"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Photography is the art of seeing. The idea is to see what
>you want to be in the picture, and include only those relevant
>elements in the viewfinder, giving yourself just enough room
>around the edges for printer cut-off if you have machine prints
>made, or slide mounts.
> Anything that allows or encourages laziness of vision is
>going to hurt the final photograph.
> Lazy making tools beget lazy technique. Lazy technique
>begets sloppy vision.
>Sloppy vision is what bad photography is about.
Bravo.
I'm not anti-cropping at all but I do always try to compose my
photos so as to use the entire frame. As you pointed out, this
is advisable for a variety of technical reasons, but I also like
the discipline it imposes on me. I think this self-imposed
discipline is very useful in becoming a better photographer.
OTOH, I have no problem with cropping after I've done my best to
avoid *needing* to crop. I have a lovely square format photo of
LaPlata Peak in Colorado that I shot on 35mm. It was just the
best way of framing that scene; I just didn't realize it until
after I took the photo. I have a 2:1 ratio "quasi panoramic"
shot that I thought was a dud until I tried cropping it down.
(Hhad I been able to get that annoying cloud to move away the
full-frame shot would have been awesome but my supernatural
powers failed me that day!)
Also: Not immediately realizing the best way to frame a scene is
not *necessarily* a sign of poor planning or poor "vision". I'd
venture to say that many great photographs are those that are
found to contain something different/more with repeated viewings
and these things may just inspire new ways of framing the
picture.
So I suppose that I find the *motive* for
cropping/zooming/photoshop-ing more important than the action
itself.
Mark
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
