Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 25   Go Down

Author Topic: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment  (Read 259795 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 #400 on: January 26, 2015, 12:19:49 pm »

You and Luke are talking past one another. The word "philosophy" means different things to you two. You are arguing about the definition of "philosophy", possibly without knowing it.

And thus are born and sustained internet flame wars.


Stop being an inflammatory troll. We are debating politely. You however take every opportunity to make nasty personal digs.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #401 on: January 26, 2015, 12:27:57 pm »

Blah blah blah. I'm done with you, jjj. First you make an inflammatory remark, and in the next post you quote me being fairly polite and tell me to stop making inflammatory remarks.

You're apparently 6 years old. I KNOW U R BUT WHAT AM I! NO U! HA HA HA! I WIN!

Ignored.
Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #402 on: January 26, 2015, 12:35:29 pm »

You and Luke are talking past one another. The word "philosophy" means different things to you two. You are arguing about the definition of "philosophy", possibly without knowing it.

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.  
« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 12:37:34 pm by LKaven »
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #403 on: January 26, 2015, 12:40:40 pm »

jjj is using the word "philosophy" in the colloquial english sense, meaning more or less "a way of thinking" and you are using it to mean "such and such an academic discipline" and the two meanings barely overlap, if at all. This is gonna make conversation difficult.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #404 on: January 26, 2015, 12:41:32 pm »

If you think technical perfection is the factor that determines the quality of a street shot then you obviously don't understand street photography. And, after yawning my way through your "observed" shots I see that that's your problem. You seem to be a fairly competent wedding photographer, and that's fine, but it's not the same thing.
Sadly, you seem to be turning into Amolitor, substituting personal attacks for debating. The poor technical quality is not why I did not like your shot, if it was pin sharp and 36mp, it would still be a family snapshot in my view. I simply don't like that particular shot, no big deal. I don't expect everyone to like all my pics or even any of them.
I posted some of my observed shots earlier and your response was
I like all three of your street shots
and suddenly you're getting all nasty about the same work.  ::)
Now if you had actually bothered to look at my 'observed shots' rather than take cheap shots, you would have seen than technical perfection is not really what those shots are about. As explained above, I want to be able to choose when to do lo-fi and when to do high quality. Some of them are made to look lower quality than straight out of camera, some are not. But I have the choice, it is not forced upon me.
I often say that limitations can make for great creativity, but at other times they can be simply limiting if you want to do something quite specific.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #405 on: January 26, 2015, 12:55:14 pm »

A depressingly high percentage of arguments, especially on the internet, break down thus:

Person A: Under my set of definitions and axioms, such and such is true.
Person B: Under my, differing, set of definitions and axioms, the opposite it true. THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG!!!1!!!!11!!

and sometimes, all too often:

Person A: NO U R WRONG!!!11!!!!!

without either person realizing (or admitting it, if they do realize it) is that they're not arguing about "such and such" at all, they're arguing about definitions and axioms.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #406 on: January 26, 2015, 01:02:43 pm »

The difference is that I have years of post-graduate training in philosophy, and Jeremy doesn't. 
The difference is that I have years of training in science and you don't
Although I shouldn't actually say that as in fact I have zero knowledge of your academic background as you have of mine. 
I could also claim I have more experience of photography than you do, so a big  :P  to your philosophy about photography.  ;)  But I have zero evidence of that though either.


Quote
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. 
Ah academic style writing, a great way of rendering simple ideas impenetrable to most people. The oxymoronic phrase 'eschew obfuscation' always springs to mind when I read such text.  ;D

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 #407 on: January 26, 2015, 01:23:21 pm »

The difference is that I have years of training in science and you don't
Although I shouldn't actually say that as in fact I have zero knowledge of your academic background as you have of mine. 
I could also claim I have more experience of photography than you do, so a big  :P  to your philosophy about photography.  ;)  But I have zero evidence of that though either.

Ah academic style writing, a great way of rendering simple ideas impenetrable to most people. The oxymoronic phrase 'eschew obfuscation' always springs to mind when I read such text.  ;D

I actually have years in science as well Jeremy. 

I'm saying these things only to help point out precisely what it is I'm trying to communicate to you.  Though I don't know your background specifically, since you didn't pick up on some introductory level knowledge, I took a few moments to supply it.  If it struck you as impenetrable at first, it might take some additional effort for you to figure out why it is written the way it is.

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #408 on: January 26, 2015, 02:00:15 pm »

I actually have years in science as well Jeremy. 
Like I said, it would be wrong to assume you hadn't.

Quote
I'm saying these things only to help point out precisely what it is I'm trying to communicate to you.  Though I don't know your background specifically, since you didn't pick up on some introductory level knowledge, I took a few moments to supply it.  If it struck you as impenetrable at first, it might take some additional effort for you to figure out why it is written the way it is.
I spent a long time in academia and one thing that always bugged me was how some people trying to appear smarter than others by over complicating how they 'explain' things. Not saying that is what you are doing here [it may be just stylistic habit] or that I can't understand academic writing. But mostly when I read it, it comes across that it's more about trying to impress other people with overwrought erudition rather than communicating clearly. There's a certain style in some academic writing which simply grates with me because of that. I have no problem with subject specific jargon or writers using less common words for precision, but there's there's the other overly tortuous kind. That kind of academic style writing seems particularly out of place here in a public forum about photography.

Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #409 on: January 26, 2015, 02:02:45 pm »

This "non-issue" is a tell-tale of principled action when we are told: "IMO, cropping for reasons other than the necessity of fitting an aspect ratio represents a failure to capture the image properly in the first place."

It's fairly simple logic. All else being equal (focus, camera settings, composition, etc.), a capture that does not require cropping to obtain the final image is always better than one that does.

In real life, all things are usually not equal, and sometimes one does not have a capture that can be used uncropped. In those cases, one has a choice of either cropping or going without a usable image, and using a cropped image is generally better than being empty-handed. But that doesn't change the fact that all else being equal, having a capture that does not need cropping is always the best-case scenario.
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 #410 on: January 26, 2015, 02:05:10 pm »

Sadly, you seem to be turning into Amolitor, substituting personal attacks for debating. The poor technical quality is not why I did not like your shot, if it was pin sharp and 36mp, it would still be a family snapshot in my view. I simply don't like that particular shot, no big deal. I don't expect everyone to like all my pics or even any of them.

As I said, be my guest.

Quote
I posted some of my observed shots earlier and your response was and suddenly you're getting all nasty about the same work.  ::)

I've always know that fudging the truth in order to be "nice" is bad practice. It's just that I sometimes forget that. I'll try to remember that in the future when discussing photographs with you, Jeremy.

Quote
Now if you had actually bothered to look at my 'observed shots' rather than take cheap shots. . .

Actually I spent more time looking at them than the experience warranted.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #411 on: January 26, 2015, 02:38:38 pm »

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

I am puzzled as to how I can explain several times why this is not the case, and yet, you can still appear to cling to the idea. Furthermore, since he DID crop on those extremely rare occasions where the picture was right but the framing was not (and I have explained, carefully and precisely, why this might occur only very very rarely), your statement is demonstrably false.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2015, 02:42:03 pm by amolitor »
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #412 on: January 26, 2015, 02:48:52 pm »

Furthermore, since he DID crop on those extremely rare occasions where the picture was right but the framing was not…

As before:

A straightforward hypothesis: Cartier-Bresson would not crop, if he had been able to see through the view finder to frame the photo when the exposure was made.

All it takes to disprove is an example where Cartier-Bresson had been able to see through the view finder and he still decided to crop the print.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #413 on: January 26, 2015, 02:52:05 pm »

Yes. So?

If he could see through the finder, the framing was either right, or the picture was wrong. Not "wrong but fixable with a crop", but simply wrong.

Please review post #417.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #414 on: January 26, 2015, 03:13:24 pm »

Please review post #417
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #415 on: January 26, 2015, 03:42:23 pm »

Not to suggest that everyone ought to love the shot, merely that those who "get it" fall in one camp, and those who do not fall into a different one. And never the twain shall meet.
I think this one remark summarizes this entire thread quite adequately. And nothing new or useful has been added by either faction since Andrew made this remark, IMHO (or is it "in my humble Philosophy?)
 ::)
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

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 #416 on: January 26, 2015, 03:48:52 pm »

I think you're right, Eric. And I have to add: This may not be absolutely the most asinine thread I've ever read on LuLa, but it's definitely in the running for that hotly contested distinction. I'll also add: I'm outta here!
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #417 on: January 26, 2015, 04:24:42 pm »

Apparently the salient comment is number #414. Either I've lost my mind, or some posts got deleted.

My apology for the confusion either way.
Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #418 on: January 26, 2015, 05:43:55 pm »

Like I said, it would be wrong to assume you hadn't.
I spent a long time in academia and one thing that always bugged me was how some people trying to appear smarter than others by over complicating how they 'explain' things. Not saying that is what you are doing here [it may be just stylistic habit] or that I can't understand academic writing. But mostly when I read it, it comes across that it's more about trying to impress other people with overwrought erudition rather than communicating clearly. There's a certain style in some academic writing which simply grates with me because of that. I have no problem with subject specific jargon or writers using less common words for precision, but there's there's the other overly tortuous kind. That kind of academic style writing seems particularly out of place here in a public forum about photography.

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.

mezzoduomo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment
« Reply #419 on: January 26, 2015, 08:37:13 pm »

"Isaac, jjj, and amolitor walked into a bar."

Can't anyone just stop?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 25   Go Up