I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all
Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In several
of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20 or a 24, there
is no tell-tale line convergence or curvature at the edges. That tells me
these photos
On 12 Feb 2003 at 7:47, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:
I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all
Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In several
of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20 or a 24, there is
no tell-tale line
On 12 Feb 2003 at 7:47, I wrote:
I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all
Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In
several of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20
or a 24, there is no tell-tale line convergence or curvature
On 12 Feb 2003 at 20:38, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:
Rob,
It wasn't so much the absence of barrel distortion as the lack of the
familiar converging vertical lines effect and elongate faces that you
invariably find at the edges of a wide-angle photo. The faces of people at
the edges
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Most of the time I try very hard to compose exactly
what I want
in the viewfinder, but a) I'm sometimes unable to do
so because
of not being able to change my location quickly
enough or not
having quite as long a lens as I needed at that
I'll admit it, I crop, (I feel like I'm in an AA meeting). Often I
will compose a photo knowing I intend to crop from the beginning, some
subjects just scream out for a panoramic treatment, or square treatment,
as well as the reasons Bob listed
At 09:51 AM 2/11/2003 +, Bob wrote:
OK lets
Rob,
Sounds like square format would actually work well for you. I used to
shoot too tight and when it came time to frame, I would not have
enough around the edges so the subject would be uncomfortably tight in
the frame. From my experience, at least with people shots, it is
better to be just a
With 35mm I compose very carefully and usually
print full frame. BUT, with 67 and 4X5 I intentionally
shoot a little wider than my final vision and crop
to perfection during the printing phase. Why because
with the higher resolution formats you can afford
to crop, with 35mm you cant. Secondly,
Hi, Rob,
I try ~real hard~ not to crop, and I'd guess that 90% to 95% of my shots are
only cropped as necessary to fit the print format.
That being said, sometimes it is impossible to get that pesky telephone wire
or lampost out of the frame, and I know at the time I take the shot that a
crop
it fit where it needs to. When I do a picture page, unless I'm getting
rid of a really distracting element, I rarely crop.
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:51 AM
Subject: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels
...with 67 and 4X5 I intentionally
shoot a little wider than my final vision and crop
to perfection during the printing phase. Why because
with the higher resolution formats you can afford
to crop, with 35mm you cant.
Is that one of those cast in stone photographers rules?
Rob Studdert
OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a
little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as
well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of enough
magnification. Who here sometimes takes a lanscape format portrait and
realises
At 08:39 PM 11/02/2003 -0500, you wrote:
...with 67 and 4X5 I intentionally
shoot a little wider than my final vision and crop
to perfection during the printing phase. Why because
with the higher resolution formats you can afford
to crop, with 35mm you cant.
Is that one of those cast in
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10
print?)
I only crop when the found view looks a little too found.
Since my viewfinder doesn't match my negative perfectly, I have to crop to
what my viewfinder sees
14 matches
Mail list logo
