Behind the scene

[fredjeang]

Hi,
Before I read the article related to the image "lamp & ladder", I was very impressed by the composition that
I simply could not find any weakness.
From a personal taste, this is one of the very best Michael's composition I've seen here. It just work perfectly,
and reminds me more of a painting in that sense that it is almost like the artist would have placed carrefully each element
just where it needed to be.

Then I read the article, the backstage.  The sensation of purity and perfection I had first,
turned on to some questions and recalls.
From this article I learned several usefull things:

-The art of cropping is an art and, could I say "a second shot"?
- I may want to review again some pictures I ruled out in the past and see if another way of looking at them may not
come to light a perfectly composed picture I did not see before into the frame.
- The "what is the shot about" is the key that I sometimes forgot. I will stick a paper on my screen with "what is the shot about?", seriously!
-And that the title "deconstructing" is appropriate.

Nice and usefull article,
and to me, one of the best Michael composition.
Thank you for these, enjoyed very much.

Fred.

[Steven Draper]

IMHO Cropping is a really critical part of the image enhancement phase in todays digital world. Saying that my competition slides from the 80's often had pieces of tinfoil in them to crop!!

In some cases the difference of a few pixels CAN really make a difference and you'll be amazed at how just a tweak here and there can change an image.

The drawback for many is that by cropping to non standard aspect ratios, matting, framing etc becomes non standard too. However IMHO its worth non standard matts to provide the best image - remembering that a matted image may lose a slight amount around the edge.

By working hard on the cropping, the ability to find the best image within a visual view-scape at the image capture stage increase too, and also you can capture scenes you may not have bothered with unless you are happy to crop.

Steven

[wolfnowl]

IMHO Cropping is a really critical part of the image enhancement phase in todays digital world. Saying that my competition slides from the 80's often had pieces of tinfoil in them to crop!!

Nice to know I'm not the only one who used to wrap paper cutouts around his slide holders for cropping!

Mike.

[stamper]

I think that the hairs on the necks of the "non croppers" will now be in a raised position. The keyboards will be getting a thumping and a few rebuttals will be getting posted soon

[rc53]

Nice to know I'm not the only one who used to wrap paper cutouts around his slide holders for cropping!

+1

[michael]

The non-croppers seem to be in hiding. So, how about "If 24X36 was good enough for Cartier Bression, it's good enough for me.".

Kind of has a ring to it, don't you think?

Then there are those that even print the sprocket holes as ultimate proof of their adherence to the religion on non-cropping. But most of those have now gone to that great darkroom in the sky.

RIP

Michael

[Rob C]

Cropped, not cropped; colour or black and white, I think the picture works fine but not the screed that goes with it.

I am sorry, I don't want to offend, but to me, it just reads as a post-shot rumination about what might be said about any picture and its component parts. One could do that with absolutely any photograph that has been cropped or had the benefit (?) of bracketing. I am surprised to see Michael dipping his wick into this sort of thing - it would have been far better to have let the picture stand on its own two feet without further analysis which, in my opinion (possibly only mine), does nothing but drive it into a zone where one gets the impression that the copy was written out of a feeling of a hole to fill but not a lot else coming to mind with which to fill it.

On the other hand, it could just be the way lunch has left me feeling, with another vague hole of my own to fill.

Rob C

[GeneB]

When you start with the answer, it's a lot easier to come up with the questions.    

I'm not sure what I just said but I'm sticking to it!

Gene

[fredjeang]

I suppose that the religion of non-cropping is because they measure the genious in the ultimate shot, the perfection of the instant.  
Any post production would be regarded as a sort of bricolage and amateurishness. It is snob and absurd!
Velazquez, and you can see it perfectly in the Prado Museum, was doing a lot of repaintings and croppings or adding canvas without even eclipsing the seams.
Maybe as much genious is requiered in the habilty to see another better image in the image, and deciding what to get rid of.
If an image does not need cropping there is no sense to crop.
If an image would be perfect with a crop, then it would be stupid not doing it because of religious orientations...
But always some needs a beleif system.

Fred.

[michael]

Rob,

With all due respect, have you stopped taking your meds recently?

I am a teacher, and the didactic process requires the thrust and parry of a dialog between teacher and student. Since of necessity on a web site this it has to be a one way dialog, therefore I structured the article they way I did.

My purpose with this site isn't to simply put up pictures and allow people to view and comment on them. Flicker would be enough for that. You may have noticed though that with this site I try and provide an service based on articles, essays, reviews and a forum from which people can expand their knowledge about photography.

It seems to me that the verbal deconstruction of that photography fits that brief appropriately. It's a form of inverse art criticism, which has a long and nobel history. Can't imagine why it made you grumpy (or at least grumpier than you usually appear to be).

But if so, you might not want to attend one of my classes, because this is what I do during print critiques. In this case I just did it to my own work.

Michael

[bobtowery]

Rob,

With all due respect, have you stopped taking your meds recently?

I am a teacher, and the didactic process requires the thrust and parry of a dialog between teacher and student. Since of necessity on a web site this it has to be a one way dialog, therefore I structured the article they way I did.

My purpose with this site isn't to simply put up pictures and allow people to view and comment on them. Flicker would be enough for that. You may have noticed though that with this site I try and provide an service based on articles, essays, reviews and a forum from which people can expand their knowledge about photography.

It seems to me that the verbal deconstruction of that photography fits that brief appropriately. It's a form of inverse art criticism, which has a long and nobel history. Can't imagine why it made you grumpy (or at least grumpier than you usually appear to be).

But if so, you might not want to attend one of my classes, because this is what I do during print critiques. In this case I just did it to my own work.

Michael

Exactly! This is why have been coming here for years.  And have commented previously that I wish there was more of this on the LLVJ, much as I enjoy them. I find Michael's "stream of consciousness" thinking of making an image extremely helpful.  Case in point, this image.  I have never thought of finding an interesting seen and "waiting for something to happen."  I enjoyed the story, and the image, a great deal.  Sorry this post didn't work for you Rob, but it was helpful for me.

Question for you though Michael.  It would be simple enough to clone an area at the top of the image to eliminate the light post convergence (which would enhance the image IMHO).  Do you feel the convergence isn't a big enough issue to warrant the effort, or is there another reason? TIA. Bob.

[Rob C]

Rob,

With all due respect, have you stopped taking your meds recently?

I am a teacher, and the didactic process requires the thrust and parry of a dialog between teacher and student. Since of necessity on a web site this it has to be a one way dialog, therefore I structured the article they way I did.

My purpose with this site isn't to simply put up pictures and allow people to view and comment on them. Flicker would be enough for that. You may have noticed though that with this site I try and provide an service based on articles, essays, reviews and a forum from which people can expand their knowledge about photography.

It seems to me that the verbal deconstruction of that photography fits that brief appropriately. It's a form of inverse art criticism, which has a long and nobel history. Can't imagine why it made you grumpy (or at least grumpier than you usually appear to be).

But if so, you might not want to attend one of my classes, because this is what I do during print critiques. In this case I just did it to my own work.

Michael

Nope, Michael, the meds remain the same - actually, I get one more now, bringing it up to five.

But on the other hand, the lunch was pretty disappointing, so I blame that, apologize and withdraw the comment.

Rob C

[fredjeang]

I think one of the key success of Lu-La is precisely what's make the difference between a site like this and a Flickr format.
Here, there is a great component of dialog, learning, and valuable information, From Michael, the invited writters and all the forum community.
It is not just about putting great pictures and show to the world how good once is. The quality of many stakeholders is very high and
I would not be far from the truth to consider it as a real "school of photography" in a serious and noble way.
That is why according to me, this website has been considered one of the most serious and why we are all here.

Michael article was a class in itself. And it was a class for free, I want to insist again on that point because I think we tend to find it normal but it is a gift. Of course, if one has rechead a great mastering of photography, he or she might find such an article less usefull, but then you are in a position to be invited by Michael to also write articles, and it happens.

As I am, like a lot of people here, in a re-learning and learning process, I found this article very usefull for practical purposes. The format of one page is short and in fact it is resumed but I find this more an advantage than a weekness because you do not distract yourself with useless concepts and informations. It is just going to the fundamentals and avoid loosing time and thoughts in peripherical aspects. Normally, a great master does not extend in details, I had the chance to meet a few in my life so far and was always amazed by this: they go to the point, like the archer.

I'm learning a lot here, from Michael and everybody without exception in the Forum.

Fred.

[jackmacd]

Michael, I hope you are encouraged to do this kind of thing more often in the future.
One of the pluses you always mention is more pixels per sensor allow for cropped photos of better resolution.

Of course, you can go the other way and show us a photo where you did a merge to build more image.

Your point about digital color to B&W is so true. I used to have to carry two cameras for such purposes and oh so many filters. You might want to do a essay on how mind challenging is can be to shoot both back and white and color at the same time, as one is shapes, where as color is color. Yes, the equipment allows us to do it easier than before, but tuning your mind to realize when shooting color that another image should be captured that will best work in B&W is the challenge. Otherwise one might skip even taking the shot.

Jack

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... have you stopped taking your meds recently?...

Perhaps not being a native speaker I am not getting the subtlety of the intended meaning or the (Canadian?) humor of the above question, but where I come from this would be interpreted as a direct personal insult, alluding to the interlocutor's  mental illness. And all this just because he had a different (grumpy) opinion?

[fredjeang]

Perhaps not being a native speaker I am not getting the subtlety of the intended meaning or the (Canadian?) humor of the above question, but where I come from this would be interpreted as a direct personal insult, alluding to the interlocutor's  mental illness. And all this just because he had a different (grumpy) opinion?

Yes Slobodan, I must say that I was also a little surprised with that part and felt sorry for Rob.
Maybe there is tension between them that escape to us.

[michael]

My joke about "meds" could have been taken the wrong way, but I've read enough if Rob's postings to anticipate that he would take it with the humour with which it was intended. I would not have been rude like that to someone I didn't know.

Indeed from his reply Rob did "get it".

In my culture, the closer one gets to know someone the more you can make friendly insults and have them accepted appropriately.

Michael

[Joe Behar]

.

In my culture, the closer one gets to know someone the more you can make friendly insults and have them accepted appropriately.

Michael

I'll attest to that  

[AveryRagan]

I would like to see a version cropped almost to the edge of the left window. For some reason I find that crop more pleasing to my eye. Maybe it's just the envelope I'm using. Hope someone doesn't pull the ladder out from under me for this comment.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...In my culture, the closer one gets to know someone the more you can make friendly insults and have them accepted appropriately.

Ah, I see... my bad.

Hmmm.... come to think of it, that must make Mr. Schewe the friendliest guy on Earth