Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,287   Posts: 1,535,331   Online: 853
      
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 110
  1. #61
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael A. Smith
    You should know, Ed, that I have no problem with styles of photography other than my own....
    ...Please don't ever sell me short and assume that I am narrow minded.
    Michael,

    Please do me a great favor and GET OFF MY BACK!!!

    I never inferred anything like "You are narrow-minded" ... or that "You had a problem with styles other than your own"....

    I DID make a few *GENERAL* statements suggesting that we ALL exhibit respect for each other - and NOT JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION that the other guy only held her/his opinions because s/he was a "phony". If you feel that was directed at you .... first, realize that it was NOT directed at you personally, but towards ALL of us... second, if the shoe fits... etc.

    I mentioned *ONE* example of a significant 20th Century photographer - Alfred Stieglitz - IMHO - that is IN MY HUMBLE OPINION - the one photographer who has more effect on photography as it is regarded today - and ALL American art for that matter - than any other.

    It is annoying to have to reply to - in defense or otherwise - to statements I never made. Please keep closer track of "Who Said What."
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  2. #62
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael A. Smith
    You should know, Ed, that I have no problem with styles of photography other than my own. In fact, the first book Paula and I published by someone other than ourselves was Passage: Europe by Richard Copeland Miller, who worked in 35mm, photographed mostly at night, made grainy blurry pictures, and he cropped many of them (AARRRGH)...
    I don't get it. What *is* this fetish with printing full frame all about? Do you feel you must print full frame because that's what on the negative? The world is not parcelled into convenient sizes that match our lenses focal length, or our film sizes.

    If an image can be improved by cropping it, then crop it. If it's better full frame, then leave it alone.

    I don't want to start throwing stones, but it seems that the ULF crowd always (here I go generalizing) prints full frame, when perhaps their images could be improved by cropping. Sure, there's a wow factor when you contact print really big negatives, but again, perhaps some images could be improved by cropping. Why prevent yourself from making a stronger images by some self imposed (ridiculous) rule?

    Can someone please explain this to me?
    Cheers!

    -klm.

  3. #63
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by photomc
    Sean, think you did a good job with this one, it got a little..you know.
    .
    Now Ed and Michael back to the people to EW ...

    Ed had Alfred Stieglitz..

    I would put Paul Strand in that same group, maybe Imogene Cunnigham as well..
    I cited one example - in rebuttal. I hate to reply "in rebuttal".

    There are *SO* many photographers that I respect ... so many have made significant contributions to what we know as photography today...

    Certainly, I'll agree that Paul Strand (and his wife, Rebecca, posing for Stieglitz' nudes deserves special attention ..) and Cunningham deserve to be "at the top of the list" ... but I refuse to - because I cannot coherently - "rank" anyone against another.

    There were SO many -- Irving Penn, Horst, Arnold Newman, Phillipe Halsman, Jeanloup Sieff, Edward Steichen .... I could go on for pages ... and it would still be a travesty to omit so many others.... Joyce Tenneson, Ralph Gibson, Howard Schatz --- I'd even include ( ... what "even"? - *Deservedly* ) members here on APUG ... Thomas Sauerwein, Cheryl Jacobs, Les McLean..

    I'll recommend a book (Why not - everyone else is recommending...): "20th Century Photography - Museum Ludwig Cologne" from Taschen ... ISBN 3-8228-8648-3. I've drawn a lot of inspiration form this one.

    A little-known, and certainly **wonderful** photographer in here - Alfred Cheney Johnston - "... His career as a glamour photographer started when Flo Ziegfeld hired him as the official photographer of his show dancers."

    Lord ... do I LOVE photography....
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Düsseldorf, Germany
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,021
    Images
    1
    Hi Ken,

    Just my own way to answer your question: I only do 8x10 and crop my photos on the ground glass so that when I contact print that is it! If I need to crop a scene I change lens or change position. I do not think of it as a rule because it is second nature for me, more like an aesthetic reflex. Of course someone viewing the final print might think it would be better that I cropped some more but this response to my work is after the fact and really impossible to predict.
    Francesco

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    325
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by KenM

    I don't get it. What *is* this fetish with printing full frame all about?

    If an image can be improved by cropping it, then crop it. If it's better full frame, then leave it alone.

    I don't want to start throwing stones, but it seems that the ULF crowd always (here I go generalizing) prints full frame, when perhaps their images could be improved by cropping. Sure, there's a wow factor when you contact print really big negatives, but again, perhaps some images could be improved by cropping. Why prevent yourself from making a stronger images by some self imposed (ridiculous) rule?

    Can someone please explain this to me?
    Ken,

    First let me say, I shoot ULF formats and don't crop when I contact print.

    For me it about seeing during the moment of exposure. If an image needs alteration afterwards then, (for me) I didn't do what I should have at the time of exposure. I want to refine what I'm seeing at that moment, and not rely on correcting it later. But this is my way of working, and is not meant as any kind of a rule. Only that I always want to continue to push and further develop the way I'm seeing.

    Yes, I look at some of my negatives and sometimes think that could have been stronger with different composition. Hopefully I don't do that very often. The nice thing is the public will never see that work. That's how I learn and grow. Then, the next time I'm out working, I try to "see the image" better.

    If you want to know how this mind set started, well it started when I was printing in Platinum and was displaying my prints including the full coating area. There was no way of removing a part of the image, it either worked full frame or it didn't. Now, I'm not printing in Platinum anymore, but still like keeping that same discipline.[/code]
    George Losse
    www.georgelosse.com

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    651
    George said it as good as I could, but I'll add something. For the photographer, the point is not the picture, the point is the experience. Having the experience of seeing your photograph complete on the ground glass is an intense, deeply pleasurable and satisfying experience. That is what it is all about. The picture is a bonus.

    Cartier-Bresson cropped, too--best 35MM photographer yet in IMO. He stated that a photograph poorly seen can rarely be improved by cropping.

    Cropping is an admission of failure to see creatively.

    That being said: no one ever asks, or cares, if a photograph was cropped or not--including me. It is just that by not cropping you are forcing yourself, as George so eloquently stated, to expand your vision. And thereby to grow.

    Thaty being said, if the subject does not fit you gg, and you see it in another format, then crop. But I do not consider that cropping. Cropping is when you didn't get it, make a proof and say to yourself that if I only cut off this 1/8 on this side (or more) the picture will be a lot better. And it may be, but I say--throw it out, give yourself a swift kick, and vow to pay more attention next time. In the long run it is easier and much more satisfying to you, as maker.

    For me, as audience, I don't care how you get to your final print.

  7. #67
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael A. Smith
    Cropping is an admission of failure to see creatively.
    Sorry, but that's a load of crap. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the world does not fit into convenient little frames that you capture by using the appropriate focal length. I will admit that if you miss something in the field and it shows up on the negative, then that is a failure to see, but not a failure to see creatively. Creatively arranging distractions makes for a distracting image, not a good one.

    If something protrudes into the frame that you are unable to remove (or incorporate) with your composition, then deal with it - make the negative with the understanding that you'll crop the offending item out later, when you have the option to do so. Simply because something appears on the glass does not in any way require that it be a part of the final image.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael A. Smith then
    Thaty being said, if the subject does not fit you gg, and you see it in another format, then crop. But I do not consider that cropping. Cropping is when you didn't get it, make a proof and say to yourself that if I only cut off this 1/8 on this side (or more) the picture will be a lot better. And it may be, but I say--throw it out, give yourself a swift kick, and vow to pay more attention next time. In the long run it is easier and much more satisfying to you, as maker.
    Now you're arguing semantics. It doesn't matter if you crop on the glass, or crop later in the darkroom. It's called cropping. You're saying that only good photographers crop in the camera - the rest crop in the darkroom. Rubbish. And why throw out something that can be used? What a waste! Certainly, learn from past experiences, but don't throw away the entire effort!

    As you say, to the viewer of the print it DOES NOT MATTER how you get from point A to point B. As long as the image conveys what the photographer saw and felt when the image was made, the mission was accomplished. If, along the way, you need to crop, so be it.

    Cropping is like many other things in photography: it's a tool, much like how toning and bleaching are tools. They're not for every situation, but if they make the image better, apply the tool and make the image better.
    Cheers!

    -klm.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    As I read the posts to this thread I am a little confused because in one breath KenM asks for an explanation and then when one is tendered he calls it a "load of crap". I wonder if what he really wants is an explanation or perhaps more likely an argument. There are far better and more intelligent ways to express an opinion then to call someone else's opinion a "load of crap". That takes this matter to a level of a personal attack.

  9. #69
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,242
    Images
    73
    For all those interested in discussing the merits or lack thereof of cropping there has been a thread opened up just for that topic.

    It's amazing to watch a thread develop from a question relating to Weston's Daybooks all the way thru proper parenting and then cropping. Just what you would expect at say the dinner table. I love it!
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Düsseldorf, Germany
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,021
    Images
    1
    I love it too Eric. Proper photography and proper parenting and being a good husband all of these things are in the Daybooks. But what is not there is a primer on personal attacks. Tastes and Biases!!
    Francesco



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin