had been cropped?
Stamper, You're probably right. I've certainly seen a lot of cropped photographs. I'd also bet that most of the very best weren't cropped.
-
If I admit to including, quite deliberately, parts of a scene which I think I'm likely to remove later, in order to retain a greater degree of flexibility, thus anticipating, indeed planning for, cropping, am I confessing to a heinous sin? I get the impression that I am and I confess that I'm not sure why.
My 5d2 has plenty of megapixels. I can afford to lose a few with a crop. I have more time to think when I'm sitting in front of my computer than I usually have when I'm on site. Certainly, cropping a little is likely to be a great deal easier than going back to re-shoot.
Save from a purist's viewpoint ("You WILL print the WHOLE of your image"), I really don't understand the "Cropping is a Bad Thing" mantra. Should I?
Jeremy
Jeremy, No, I don't think shooting loosely is a heinous sin. It's probably not even a venial sin. But it does indicate indecision at a point where decisiveness is essential. The problem's not the number of pixels, it's the coherence of the vision. When HCB talked about the "decisive moment" he wasn't referring to ""Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare, 1932," a photograph everyone takes to be the epitomization of the decisive moment. He was talking about the point at which you have to make a decision. As far as flexibility is concerned, the moment of greatest flexibility is when you have the camera in your hand pointed toward your subject. After you've tripped the shutter the flexibility goes away.
-
I'm not enough of a student to know this for a fact, but didn't HCB have someone else do all his print work? The reason I ask is how do we know there isn't some trimming. Not wholesale cropping, but tightening with that in mind from the beginning. Are the negatives also available for his most famous works?
Composition should use all the frame that's possible. It shouldn't be guesswork and needs to be a conscious decision to maximise the format of the camera, but sometimes shooting with primes doesn't leave time to zoom with the feet.
(fwiw, I shoot almost exclusively with primes not that that give me any extra credibility.)
-
I'm not enough of a student to know this for a fact, but didn't HCB have someone else do all his print work? The reason I ask is how do we know there isn't some trimming. Not wholesale cropping, but tightening with that in mind from the beginning. Are the negatives also available for his most famous works?
Mich, Yes, except in the very beginning HCB didn't do his own printing, but he had a very good printer, Voja Mitrovic, who printed for him. The reason we know there isn't some trimming is that HCB insisted on having his photographs printed with the black borders of the area beyond the frame showing, though it seems to me I remember Life Magazine violating this requirement. Yes, the negatives are in the care of the Magnum Photo Agency, and, if I remember correctly, belong to Martine Franck, his second wife and another very famous Magnum photographer.
-
Pop, I was really surprised it took this long for someone to take issue with that. I never said being a commercial photographer precludes one from making good art. Neither does being a plumber. My favorite guy who did that was Elliott Erwitt. He did what he called his "personal best" when he put down his commercial gear for the day and picked up his Leica. What I said was that photographing things like weddings and debutant balls is intensly boring. I'll stick by that statement.
Add Albert Watson to the list. He always took extra time after his commercial shoots to "do his own thing" which now comprises the bulk of his activity (fine art). And I would not call his commercial assignments "boring." They were challenging assignments with interesting people to which he applied his trained eye and creative problem-solving abilities. Sounds like an excellent way to spend one's time (and get paid for it to boot)!
-
Stamper, You're probably right. I've certainly seen a lot of cropped photographs. I'd also bet that most of the very best weren't cropped.
Russ, how do you know they were cropped and how do you know that the very best weren't cropped? You would have to have seen the originals?
-
Stamper, Sometimes the aspect ratio is a dead giveaway, and sometimes I've seen the originals, or contact sheets for the originals, or at least the same picture with a different crop. But I didn't say I "know" the very best aren't cropped. I said I'd bet that most of the very best weren't cropped. I'd still place that bet. In HCB's case I'd win every time. With Robert Frank I'd win more than I'd lose. With a few others I'd be gambling. But even with those, more often than not the crop wouldn't be arbitrary; it would be a crop required by an inability to get in place for the shot the photographer wanted. That's different from shooting loosely and then, in Photoshop, spending ten minutes deciding what you really wanted to say. The people who make the best photographs know exactly what they want to say at the instant they trip the shutter.
-
This is one philosophy of photography (frame precisely and be true to the frame), but I personally don't follow it. In fact, I find it almost quaint now. I almost never do this but instead shoot loose because I know what I can do in Photoshop or how I might even combine different captures ("Sacré Bleu" some are saying). I prefer to have options and flexibility when in the field and then spend more time in quiet in front of the screen trying out possibilities. In some cases, even beyond the "not possible" examples given above, shooting loose is the only practical way of doing things, like when walking down a street and shooting while walking or running (which I like to do).
For me, shooting loose is a normal part of photography, and being a purist about "the frame" has no interest for me. I only care about the FINAL picture, not what I happened to compose in the camera, which is only a starting point in the artistic process.
But that's me, a Heretic. Elliott Erwitt has a different opinion (like how I lumped myself together with Mr. Erwitt? :). And Russ, of course.
H
P.S. I like the original poster's image in color although I would have cropped off 1/2 of the lady at left leaving enough to show her and her skirt hem but so much to distract with her large mass.
-
In fact, I find it almost quaint now.
That's certainly a quaint attitude toward visual integrity, Haraldo, but you're not the only one who feels that way. During the ten years my wife and I owned a gallery I saw piles of "artworks" produced by people who wanted to be called artists but didn't want to take the trouble to learn the "quaint" techniques that might have helped them produce something worthwhile.
I prefer to have options and flexibility when in the field and then spend more time in quiet in front of the screen trying out possibilities.
Again, it's in the field that you have options. Once you've tripped the shutter and left the field your options and possibilities are behind you. But on the other hand, I haven't the foggiest idea what kind of photographs you make since your web URL turns out to be a game site. There may be a type of photography where visual uncertainty is paramount, though I haven't run across it yet.
For me, shooting loose is a normal part of photography, and being a purist about "the frame" has no interest for me. I only care about the FINAL picture, not what I happened to compose in the camera, which is only a starting point in the artistic process.
You're not the only one who feels that way. I see that kind of picture all the time.
But that's me, a Heretic. Elliott Erwitt has a different opinion (like how I lumped myself together with Mr. Erwitt? :). And Russ, of course.
Thanks, Haraldo. It's an honor to be included in the same sentence as Elliott. He's my favorite photographer because of his sense of humor. But I've seen a few pictures that Elliott cropped. Believe it or not I sometimes crop too, but only when there was no way to make the composition I was after on the camera. HCB to the contrary notwithstanding, cropping isn't the great fault. Not knowing what you're really after when you trip the shutter is the great fault.
P.S. ...but so much to distract with her large mass.
That's an unusual way to spell it.
-
(let me know if this should be taken somewhere else; I'm finding it very interesting)
ME: In fact, I find it almost quaint now.
RSL: That's certainly a quaint attitude toward visual integrity, Haraldo, but you're not the only one who feels that way. During the ten years my wife and I owned a gallery I saw piles of "artworks" produced by people who wanted to be called artists but didn't want to take the trouble to learn the "quaint" techniques that might have helped them produce something worthwhile.
"Worthwhile" is a subjective term. I've done very well in the visual world with my quaint attitude. One reason is because I come from the world of Art Direction/Creative Direction and Design. FIne-tuning, distilling, and "improving" images for a specific purpose is something I've be doing for 30+ years. So I have a different POV. Even when I was a working-pro photographer (PJ, Commercial), I always shot loose, because I knew that the A.D. would be fixing things to his/her liking. Many times, I was the A.D. So I carry that skill set around with me to this day. When I was ADing magazines (10 years) I would have fired any photographer who shot a cover for me composed tightly.
ME: I prefer to have options and flexibility when in the field and then spend more time in quiet in front of the screen trying out possibilities.
RSL: Again, it's in the field that you have options. Once you've tripped the shutter and left the field your options and possibilities are behind you.
Nope. They're just starting for me. Try to imagine me trying to "compose" some of these images:
http://www.dpandi.com/aboutus/ha/magicedge
RSL: But on the other hand, I haven't the foggiest idea what kind of photographs you make since your web URL turns out to be a game site. There may be a type of photography where visual uncertainty is paramount, though I haven't run across it yet.
Well, you've just found it, and here's my other site:
http://www.dpandi.com/aboutus/ha
ME: For me, shooting loose is a normal part of photography, and being a purist about "the frame" has no interest for me. I only care about the FINAL picture, not what I happened to compose in the camera, which is only a starting point in the artistic process.
RSL: You're not the only one who feels that way. I see that kind of picture all the time.
So what does that tell you? But honestly, without a film edge showing, you wouldn't know if a photo was composed in the camera or not, would you? (unless the aspect has changed significantly)
ME: But that's me, a Heretic. Elliott Erwitt has a different opinion (like how I lumped myself together with Mr. Erwitt? :). And Russ, of course.
RSL: Thanks, Haraldo. It's an honor to be included in the same sentence as Elliott. He's my favorite photographer because of his sense of humor. But I've seen a few pictures that Elliott cropped. Believe it or not I sometimes crop too, but only when there was no way to make the composition I was after on the camera. HCB to the contrary notwithstanding, cropping isn't the great fault. Not knowing what you're really after when you trip the shutter is the great fault.
Ahh... but I do know what I'm after. It's just different than what you're after.
ME: P.S. ...but so much to distract with her large mass.
RSL: That's an unusual way to spell it.
Ha ha! A double meaning I didn't even catch. Good one.
-
One other reason to shoot loose is when doing sport or fast action photography is that a fast moving object can get "clipped" if you try to frame too tightly. Believe me I have done it! A half second out tripping the shutter can ruin an image where as a loose frame will mean the object is still within it. When I was a camera club member judges often commented about not enough space around a subject. They wanted "breathing room". If one of your images was criticised for this and you had cropped then you could go back to the original and see what the judge was alluding to. This is all about flexibility when shooting and keeping your options open. A good thing in photography as well as life in general?
-
Risking a rupture with slipping text - here goes.
Cropping is something I only do if the format of the camera doesn't quite fit the space the pic has to fill.
Ever since I was able to design my own calendars, they always took the 1:1.5 format because that fitted the Nikon perfectly; on the occassions when I had to shoot 'blad, mostly back in the fashion period (mine) I did so because the damn things were going to be cut out and used with the loss of all that beautifully graded background tonality on the paper roll, but at least the print I handed over looked good, whatever the hell happened to it next.
In a nutshell, if you know what you are doing you fill the frame.
It strikes me that Heraldo's instincts (as a snapper) are more suited to the stock market than anything else.
Rob C
-
I seem to be doing quite a lot more cropping now than a year or so ago. Some reasons I crop:
- I could not see the view clearly enough when shooting, so play safe (try using a GF1 in full sun!)
- I could not have changed lens (focal length) in time to get the shot
- I need to apply geometry corrections in post processing (wide-angle buildings)
- I realise that there is a "better" image hidden in what I was trying to take...
The last point arises because many photographs that I take do not allow much time to think about framing. Experimenting with cropping images is another way to explore alternative compositions without the pressure of framing live, where often there is little time to think. Hopefully this will eventually translate to better instinctive use of the camera itself...
There are enough pixels now that even quite heavily cropped images can be better quality than uncropped images from cameras that only a few years ago were state of the art.
-- Mark
-
Lost
You have a point in your number 4: a better image lies within.
I have done that sort of thing a lot using ancient work of my own, but the thinking isn't quite the same, as for me it is simply a matter of finding something to do in the absence of fresh models with whom to work and make new images.
That I find new stuff within the old does not, however, mean that I was sloppy in making the original shots. Had they not woked in their original form they would not have been used and survived until now.
You really should demand more control of yourself during the shooting moments.
Rob C
-
It strikes me that Heraldo's instincts (as a snapper) are more suited to the stock market than anything else.
Hey Rob, I would love to hear your definition of "a snapper"!
I like Mark's list of reasons, especially #4. I always see "the picture within", which is why I'm taking the picture in the first place. But to shoot it tight and fill the frame just doesn't make sense to me. One can always crop in, but one cannot crop out. And in most of my cases, there are no reshoots.
P.S. Get my name right; I'm not a "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" kind of guy. ;)
-
Quote
Hey Rob, I would love to hear your definition of "a snapper"!
Unquote
Someone who bites back, you just did? Now where are these smileys?
-
Snapper: someone who makes photographs; can be raw amateur or senior professional. Not a judgement of quality. You could even use the word shooter or, if you like, lensman. Some have been known to embrace the word photographer, too! Funny, that.
Sorry Haraldo, new things are always difficult for me.
Rob C
-
Snapper: someone who makes photographs; can be raw amateur or senior professional. Not a judgement of quality. You could even use the word shooter or, if you like, lensman. Some have been known to embrace the word photographer, too! Funny, that.
Sorry Haraldo, new things are always difficult for me.
Ah, the generic "snapper"; understood. Hey, where is "artist" on your list? :-\
And don't worry about the name; I keep changing it anyway!
-
Snapper: someone who makes photographs...
Rob C
Rob, Exactly. Check out the title of one of Elliott Erwitt's biggest books: Snaps.
-
Rob, Exactly. Check out the title of one of Elliott Erwitt's biggest books: Snaps.
I even know of one snapper who calls his site "FineArtSnaps.com.' ;)
-
Eric, It was the best I could do.
-
Eric, It was the best I could do.
Russ, It's easier to spell than "myrvaagnes.com."
-
Russ, It's easier to spell than "myrvaagnes.com."
Was easier to pronounce when it was just "M" and not "Myrvaaagggggenesessedfasrerewrwrewstudebaker".
-
Studebaker I recognize. The original going-both-ways-at-once look of the late 40s/early 50s.
Rob C