Sparrow
Veteran
Finder said:Why? You agree that folks differenciate between black and white and color, or film and digital (I assume you have heard about that). Why not other methods. It is simply a matter of value to the viewer. I value the work of photographers that do not crop.
Do you appreciate rangefinder photography?
yes; but each of those have a direct impact on the print, what’s suggested here is that a well crafted shot of a lens cap has more value than an ill crafted one by virtue of how it was made, or am I not understanding?
If you see an image you like then discover it’s a crop do you then like it less
My appreciation of the RF camera is in its product not its process, is that perverse? Is it simply a totem for you?
Finder
Veteran
Sparrow said:yes; but each of those have a direct impact on the print, what’s suggested here is that a well crafted shot of a lens cap has more value than an ill crafted one by virtue of how it was made, or am I not understanding?
If you see an image you like then discover it’s a crop do you then like it less
My appreciation of the RF camera is in its product not its process, is that perverse? Is it simply a totem for you?
Well, a black print of the inside of a lens cap is not my thing. but... And this is not a black and white issue where a technical aspect will be the only factor in enjoying or appreciating the work. And yes, if I do find out an image has been cropped a little disappointing. A great moment captured in a frame and needs no further refinement is amazing to me. Kind of like hearing a recording of a great musical performance only to find out the timing and pitch was changed because the musican did not get it right. I still enjoy it, but a little magic is lost. (And that is my personal taste.)
Personally, I don't care what camera was used to take an image. However, I have had the experience of people who do favor images from certain camera types.
peter_n
Veteran
In his classic book on the workings of the creative mind Interviews with Francis Bacon, art historian David Sylvester shows that accident is indeed a not uncommon ingredient in how an artist "chooses" a particular path to expression.
iml
Well-known
I think art is whatever someone calls art. But that in itself says nothing about whether it's any good or not, those are two separate questions.
As far as photography goes, IMO the only thing that matters is the image, how the photographer got there is less important to anyone except the photographer themselves, except in the case of avowedly documentary photography, which by definition should not be the result of a pre-planned setup.
Having said that, I think how the photographer herself chooses to make an image should be important to them, which is why, personally, I'm against very heavy cropping, it just feels wrong to me so I don't do it. I think, in the case of street and candid photography, it violates my sense of what gives that genre its edge and point. More minor cropping is something I do more frequently, to remove something from the edge of the frame, or to make a square composition out of a rectangular neg, or vice-versa. I have no problem with that, and regard it as a normal part of RF and prime lens shooting, where frameline accuracy is imprecise and it isn't always possible to get in the precisely right position for the shot.
Ian
As far as photography goes, IMO the only thing that matters is the image, how the photographer got there is less important to anyone except the photographer themselves, except in the case of avowedly documentary photography, which by definition should not be the result of a pre-planned setup.
Having said that, I think how the photographer herself chooses to make an image should be important to them, which is why, personally, I'm against very heavy cropping, it just feels wrong to me so I don't do it. I think, in the case of street and candid photography, it violates my sense of what gives that genre its edge and point. More minor cropping is something I do more frequently, to remove something from the edge of the frame, or to make a square composition out of a rectangular neg, or vice-versa. I have no problem with that, and regard it as a normal part of RF and prime lens shooting, where frameline accuracy is imprecise and it isn't always possible to get in the precisely right position for the shot.
Ian
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I agree!iml said:
Shots made for news documentaries (the Lebanon-and-PhotoShop cloning incident comes to mind) need to be unstaged, but remember that the prize winning shot of the Vietnamese girl covered in napalm originally had a wider frame, showing half a dozen photographers trying to get a shot similar to the prize winning one.
Had it not been cropped, it would certainly not have won, maybe wouldn't even been published by the World Press organisation, since it so clearly shows the perverseness of news photography.
Apart from fixing a shot, or staging a news shot, anything goes, as far as I'm concerned. AND we (meaning photographers in general and media businesses in particular) do need to make the public aware that the fact that it's a photo does not mean it depicts the truth.
colinh
Well-known
There's something about this No Cropping business that I don't understand.
If one frames and composes the shot so that it is just as one wants it to be, i.e. one knows precisely what the image is at the moment one depresses the shutter, then surely every single shot one takes should be a Good One. If not, why bother to take the picture?
As I've said, I have to take the shot in less than a second (including raising and lowering the camera). I look through the finder for a lot less than a second (usually).
I can't do much more than try to make sure that what I'm after is somewhere within the frame! The framing/composition comes before the shot - you should see me running around in front of where I think the subject is going (without looking at the subject).
If I need to crop in order to focus on the subject, or even on something I didn't even notice when taking the shot, well, then I will. I prefer not cropping, but only because it reduces the quality.
colin
If one frames and composes the shot so that it is just as one wants it to be, i.e. one knows precisely what the image is at the moment one depresses the shutter, then surely every single shot one takes should be a Good One. If not, why bother to take the picture?
As I've said, I have to take the shot in less than a second (including raising and lowering the camera). I look through the finder for a lot less than a second (usually).
I can't do much more than try to make sure that what I'm after is somewhere within the frame! The framing/composition comes before the shot - you should see me running around in front of where I think the subject is going (without looking at the subject).
If I need to crop in order to focus on the subject, or even on something I didn't even notice when taking the shot, well, then I will. I prefer not cropping, but only because it reduces the quality.
colin
iml
Well-known
But there's a lot of experimentation involved, especially in b&w. When I take a picture, even if it's framed just as I want it to be at the time, I'm often not sure how it will look as a b&w photograph, or with the DOF I've chosen, or with the motion blur I'm trying to achieve, or with the exposure I've chosen, or even if the framing will make sense as a picture rather than as a moment in reality. A lot of my stuff is quite abstract, and how it looks in reality and how it looks as a photograph are quite different.colinh said:
Quite often something I assume at the time will not be very good turns out to be the best thing on a roll, and vice-versa.
I regard street photography as a form of documentary photography, and therefore think heavy cropping violates my own sense of what's right to do. Others can make their own decisions. You get some good results, if it works for you and you're happy doing it, then stick with it, I'm not trying to prescribe what anyone else does. And, as, Johan points out above, every rule has exceptions, the famous Vietnam picture is a good example.
Ian
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
All very interesting, as someone who makes a living as a designer its always helpful to how people view artwork, or even how they define art.
Finder’s considered appreciation, where things he knows about the artist or his methods influences his view of its value is fascinating, almost “Performance-Art” fixed in the print, or Cubist outlook to photography, a sort of adult Cognitive Reality. It fits in with Ian’s idea that the artist’s knowledge of how it was produced informs his valuation of his own work the question is should it effect other the viewers’ valuation?
Finder’s considered appreciation, where things he knows about the artist or his methods influences his view of its value is fascinating, almost “Performance-Art” fixed in the print, or Cubist outlook to photography, a sort of adult Cognitive Reality. It fits in with Ian’s idea that the artist’s knowledge of how it was produced informs his valuation of his own work the question is should it effect other the viewers’ valuation?
Sparrow
Veteran
The cropping thing; I’ve always had the view that “what they don’t know can’t hurt them” however on 135 anything above 10-15% starts making me nervous about quality anyway.
colinh
Well-known
Anyone here feel like an artist in a group in a Parisian café?
I don't know if there's any "should" involved.
Is Mozart's music any different if you know that he wrote perfect, correction-free manuscript first time? Or that Paganini was playing the violin in a concert, one string broke, and he just carried on playing (compensating using the other strings)?
My appreciation for their genius increases, and maybe my enjoyment too - maybe because I concentrate more on the music.
A photograph also becomes more interesting if the photographer writes a bit about the circumstances it was taken in.
So, I think it just does affect the viewer's evaluation.
colin
Sparrow said:
I don't know if there's any "should" involved.
Is Mozart's music any different if you know that he wrote perfect, correction-free manuscript first time? Or that Paganini was playing the violin in a concert, one string broke, and he just carried on playing (compensating using the other strings)?
My appreciation for their genius increases, and maybe my enjoyment too - maybe because I concentrate more on the music.
A photograph also becomes more interesting if the photographer writes a bit about the circumstances it was taken in.
So, I think it just does affect the viewer's evaluation.
colin
Sparrow
Veteran
colinh said:Anyone here feel like an artist in a group in a Parisian café?
colin
No it’s 10:30 in the morning and I’m sober……….sadly
Sparrow
Veteran
colinh said:
So I, as a photographer, can gain more enjoyment from your photographs? Simply by virtue of knowledge and training. If that’s the case how would you react if your favorite Mozart correction-free manuscript was discovered to be a fake by one of his students and how would it alter your appreciation of the actual music
colinh
Well-known
Sparrow said:
That would be dangerous. This is why I try not to say too much about them.
It would be very sad and I would stop listening to music and take up photography instead.
Write then. In affect I think its thyme to find a caffè and go and take some pixies.
colin
Finder
Veteran
colinh said:There's something about this No Cropping business that I don't understand.
If one frames and composes the shot so that it is just as one wants it to be, i.e. one knows precisely what the image is at the moment one depresses the shutter, then surely every single shot one takes should be a Good One. If not, why bother to take the picture?
As I've said, I have to take the shot in less than a second (including raising and lowering the camera). I look through the finder for a lot less than a second (usually).
I can't do much more than try to make sure that what I'm after is somewhere within the frame! The framing/composition comes before the shot - you should see me running around in front of where I think the subject is going (without looking at the subject).
If I need to crop in order to focus on the subject, or even on something I didn't even notice when taking the shot, well, then I will. I prefer not cropping, but only because it reduces the quality.
colin
This is my thing on shooting full frame - the no cropping issue.
Careful composition does not mean the image is good, just framed well. It certainly does not guarantee a great image.
But time is not the factor in framing an image well. Henri Cartier Bresson has written on this. And that is the challenge for me as a photographer. To have everything on the beam where it comes together in a single instant, is in my view, the magic of photography. It also requires you to be there. When you don't have a second chance to fix things up, you really need to be on the ball. I guess this type of photography is the closest photographers come to performance. If you are performing well, then something good will happen. If you put yourself out there, you will get something back.
Then to see that special image, that is the iceing on the cake. I rarely feel those images are mine. They are more of a gift. I am grateful for those moments.
R
RML
Guest
The problem with HCB is is that he shot loads and that we are seeing minuscule amounts of it. HCB also didn't do much of his own printing, so how much of his work was actually cropped and/or staged, if not a total crap shoot? I've been trying to read "HCB and the artless art" for quite some time now and as far as I can tell it's BS. These are wonderings [i[after[/i] the fact, a poor stab at legitimising one's photography. IMO HCB understood his own ways of shooting as little as we do, but that he simply fell for the trap set by all his admirers asking how he came to his photos. Decisive moment? BS. There are too many moments in a second, and each is different. HCB just picked one such moment (out of the dozens he probably shot). What I'd want is to see all of his contacts. Only then we can see for ourselves how great he was, or whether he was little more than a monkey with a typewriter.
Sparrow
Veteran
Finder said:
So that leads us to the conclusion, the answer to the OP, that the full frame un-cropped image is in fact accident whereas the considered cropped image is, by definition, art
Welsh_Italian
Established
An interesting discussion - thanks to all who have contributed.
I'm not an expert in this by any means, but I am trying to learn about these things.
From what I understand, a lot of the reasons why art is considered great is because of its context. For example, Raphael's "the nymph Galatea" is considered a great work of art because of the novel composition and arrangement of the figures which previously had been static and symmetrical. There is a symmetry in Raphael's work, but he still managed to produce a balanced work that also pointed to the subject of the piece. It was conventional in that the arrangement and composition was pleasing, but it was novel because the figures looked more "real" than any artist had produced before.
Likewise, Carravagio was considered a great artist because he didn't like the pursuit of perfection in his subjects - he painted famous figures in an even more realistic way (like his "Doubting Thomas" where an apostle - previously depicted as perfect was shown as a surprised old man - an ordinary human like he was).
Comparing both pieces, Raphael's work looks fake and unrealistic (particularly those Dolphins!), but these were painted years before, so Carravagios work represents a new development in art.
But the search for novelty can be a waste of time too. I'm sure there are artists who did "new" things that are now working at real jobs with their art forgotten. Art is full of trends as anything, but great art can survive them better.
I guess this means that for me, context is important to the work, but not necessary. Let's face it, if HCB had existed later and only produced his work now, he wouldn't get anywhere today (remember the Flickr discussion where someone put his "Mario's bike" up and was criticised because it wasn't sharp enough?) but at the time, his work represented a new approach to photography in the sense of social realism. Now, it would be derivative and people would say, "so what? It's all been done before." I still think that his work is good because of his composition, but from what I understand, his work was cropped an awful lot.
To me, it doesn't detract from the art. The final result in terms of its context is enough, but every artist uses their tools to their best ability to produce the work that they think is best. I'm happy to crop to produce what I think is a better picture, but whether I'm right is an opinion that everyone is entitled to have.
Of course, when a keeper comes up perfectly framed from development, it's wonderful!
I'm not an expert in this by any means, but I am trying to learn about these things.
From what I understand, a lot of the reasons why art is considered great is because of its context. For example, Raphael's "the nymph Galatea" is considered a great work of art because of the novel composition and arrangement of the figures which previously had been static and symmetrical. There is a symmetry in Raphael's work, but he still managed to produce a balanced work that also pointed to the subject of the piece. It was conventional in that the arrangement and composition was pleasing, but it was novel because the figures looked more "real" than any artist had produced before.
Likewise, Carravagio was considered a great artist because he didn't like the pursuit of perfection in his subjects - he painted famous figures in an even more realistic way (like his "Doubting Thomas" where an apostle - previously depicted as perfect was shown as a surprised old man - an ordinary human like he was).
Comparing both pieces, Raphael's work looks fake and unrealistic (particularly those Dolphins!), but these were painted years before, so Carravagios work represents a new development in art.
But the search for novelty can be a waste of time too. I'm sure there are artists who did "new" things that are now working at real jobs with their art forgotten. Art is full of trends as anything, but great art can survive them better.
I guess this means that for me, context is important to the work, but not necessary. Let's face it, if HCB had existed later and only produced his work now, he wouldn't get anywhere today (remember the Flickr discussion where someone put his "Mario's bike" up and was criticised because it wasn't sharp enough?) but at the time, his work represented a new approach to photography in the sense of social realism. Now, it would be derivative and people would say, "so what? It's all been done before." I still think that his work is good because of his composition, but from what I understand, his work was cropped an awful lot.
To me, it doesn't detract from the art. The final result in terms of its context is enough, but every artist uses their tools to their best ability to produce the work that they think is best. I'm happy to crop to produce what I think is a better picture, but whether I'm right is an opinion that everyone is entitled to have.
Of course, when a keeper comes up perfectly framed from development, it's wonderful!
Finder
Veteran
Sparrow said:
How? I frame when I take the picture. Your conclusion is not logical.
Finder
Veteran
RML said:
Why is this a problem?? This is true for most photographers.
Except for a few examples falsified by Magnium Photos AFTER his death, his uncropped work is easy to spot - they are printed with a full-frame border.
Certainly you passionately dislike Cartier Bresson. Did you know him personally? Most artist's statements are inadequate. Why not just enjoy his work for what it is rather than what Cartier Bresson says it is.
Finder
Veteran
Welsh_Italian said:
And if we existed in his time, would we think he was just an untalented nut? Could we appriciate his work?
It was cropped, but I don't think that much. He was also one of the first to limit editors from editing photographer's by not allowing them to crop an image from what the photographer wanted to show.