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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You can probably remember the recent discussions that still interest you. If you can't remember them, maybe you should forget them :-)

As you can appreciate, I participated in many discussions over the years, not just "recent." Some I remember, some I forgot, some I wish I could forget.

[Ray]

I'm not being obtuse. We don't completely understand any of the four known fundamental forces. We don't know if there is any particle that carries gravitational force, but the exact same thing is true of the electromagnetic force. We know that when the electromagnetic force is made to vibrate, those vibrations form particles we call photons, which move at the speed of light, and transfer energy from one place to another. But when it is static, a force can still be transmitted.

Consider the case where two permanent magnets are mounted to a rigid surface adjacent to each other. There are no known particles being emitted by the magnets, but yet there is a force between those magnets. What carries that magnetic force from one magnet to the other is unknown. A similar case exists between two electrically charged plates, such as the ones in a capacitor. Depending on the polarity of the charge, those plates attract or repel each other. How that electrostatic force is transferred from one plate to the other is also unknown.

We can't really understand why photons behave as they do without understanding how the magnetic and electrostatic aspects of the electromagnetic force propagate and transmit force from one body to another. If you use our ignorance of whether gravitational force is carried by some particle to define gravity as "unobservable", then you have to use our ignorance of whether the electrostatic and magnetic aspects of the electromagnetic force are carried by some unknown particle or particles to define photons as "unobservable" as well. The fundamental nature of photons and the electromagnetic force is just as mysterious as the fundamental nature of gravity.

Defining photons as "unobservable" opens a Pandora's box of of illogical contradictions. But so does defining gravity as "unobservable" without doing the same to photons.

I'm having some trouble with your logic here, Jonathan. Can't photons be counted? If they can be counted, then they can be observed, surely.

I would say that the electromagnetic force is in the same category as the gravitational force in the sense we can only observe its effects.

Anyway, it seems that such discussions cause some folks to get a headache. Apologies to them. 

The reason why such matters spark an interest for me is because I still remember my amazement a few years ago when I learned about the current situation regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Would you agree that 95% of the matter and energy in our universe is unobservable, undetectable and indiscernible, or would you argue that the observed effects of this hypothesized Dark Matter and Energy, make it observable, even though we haven't a clue what it consists of?

ps. For the benefit of those who are not into such weighty matters, the observed effects of Dark Matter and Dark Energy basically consist of the faster-than-expected rotation of distant galaxies, and the speeding up of the expansion of the universe, as opposed to the expected slowing down in accordance with our current theories of gravity.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I posted a reply in a new thread here so the discussion can continue on its own without cluttering this thread any further.

[LKaven]

Maybe we could get back to discussing HCB, if anyone still cares to.  I brought philosophy in originally because the thesis of The Decisive Moment is inherently philosophical and has a enduring value.  Now that we're free of gravity, perhaps the discussion can lighten up.  :-)

[jjj]

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.

I can read, parse and understand such writings, but too often it simply comes across as a stylistic tic rather than something being written for clarity. There is a skill to writing accurately and without such mannerisms, one many academics lack.

I was reminded of this conversation whilst reading this Atlantic article on The Needless Complexity of Academic Writing
I found this reseach quite ironic, seeing as opaqueness is often used as a way of impressing peers.

"In 2006, Daniel Oppenheimer, then a professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton University, published research arguing that the use of clear, simple words over needlessly complex ones can actually make authors appear more intelligent. "

Doubly ironic as ..

"In other words, sometimes it’s simply more intellectually challenging to write clearly. “It’s easy to be complex, it’s harder to be simple,” Bosley said. “It would make academics better researchers and better writers, though, if they had to translate their thinking into plain language.” It would probably also mean more people, including colleagues, would read their work."

[jjj]

You walked into a thread after a month off just to post that?  Really Jeremy?

Post what?
If you want to communicate clearly, try using the quote function so people know what you are refering to

Apparently you can't resist it.  You should ask Jeremy why he walked back in a month after the thread shut down just to stick hot needles into someone in case they had forgotten about it.

I probably looked at thread because I'd been away from LuLa for a while and clicked on unread replies and this popped up. Found it today as I happened to glance down unread replies and this thread was there.
No idea what you mean by hot needles.

There's no mystery here.  I put in the years with top scholars in this area, who showed me day in and day out where the difference was between saying one thing and saying another.  This understanding of language is reflected in thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles, and my usage reflects community standards, which exist for a reason.  All routine stuff.

The reason being trying to impress others. 

If you weren't so incurious, you and Jonathan might learn something interesting.  [I don't doubt that you have other areas of knowledge where you might teach me as well.]  But instead, you need to feel powerful with your invective, which is exactly an argument against /nothing/.  A real scientist would be curious.

Say he, whilst being insulting,  patronising and incorrect. Does your linguistic skill set include the word hypocrite?

[LKaven]

I probably looked at thread because I'd been away from LuLa for a while and clicked on unread replies and this popped up. Found it today as I happened to glance down unread replies and this thread was there.

Coming back after 8 months to resume a nasty personal attack against me over an intellectual question is going to some bizarre lengths.  You are making me very uncomfortable.

[amolitor]

I think you may safely assume that jjj is simply bored and looking to start (restart) a fight.

[RSL]

"Bizarre" is the right word, Luke.  "Unexpected" would be the wrong one.

[jjj]

Coming back after 8 months to resume a nasty personal attack against me over an intellectual question is going to some bizarre lengths.  You are making me very uncomfortable.

No I simply came across an article that reminded me of this conversation. Wasn't going to waste time looking for the thread, but because this conversation still happened to be in my unread replies as I'd not looked at it in months, my memory was jogged. So added the germane link to the conversation.

Not a nasty personal attack on my part either, I simply responded  to your sneering personal attacks on myself [and Jonathan] after looking through other replies in the thread. You're a hypocrite to complain about what you yourself are doing.

I think you may safely assume that jjj is simply bored and looking to start (restart) a fight.

You and Russ can assume what ever you like. Doesn't mean there is any veracity in your assumptions.
Didn't realise conversation had turned nasty until revisiting it.

[LKaven]

Well about a year ago, those who still had an interest in the subject were invited to another thread started by Jonathan.  There's nothing of further interest here.

[BobShaw]

It used to be that if you entered an image in a PJ competition that you had to be able to see the the negative border to ensure it was authentic. These days there is a plug in in Photoshop for that.

[tom b]

It used to be that if you entered an image in a PJ competition that you had to be able to see the the negative border to ensure it was authentic. These days there is a plug in in Photoshop for that.

These days you have to fight the internet.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-10/nikon-walkley-finalist-withdraws-entry-after-altering-photo/6926964

Cheers,

[brandtb]

...remembering the dinner party in Lyon where Henri Cartier-Bresson famously face to face with William Eggleston blurted out...'William, color is bullshit!". Mais oui, pour certains... everything in the world is always...black and white...

[Rob C]

...remembering the dinner party in Lyon where Henri Cartier-Bresson famously face to face with William Eggleston blurted out...'William, color is bullshit!". Mais oui, everything in the world is always...black and white.

Dare I say that, in this context, Henri avait raison?

Rob C

[torger]

Is this thread about cropping? It's hard to know but I think it once was at least. That original subject does interest me.

I think the idea of not cropping is that for the image to be real art it should be experienced ("felt") and captured at the scene. Cropping in post-processing is retrospective and a sort of manipulation of the original experience. I also think it's a sporting element to it, that a skilled photographer should be able to frame right in the moment, and not cropping is a way to show how skilled you are.

The key problem with not cropping is however that some compositions work better with other aspect ratios, and some compositions require a specific camera location and you may not have the right focal length to get the framing you want, so you need to shoot wider.

I'm no purist in this regard and I don't really care how people choose to do it, but for my own photography I have noted how much more pleasing shooting experience it is to frame it right on the ground glass and have the finished image when the shutter is pressed. I carry seven lenses with my tech cam which is more than most, and the reason is that it gives me a more pleasing shooting experience when I can frame more precisely. My camera's aspect ratio is 4:3, and I'm glad it's not 3:2, as I'm not so much into panorama framings but more 4:3 or 4:5. When I do a different aspect ratio I generally have it planned at shooting time, although the choice between 4:3 or 4:5 is quite often done in retrospective.

Today's tech cams is a natural evolution of large format and you shoot in the same way. However it seems to be changing towards more focus stacking, fewer heavier and more expensive lenses with the inbetween field of views handled with cropping, limited shifting and instead keystone correction in post. To me this takes away some of the essence of what I want photography to be. To me the shooting process is important, it's not just about the end result. It is in this context I see cropping, which certainly is not forbidden in my book, but it's not entirely uncontroversial.

It's also worth noting that when you present a work as a series of images it's easier to make it look good if you have the same aspect ratio on all images and I see many do that. I've chosen to not do it though as being able to choose aspect ratio and landscape/portrait orientation depending on subject is a key element of my shooting style.

[GrahamBy]

but for my own photography I have noted how much more pleasing shooting experience it is to frame it right on the ground glass

Yes, that's how I feel, although I'm happy with 3:2 and the view-finder (I was about to say focusing screen... times change) of an slr. It has been part of my semi-conscious self-training to learn to look at the image and where it sits in the frame, and to pre-visualise according to the frame I'm used to, which is always 3:2. A few times I've though that it would be fun to have a square or 3:4 format camera, but it's never happened. I guess I could try to teach myself to compose according to an imaginary square, then I could join the cool people posting to instagram... but really, there are very few of my existing images I'd be happy to crop so brutally.

In fact one thing I'm very happy about in the transition to digital printing is that in the part of the world where I live, paper aspect ratios are far friendlier to 3:2 (ie A-series paper is 1.41:1). I used to find 8x10 paper incredibly frustrating, and an example of the industry continuing to impose standards that had no relevance to common practice. Maybe another 20 years and frame sizes will adapt as well...