On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:19:48 -0400, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You and Shel are the leading proponents of not cropping on the list, I just said > that to get your goats. They are after all just snaps showing the flooding, so I > thought I would raise them to art by being pretentious (grin). <snip> >
Tom, Well, I'll invite Shel to state his own views (I wouldn't be so presumtuous as to state anything on his behalf <LOL>), however, AFAIK, Shel is no proponent of full frame prints. Since you raise the issue, let me state for the record: 1) My preference is to show my prints full frame. If anyone really cares to know why, I'm happy to discuss the matter further, either on or off list. 2) Sometimes I find it necessary to crop, if something is in the frame that just ruins the imact of the photo. Or sometimes, the framing I did in the viewfinder just plain sucks, and reframing by cropping produces an immeasurably better print. If I deem it necessary, I'll crop. 3) Just so's y'all know, if I show a print (either on-line or a real print) with a black rebate, that always means it's uncropped: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2644124 If it doesn't have the black rebate, it's either cropped or scanned from a minlab print or quickprint. In all likelihood, well over 90% of the prints I show here and everywhere else are uncropped. 4) This is merely a personal policy that I've decided to impose upon myself for my own prints. If someone else crops as a matter of course, that's fine; I make no judgements. What's important to me is what the print that I'm looking at looks like; I don't care how it got that way. I don't particularly advocate that anyone emulate me (God forbid, who would want to do that!! <vbg>). 5) I knew you were being pretetious... <vbg> cheers, frank -- "It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby." -Eliott Erwitt
