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

[Ray]

We've all agreed by now that a "time bracketing" feature would not disrupt a photographer's engagement with the subject.  

Good! I wasn't aware of that. I thought there were still posters in this thread arguing that multiple shots constituted a lack of engagement with the subject. I was puzzled what you meant by that. Now I see that what you and others deduced from the mere mention of the word 'video', was placing the camera in a fixed location on a tripod in video mode whilst one had breakfast (for example), then examining the individual frames after breakfast to see if there was anything interesting.

That approach definitely wasn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that 4k video had reached a level of technical quality such that any single frame could at least equal, and in some respects surpass, the quality of the 35mm film used by HCB.

I was suggesting that any photographer who wants to emulate the style of HCB should be able to do so much more easily with the benefits of modern cameras such as the Samsung NX1 which allow one to select any individual frame from a 4k video sequence.

I was suggesting using such a camera, with 4k video capability, with the same level of engagement that is involved in the taking of a single shot, but with the result of getting a greater choice of interesting moments, each perhaps only slightly different from the others, but sometimes radically different, especially when the video sequence lasts a few seconds.

I'm glad we've cleared all that up. 

[Jonathan Wienke]

Glad you said "not saying that is what you are doing here". 

When you do philosophy, you need to use language with a kind of mathematical precision.  There's no way around it.  If you don't know how to read it, it seems torturous.  But every word is intended to have a function.

But when you argue that gravity is a philosophical construct rather than a measurable and observable physical phenomenon, it appears you've crossed the line from precisely-worded language to fatuous pomposity for pomposity's sake.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Yes, if the shot was better then the shot would have been better.

Yes, and apparently Cartier-Bresson chose to reject cropping and therefore reject photos that were not satisfactorily framed.

So if you agree with me, why are you arguing with me?

[amolitor]

I don't think Luke said that gravity was a philosophical construct.

[LKaven]

But when you argue that gravity is a philosophical construct rather than a measurable and observable physical phenomenon, it appears you've crossed the line from precisely-worded language to fatuous pomposity for pomposity's sake.

I don't think Luke said that gravity was a philosophical construct.

Exactly right, Andrew, I didn't say that.

Jonathan, you don't seem to understand the textbook concepts of Logical Empiricism and Scientific Realism or the distinction between them, which I described faithfully.  Rather than ask, you decided to insult me.  I hope you will take back what you said.

These are two very different views of science, the former pre-1970, the latter post-1970.  Most scientists that I've worked with believe in a patchwork of things, much from pre-1970, that don't actually form a coherent theory.  When you press them on the key questions, their logic falls apart.

Gravity, like causation, is an unobservable.  All reasoning about unobservables is metaphysics.  As such, it is treated very differently under these two views of science.  In Logical Empiricism, metaphysics is forbidden, and unobservables are treated as explanatory fictions, often in spite of what scientists actually believed.  In Scientific Realism, metaphysics (in the form of causal realism) is acceptable, you can reason to the existence of unobservables, and can accept them as real and existing independently of our beliefs.  While the latter makes much more sense to me, most scientists tend to believe an inconsistent version of the former that they picked up along the way.

Does that help?

[Jonathan Wienke]

So if you agree with me, why are you arguing with me?


Do you choose "going without a usable image" or do you choose "cropping"?

I've already answered that.

[LKaven]

Of course not, it just flaunts your specialized knowledge.

I'm using specialized knowledge in the subject of the thread topic, which is a philosophical thesis.  I'm attempting to answer someone else's question here.  If you don't understand what's being said, you should ask.  Otherwise perhaps you're in the wrong place, engaging for the wrong reasons.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Exactly right, Andrew, I didn't say that.

Actually, you did.

The difference is that I have years of post-graduate training in philosophy, and Jeremy doesn't. 

Gravity is unobservable, and falls partly into the domain of metaphysics, even though it has empirical support.  A theory that asserts the existence of gravity is a philosophical construct.  It is scientific realism that takes our theory terms such as "gravity" as referring terms that, through our socially-coordinated uses of the term "gravity" establish epistemic access to the referent.  In positivism, gravity is a fiction that appears as a mediating term among a group of observation sentences. 

The question of whether gravity exists independently of our theories, or is for example a fiction used in theoretical bookkeeping, is a philosophical problem.

...

Gravity, like causation, is an unobservable.  All reasoning about unobservables is metaphysics.

Contrary to your multiple assertions, gravity is a phenomenon which can be both observed and measured, and its effects are consistent and repeatable, regardless of the religious, philosophical, metaphysical, or religious opinions one may hold. One may debate what causes it, the causal relationship (if any) between gravity and the associated warping of spacetime, or the mechanism by which its force is transmitted from one mass to another, but to say that gravity is an "unobservable" metaphysical construct is a trivially disprovable statement.

Jonathan, you don't seem to understand the textbook concepts of Logical Empiricism and Scientific Realism or the distinction between them, which I described faithfully.  Rather than ask, you decided to insult me.  I hope you will take back what you said.

Probably not. IMO, your postings appear to be pseudointellectual psychobabble intended primarily to "prove" you are smarter than the rest of us, as exemplified by your "I have years of post-graduate training in philosophy, and Jeremy doesn't" remark. I would say you owe him an apology more than I owe you one.

[amolitor]

With respect, the statement that gravity itself is a philosophical construct appears nowhere in the quoted text.

[Jonathan Wienke]

You've said --

You haven't said if you only crop when you were not able to see through the view finder to frame the photo when the exposure was made.

My strong preference for composing such that cropping in post is either minimal or unnecessary applies regardless of whether I can see through the viewfinder.

I couldn't see through the viewfinder when I shot this:

but it's an uncropped image. I shot maybe 20 or 30 frames to get exactly what I wanted, rather than settling for something I had to crop or straighten. I may not always have that luxury when shooting models or live events, but either way, I always prefer composition to cropping.

Does that answer your question?

[amolitor]

Philosophy, as Luke means it, is about the nature of knowledge.

You don't need to understand any of it to do science, any more than you need to understand mathematical philosophy to do mathematics.

You can argue that it's all bullsh*t if you like, angels on the head of a pin sort of stuff, and I might even agree with you up to a point. But it doesn't change the fact that philosophy is a well defined thing, an area of study and thought, that has certain properties. All this stuff about gravity being real or not, or whether Luke is a pompous prat, is irrelevant. Luke is talking about the nature of knowledge, how we know that we know things, and so on.

I confess that I don't grasp Luke's remarks about philosophy's relationship to photography and the decisive moment, but I'm not going to get all huffy just because I don't understand something. I'm not going to say 'well, I don't understand it, so it must be a load of bollocks'.

[Jonathan Wienke]

With respect, the statement that gravity itself is a philosophical construct appears nowhere in the quoted text.

Not in those exact words, no. But that's the gist of the statements he made that I quoted in bold text.

I confess that I don't grasp Luke's remarks about philosophy's relationship to photography and the decisive moment, but I'm not going to get all huffy just because I don't understand something. I'm not going to say 'well, I don't understand it, so it must be a load of bollocks'.

It's not a matter of not understanding it. It's a matter of accepting the notion that the emperor's new clothes really exist, or have any relevance to the discussion beyond being an attempt to prove how sophisticated the emperor is.

There are some aspects of the phenomenon we call "gravity" that we cannot observe, and do not understand, such as whether gravity causes spacetime to warp, the warping of spacetime by the presence of mass causes gravity, the interaction of particles with the Higgs field causes both gravity and the warping of spacetime, etc. Those questions can be the subject of metaphysical or philosophical debate. But the existence of gravity is something that can be observed, measured, and tested, with repeatable results, in any number of ways.

If you're going to argue that gravity isn't "observable", then to be logically consistent, you have to argue the same is true of electromagnetism, which would eventually lead one to the conclusion that light itself isn't "observable". Which if true, would mean that photography couldn't exist. If that isn't pseudointellectual BS, I don't know what is.

[Isaac]

Does that answer your question?

I suppose "My strong preference for composing such that cropping in post is either minimal…" and "I may not always have that luxury when shooting models or live events…" means that your answer is:

• "Yes" -- you do crop even though you were able to see through the view finder to frame the photo when the exposure was made
• "Yes" -- you do crop rather than go without a usable image

That's what we ordinarily do; but Cartier-Bresson seems to have acted differently.

[amolitor]

Ugh. I don't see any value in getting drawn in to a discussion about this. I think you're simply wrong on this point, Jonathan, because you're being insufficiently imprecise in your reading.

I admit that you need to be extremely precise to see the differences, but where I know what's going on, they are present, and where I do not I suspect they are. I don't know what Luke means by an "unobservable" for instance, but I suspect it means something quite precise, and not at all the same as what you think it means.

But I am fine with simply differing on these... what are they, three degrees removed from the original topic, or is it four?

[LKaven]

Ugh. I don't see any value in getting drawn in to a discussion about this. I think you're simply wrong on this point, Jonathan, because you're being insufficiently imprecise in your reading.

I admit that you need to be extremely precise to see the differences, but where I know what's going on, they are present, and where I do not I suspect they are. I don't know what Luke means by an "unobservable" for instance, but I suspect it means something quite precise, and not at all the same as what you think it means.

But I am fine with simply differing on these... what are they, three degrees removed from the original topic, or is it four?

You are right.  Jonathan did not read precisely in an area where the precise wording is critical.  In his attempts to restate my explanation, he's stated nothing close, or even sensible.  This is strictly first year textbook stuff I'm giving him.  I'm surprised at his behavior. 

This is a forum for critical analysis, and the subject of this thread has to do with HCB and the combined philosophies of his.  Any arguments in favor of or against this are in the domain of philosophy coupled with subject-matter specific considerations.  That's just where these ideas have their foundations in meaning.

[amolitor]

As a philosopher you would of course think that. Philosophy positions itself as the basis of everything!

As an alternative, though, Russ and I have been at some pains to show thoroughly pragmatic reasons for a no-cropping approach.

Both ways of grasping the point are probably equally valid.

[Jonathan Wienke]

You are right.  Jonathan did not read precisely in an area where the precise wording is critical.  In his attempts to restate my explanation, he's stated nothing close, or even sensible.  This is strictly first year textbook stuff I'm giving him.  I'm surprised at his behavior.

Please explain why if gravity is "unobservable" by your definition, light (a form of electromagnetism) is not also "unobservable" by your definition.

While you're at it, define "unobservable", explain how your usage and definition differs from the commonly understood usage of "unobservable", and explain why said differences are legitimate.

[LKaven]

As a philosopher you would of course think that. Philosophy positions itself as the basis of everything!

As an alternative, though, Russ and I have been at some pains to show thoroughly pragmatic reasons for a no-cropping approach.  Both ways of grasping the point are probably equally valid.

You've been doing philosophy the entire time in this thread, and with quite good intuitions.  What is pragmatism here but your philosophy?  What else does one have to hang one's hat on?  Do you really think there's an alternative?

When you pose and answer a question, what do you believe would underwrite your claim that your answer should be true, necessarily true, approximately true, assertible, or what?  What grounds the meaning of the terms you use?

[Ray]

If you're going to argue that gravity isn't "observable", then to be logically consistent, you have to argue the same is true of electromagnetism, which would eventually lead one to the conclusion that light itself isn't "observable". Which if true, would mean that photography couldn't exist. If that isn't pseudointellectual BS, I don't know what is.

I have to agree with Luke on this point, Jonathan. Do you really not see the distinction between the situation of an observable/detectable photon, or electromagnetic particle/wave, and an unobservable, undetectable so-called 'graviton'?

Whilst the effects of some force we call gravity can be observed and measured in a consistent manner, the actual nature of gravity, what the force actually consists of, remains a mystery. As I understand, no-one has ever detected a 'graviton'. It's existence is pure hypothesis.

It might also be the case that, on the very large macro scale, our theories of gravity are wrong. There appears to be some inconsistency in our observations of the behaviour of distant galaxies. If our current theories of gravity are in fact correct, then we have the huge problem of discovering what 90% of the matter and energy in the universe consists of. Currently, we simply don't know. We call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy, a completely invisible and undetectable form of matter and energy, completely in the realm of hypothesis.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I have to agree with Luke on this point, Jonathan. Do you really not see the distinction between the situation of an observable/detectable photon, or electromagnetic particle/wave, and an unobservable, undetectable so-called 'graviton'?

You can observe the existence of gravity in the same way you can observe the existence of electromagnetic photons--by measuring their effect on/interactions with matter. You can measure photons with a photodector, or an antenna, depending on the frequency of the photon. These devices convert photons to an electrical signal that we can measure, amplify, digitize, or synthesize into a sound or image.

You can similarly measure the acceleration effect of gravity by using a piezo sensor or laser interferometry to create an electrical signal to measure the deformation of a mass with a known elasticity. You're using a defferent sensor to create the electrical signal, but the concept is exactly the same.

Also, note that there are situations where electromagnetism can exert a force without photons being involved, such as the attraction between the plates of a charged capacitor, and the attraction or repulsion between two adjacent magnets fastened to a rigid object. In those instances, it is unknown whether there is a particle that carries the force from one object to another, but observing that the force exists is easy. All you have to do is place a pair of 2x2x1" NdFeB magnets on opposite sides of your thumb, and you will quickly observe a variety of phenomena that will vigorously confirm the existence of a force between the magnets. And if you receive immediate and competent medical attention, you may even be able to continue to use your thumb!

You are correct to say we don't know for sure if there is any such thing as a "graviton" particle that carries the force of gravity from one mass to another. It is also correct to say we don't know if there are particles that carry forces from one electrically charged capacitor plate to another, or from one stationary magnet to another. That doesn't make the existence of any of those force phenomena "unobservable".

We can know something exists without understanding every aspect and detail of its existence. Otherwise it would be impossible to know anything without knowing everything.