Sorry all that this got to be so long.
William R. wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: March 4, 2001 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
> > Mike J. wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > If you want to ensure that you'll never become a good
> photographer, IMO, use
> > > a zoom lens, crop everything, and scan everything into
> Photoshop. You'll
> > > squander all your time and creative energy diddling around
> with "almost good
> > > enough" photographs after the fact, and never learn to
> strengthen your
> > > seeing.
> > >
> > > Just another viewpoint.
> >
> > ...and a whole lot of nonsense, in my opinion.
>
> Mais non, Messieur Lasse, there is much sense in what he
> says.
> Think of it this way,
Now, why should I, if I don't want to? :) But allright, since you bothered to do some
reasoning, I will respond. But be warned, I object to and disagree with most of it....
>if you habitually crop very loose,
> with the intention of cropping the junk out later, you are not
> using as much of the negative as you can.
What you're saying is evident (regardless of whether it's "habitual" or not).
> The more enlargement,
> the more grain, the more lens flaws start to show, etc. Some
> exceptions do apply. This months PUG has a couple of them
> included.
> Photography is the art of seeing.
Yes, but it's also the art of pressing the shutter before the object disappears, the
art of cropping, retouching, possible manipulation, getting to places in time,
delivering stuff in time, selecting, choosing the right way to display it etc along
with thousand of other desicions to be made along the way from the incentive to shoot
to a final picture.
> 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.
Yes, to some extent this may be true. But just as often the idea is to make sure you
press that shutter exactly when "you picture" appears. If you haven't had the
opportunity to use the optimal equipment, or use your equipment at it's optimal level,
you are still a good photographer if you (when needed) manage to salvage anything of a
difficult shooting situation, instead of choosing not to try at all, which seem to be
adviced by some people around here, regardless of the circumstances around
shooting/assignment..
> I think the zoom lens, in the hands of an experienced
> photographer is a powerful tool, but in the hands of an
> untrained tyro it is as dangerous as a loaded Colt 45 in the
> hands of a child, from the POV of the finished photograph.
I think your comparison is overly melodramatic, but allright then, I see your point.
However, why talk about the untrained?
> Most zoom lenses, in the hands of the inexperienced are in
> fact dual focal length lenses.
If so, so what?
> Almost invariably, they are used
> at the extreme ends of the focal range.
If so, so what?
> Just slide the zoom to
> the stop, compose as best you can, focus and pray, ahem, shoot,
> seems to be the way of it.
If you don't know better, this sounds like a reasonable approach.
(Still, this hypothetical situation has very little to do with the discussion about
how, when and whether desirable to apply cropping.)
> Anything that allows or encourages laziness of vision is
> going to hurt the final photograph.
Well "laziness of vision" is a concept that I prefer not to get into a discussion
about.
Neither do I think that it necessarily has anything to do with making use of a zoom or
cropping.
> What the zoom lens does is
> teach us to stand in one spot and compose with the lens, when we
> should be composing with our feet.
Why should we, if we've got a lens that can do it much more conveniently for us?
Surely, if I have the time and I know that I have a prime lens better than the zoom, I
might change lens
and prepare more carefully for the picture. This is about priorities.
> Sure, you can fill the frame
> with an 80-300 at the long end, but would the picture be better
> if you walked up to the subject, and used a lens of a more
> moderate focal length?
I don't know. But the "picture" may have disappeared completely by the time I get
there, the bird may have got scared and flown, the car has turned the corner into the
next lap, the players are already shaking hands after match-ball, the goal keeper
already picked the ball out of the net, she's already half way down the subway
station, the song may be ended, Elvis has died and the last train has already left....
> Many zoom lens users never find out.
I don't care if they do. The point is that may be just as good a photographer if they
don't.
> Here is a general question: How many of us see something
> that interests us, lift the camera to the eye and press the
> button. Then move on?
Quite often I do so. Many a good shot have come of this technique.
> How many of us, upon seeing something interesting, walk up
> to it, wander around it inspecting for a while, then lift the
> camera to our eye?
Often I do this too. Not too long ago I spent at least half an hour inspecting this
sculpture too see if and how I could get a good shot of it. Because of this and that I
concluded I couldn't and didn't even try. I'll return to it some other day, another
season, at another time of day, when the weather suits it better, and maybe bring
along a wider, or longer focal length and maybe a flash.
> As this is a photographers mailing list, I
> hope most of us use the second method. The first method is the
> one you see in use in any national park during the vacation
> season.
So what, it doesn't make that method any worse, just because a lot of people use it?
> The same applies to Photoshop and it's ilk. Digital
> manipulation is seductive.
I like being seduced. :) It is also very, very handy. Saves a lot of time and money.
It's fun. Doesn't smell. Gives you almost endless possibilities etc. Great challenge
too. You have to learn to master yet another technique. :)
> Don't like the sky? Well, just take
> the picture, we'll add some clouds later. Don't want to hump
> your camera across that field to get he power lines out of the
> image? Don't worry, we can just clone them out.
Exactly. Great!
(So far I don't think I ever erased anything from any of my own pictures yet (apart
from cropping), but I seem to remember there was at least one, so far, that I might
apply this to.)
> Lazy making tools beget lazy technique.
I don't know why you introduce the concept of "laziness" as this doesn't necessarily
have anything to do with either cropping or being a good photographer. A lazy
photographer may be just as good a photographer as diligent one.
> Lazy technique
> begets sloppy vision.
Subsequently I don't understand why you bring in sloppy vision into a discussion about
cropping and good vs bad photgraphers. Lazily or sloppily executed techniques is of
course by definition undesirable wherever it appears.
> Sloppy vision is what bad photography is about.
Maybe so, but why not talk about cropping, and making good use of it as in good
photography?
Now, having said and disagreed with all this above, I would like to point out that I
do think that applying a similar approach/thinking like the one you do above, very
well may be resulting in good photography. For instance, your submission to the self
portrait gallery last year, (B&W on the stairs etc.) is an example of great
photography, that may result from your method, of which your thoughts above may be a
part.
Also, your statements are both eloquent and logical. But if you don't agree with the
premises (or think they are irrelevant), you also disagree with the conclusions, like
I did.
Other than that I don't find much wrong with your way of reasoning. :)
However, what I strongly disagree with, are some attitudes put forward by some people
as universal thruths about photography, when they to me appear like narrow minded
views with very little validity on (what is.a reasonable definition of) photography as
a whole.
> At least, that's what I think
Happy thinking, (truely, not sarcastically :) )
Lasse
-
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 .
