Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 25   Go Down

Author Topic: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment  (Read 259768 times)

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #360 on: January 24, 2015, 02:50:13 pm »

Movie mode isn't useless because of the card's capacity, Jeremy. It's useless for street shooting because it's a different kind of shooting. Being totally connected to the action is the essence of street, and you can't be totally connected if you're banging away with a movie camera.
Utter nonsense. Every single reason you have come out with has been shown to be based on lack of knowledge of what movie mode even is and more likely I think a fear of a new way of working.

Quote
I have yet to see a good street shot made in movie mode. Show me one that you think is good and we can discuss it.
As already mentioned more than once, why would anyone currently use it when it results in poorer quality images? Why would you move from 20-26mp raw files to 4mb jpeg images?
The technique of capturing the image is not an issue, the file quality is not there yet. It will be with time, just like the early digital cameras were crap compared to film but soon surpassed them
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #361 on: January 24, 2015, 02:54:13 pm »

Nobody is proposing to make the non-croppers crop. We croppers would just appreciate it if they would stop telling us that we're doing it wrong. :)
Exactly.

But how many crops could a crop-stopper stop if a crop-stopper could stop crops?
That make me laugh a lot. ;D

Quote
I'd also say I can't call you a real jazz musician unless you understand Thelonious Monk well, but you don't have to sound like him. 
So what about all the jazz musicians that came before him?   :P
I like jazz, but can't stand TM and that style of jazz myself. I prefer music from the swing era, probably because I like dancing to music, not nodding my head in appreciation at its cleverness.  ;)
« Last Edit: January 24, 2015, 03:04:05 pm by jjj »
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #362 on: January 24, 2015, 03:10:51 pm »

Quote
Nobody is proposing to make the non-croppers crop. We croppers would just appreciate it if they would stop telling us that we're doing it wrong. Smiley
Exactly.

This is a needless conflict.  The question of whether movie mode is compatible with the philosophy of the decisive moment is simple.  It is a matter of whether someone is appropriately engaged in the process.  If someone is appropriately engaged in the process, then movie/burst mode is acceptable.  For example, I wrote about pre-roll earlier, where the photographer indicates a given moment, and the camera captures a few frames before and a few after.

We were originally responding to something that Ray said about movie mode making street photography "a breeze".  That clearly isn't true.  And his remark colored the dialog about movie mode that followed subsequently.  The idea of taking frames en masse and harvesting them later without the characteristic form of engagement would not be compatible with this philosophy. 

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #363 on: January 24, 2015, 03:24:53 pm »

Luke understands the problem. Using burst mode or video mode is a mechanical approach detached from the situation.
No it isn't. It's just another way of capturing scene, certainly increasing the chance for the less skilled to get a decent shot, which I think is fundamentally the real objection.

Quote
If you understand street photography you'll understand that high resolution isn't a requirement. Look at HCB's early work. The film was slow, and even with dead-bang-on focus a lot of stuff is a bit out of focus because of shallow DOF. Compared with what's available now, resolution was lousy. And yet, people like Kertesz, HCB, Evans, Riboud created classics that stand alone. If you're shooting architecture or landscape you need to be concerned about resolution. If you're shooting street it's a minor consideration. I've attached a shot I made in 2000 with a Casio QV-3000EX, which had just come out. It has 3 mpx resolution. It makes a quite acceptable 8 x 10.
High quality not being available is not the same as having high quality and deliberately forsaking it. Resolution of 35mm film or MF is most certainly not lousy either. I've done 20x16 from 35mm, not to mention that resolution is less important than raw capability for many people.

Quote
I think video in a still camera is a marketing gimmick. We've had compact movie cameras for years. There was no reason to add video mode to a still camera, but the camera manufacturers were running out of gimmicks, like more and more pixels and jazzier focusing mechanics, and sales were falling. Being able to make a short movie with a still camera really appealed to point-and-shooters, and caused some of them to switch to more expensive mid-market cameras. It did give the industry a boost. Now that point-and-shoot cameras have been driven out by cell phones the industry needs another boost. What jazzy but unnecessary accoutrement will come along next?
The more you talk about video, the more obvious how little you know about it. P+S digital still cameras have had video for at least 13 years. People who shoot film/video have wanted larger sensor digital cameras to also shoot video for even longer. The camera companies did not really want to add it as they were afraid that it would damage their video camera sales. But they reluctantly gave into consumer demand and found it created a whole new market and had to rapidly adapt. The 5DII I'd also argue was the first compact [digital] movie camera as opposed to a video camera with a small chip that didn't give the look 'movie' makers preferred.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #364 on: January 24, 2015, 03:34:25 pm »

This is a needless conflict.  The question of whether movie mode is compatible with the philosophy of the decisive moment is simple.  It is a matter of whether someone is appropriately engaged in the process.  If someone is appropriately engaged in the process, then movie/burst mode is acceptable.  For example, I wrote about pre-roll earlier, where the photographer indicates a given moment, and the camera captures a few frames before and a few after.
Needless, indeed.
What anti-video people seem to be doing is verging on the camera takes the photo, rather than the photographer way of thinking.
My engagement in this particular process would not be affected by using video with say pre-roll, but my miss rate would definitely drop.
What people also seem to miss is that shooting good video is most certainly not easier than shooting stills.

Quote
We were originally responding to something that Ray said about movie mode making street photography "a breeze".  That clearly isn't true.  And his remark colored the dialog about movie mode that followed subsequently.  The idea of taking frames en masse and harvesting them later without the characteristic form of engagement would not be compatible with this philosophy.  
I think his saying video made it easier, which it certainly will for those with less skill is definitely what upset people. But making it a breeze, no definitely not.
Machine gun photography whether with shooting hundreds of digital stills or thousands of frames will never help those who cannot see a shot in first place to get a good photograph. For those who have the eye, it's simply another tool in the arsenal.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Iluvmycam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #365 on: January 24, 2015, 03:49:42 pm »

Alternatively you could look at the contact sheet and simply reject pictures that were not framed to your satisfaction, like Cartier-Bresson.

I think the real question, the acid test question is this....

If you had to crop a photo to make it useable, would your reject cropping in favor of ruining a photo that was museum quality otherwise if it was cropped and perfected?

Now, here is such a case.

nsfw

http://rangefindercamera.tumblr.com/image/108384883244

It is in a number of museum and public collections. I wont show you the uncropped version - it is worthless as it was taken, just pitiful. It is not that I am not a decent doc photog...I am an outstanding doc photog. If I was not, this photo would not be before you. The problem was the circumstances of getting an out of the corner of your eye, sideways hip shot perfect...before you can blink an eye twice. In such cases you make the most of the circumstances or...you let your ego ruin the pix.

In my case, I have NO problems cropping. I crop almost ALL my pix.  Seldom does a pix come out perfect with a millisecond of notice for pressing the button. And as was mentioned, imperfections is esp prevalent with a rangefinder Leica and parallax to deal with.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2015, 03:53:41 pm by iluvmycam »
Logged

mezzoduomo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #366 on: January 24, 2015, 03:52:36 pm »

Forget it, Luke. Isaac just trolls.

"Feed the conversation, not the trolls..."
                                              -thus sayeth Isaac

390 posts on this topic? Stunning.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #367 on: January 24, 2015, 04:12:25 pm »

As already mentioned more than once, why would anyone currently use it when it results in poorer quality images? Why would you move from 20-26mp raw files to 4mb jpeg images?

So why are you even suggesting it? According to you it's an exercise in pure guesswork until the technology is there. We may have intercontinental aircraft that fly on fusion reactors in the future too.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #368 on: January 24, 2015, 04:15:09 pm »

I wont show you the uncropped version - it is worthless as it was taken, just pitiful.

I'd be very interested as an instructive example to see the uncropped version of this.

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #369 on: January 24, 2015, 04:17:39 pm »

I think the real question, the acid test question is this....

If you had to crop a photo to make it useable, would your reject cropping in favor of ruining a photo that was museum quality otherwise if it was cropped and perfected?

Now, here is such a case.

nsfw

http://rangefindercamera.tumblr.com/image/108384883244
You may want to make the nsfw notice a lot more obvious! Before someone scares their co-workers.  :P
« Last Edit: January 24, 2015, 04:27:40 pm by jjj »
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #370 on: January 24, 2015, 04:27:22 pm »

So why are you even suggesting it? According to you it's an exercise in pure guesswork until the technology is there. We may have intercontinental aircraft that fly on fusion reactors in the future too.
I'm not saying you should do or not do it. I'm simply saying your objections as to why it will not work are groundless. Objections which had nothing to do with image quality.
To use an analogy to show how oddly you are arguing - You say hang gliding is impossible and I describe how it is in fact possible. This does not therefore mean I want to go hang gliding or that I think everyone else should get one and start soaring on thermals.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #371 on: January 24, 2015, 04:33:31 pm »

Russ isn't asking you to go hang gliding. He's wm asking if anyone ever has.
Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #372 on: January 24, 2015, 04:52:23 pm »

I think it's very clear that there are many ways to produce good art.  I don't know of any argument that says that the philosophy of "the decisive moment" is such that it must be followed.  

What the thesis amounts to is a mid-level theory about engagement with the world, the moment of commitment to action, the explanation of the action, and how that influences the aesthetic interpretation of the product of that action.  This is topic-neutral.  It applies to doing any of a wide range of things.  And it touches on a number of questions of deep interest in philosophy and psychology.

There are similar theories about playing jazz and the process of extemporaneous compositions.  Those theories apply more broadly than in just music.

In both of these areas, there are no explicitly normative claims (i.e., the claim that you "ought" to create art this way).  There are lots of good kinds of music that aren't jazz.  There are lots of good photographers that don't do photojournalism according to the Magnum school.

But.  Of course the psychological and philosophical claims, if they are true at all, are true in general.  You don't have to subscribe to theory of gravity, but you will be subject to gravity nevertheless.  In that sense, you don't have to subscribe to the philosophy of the decisive moment as a way to create art.  But if its philosophical and psychological foundations are true, then everyone is subject to their implications, whether one knows it or not.

One of the things that makes jazz (like photography) great is that we actually discovered a wonderful creative engine that works in the moment.  There is considerable gain to be had from exploring and exploiting that process for creative purposes.  

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #373 on: January 24, 2015, 05:04:26 pm »

Russ isn't asking you to go hang gliding. He's wm asking if anyone ever has.
Try and understand the concept of addressing a specific sentence in a post, as opposed to all posts made by someone in an entire thread.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #374 on: January 24, 2015, 05:05:49 pm »

Oh, I understand nitpicking. I choose not to.

Nitpicking is a device for carrying on fights, not for having discussions. In a thesis defense every word counts. In casual conversation what normal people look for is overall thrust of argument.

Normal people overlook the occasional misstatement, the occasional poor word choice, and try to grasp the larger point at each stage, and to speak to that.

Unless, of course, they're interested in counting coup rather than conversing. Then it's normal to nitpick.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2015, 05:09:16 pm by amolitor »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #375 on: January 24, 2015, 06:36:22 pm »

I'm not saying you should do or not do it. I'm simply saying your objections as to why it will not work are groundless.

Jeremy, You're the one who's telling me it's not worth doing because of low pixel count. I showed you a perfectly good street shot done with 3 mpx.

I'll say again: show me an example of a good street shot made in either movie mode or burst mode.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #376 on: January 24, 2015, 07:22:33 pm »

I'll say again: show me an example of a good street shot made in either movie mode or burst mode.

So Russ, I think we can get a range of possibilities that others have recognized.  Imagine if you carried your favorite street camera (a Leica or whatever), and you went about your work in your customary way.  Except when you press the shutter release, there is a feature that gives you the 1/10th second before that and 1/10th second after that as well.  Imagine it does this silently and transparently.  The only difference is that when you read your memory card, there are three images where you pressed the shutter release once.

This is a simple modification which preserves our intuitions about doing street photography a la mode.  There are times when you just might catch the moment you /really/ intended this way.  So we've maintained the veridical connection.

The questions start to arrive when you move from there closer to the idea of "harvesting" images with only minimal engagement in the moment.  And I think we all agree that this is among the possibilities that would be inconsistent with doing street photography a la mode. 

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #377 on: January 24, 2015, 07:48:27 pm »

And there you have it. The false dichotomy at hand, perfectly stated by Isaac.

If you can't get past that, then you're just not in the discussion at all.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #378 on: January 24, 2015, 08:33:32 pm »

Neither do you show yours. Since I merely state that another possibility may exist, and you make the absolute claim that it does not, I think the necessity for proof lies with you.

And around we go.

Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #379 on: January 24, 2015, 09:29:46 pm »

Ok, so the OP started this thread more than four years ago.. and left LuLa soon thereafter, forgetting to turn off the lights and lock the door on his way out.

You realize of course this is one of the few official sticky threads in the history of photography.  The "Migrations" threads might be another.  The issue can never be solved and it can never die.  It can endure an infinite number of "threadkillers".  
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 25   Go Up