To crop or not to crop.....

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Did they falsely represent their work? Of course not (although maybe you think otherwise). You're the one who said HCB did so...not me.

 

Countless other great and skilled photographers never deemed it necessary to show uncropped versions of all their work. If they did, museums and galleries would be full of black borders and/or disclaimers. No thank you.

 

As for your second paragraph, I understand you clearly...again. We just disagree. I happen to think that Evans, Frank, and countless others are no less skilled because they...or printers on their behalf...cropped some of their images. The same eye, vision and skill went into all of their work. They decided where to aim and photograph in the first place. And, in many cases, where to dodge and burn, tilt the easel, experiment with papers and coatings, and on and on. All of these decisions...and more...affected the result we eventually see. It's photography, not reality. It's all "false."

 

I'm done now.

 

Jeff

 

I'm not quite done because I've been thinking about our discussion particularly with regards to the HCB photograph 'behind the Gare St Lazare'.

 

Having seen the cropped version for many years and having assumed it was not cropped, I have visualised it being taken. I see HCB in a certain position, quite close to the subject, somehow not being noticed by the subject and taking this wonderful photograph. I imagine myself in this scenario and realise the extent of HCB's accomplishment in taking this photograph. But now I find out that he was much farther away, even behind a metal fence, perhaps hiding, certainly more concealed from the subject and my whole view of the photograph changes. Whereas before I saw it as a photograph that only an artist such as HCB could take, now I see it as photograph that others of lesser skill could have taken.

 

Perhaps this more clearly explains my thinking.

 

Jeff

[stunsworth]

Whereas before I saw it as a photograph that only an artist such as HCB could take, now I see it as photograph that others of lesser skill could have taken

 

But the photograph hasn't changed, you are saying that how the photograph was created is more important than the photograph itself. What you seem to be saying is that the more difficult a photograph is to take, the more merit it has. That's something I fundamentally disagree with. How the photograph was made is of little interest to me. What's important is the photograph.

[nhabedi]

Does the book include the entire scrapbook?

 

Yes, and AFAIK the book is identical to the exhibition. 346 prints are shown the majority of which are vintage prints done by HCB himself. (Only 15 were re-printed for the exhibition/book because the originals were lost.)

[jaapv]

Whereas before I saw it as a photograph that only an artist such as HCB could take, now I see it as photograph that others of lesser skill could have taken.

 

But they didn't, and that is just the point.

[stunsworth]

...the majority of which are vintage prints done by HCB himself.

 

Are you sure about that? HCB was not interested in doing his own darkroom work.

[nhabedi]

Are you sure about that? HCB was not interested in doing his own darkroom work.

 

Yes, I'm sure about that. I know that HCB didn't do darkroom work for most of his career. That's why the so-called "Scrapbook" is different - because it consists solely of prints done by himself early in his career.

 

Read the book if you don't believe me. I gave the ISBN above.

[azzo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not quite done because I've been thinking about our discussion particularly with regards to the HCB photograph 'behind the Gare St Lazare'.

 

Having seen the cropped version for many years and having assumed it was not cropped, I have visualised it being taken. I see HCB in a certain position, quite close to the subject, somehow not being noticed by the subject and taking this wonderful photograph. I imagine myself in this scenario and realise the extent of HCB's accomplishment in taking this photograph. But now I find out that he was much farther away, even behind a metal fence, perhaps hiding, certainly more concealed from the subject and my whole view of the photograph changes. Whereas before I saw it as a photograph that only an artist such as HCB could take, now I see it as photograph that others of lesser skill could have taken.

 

Perhaps this more clearly explains my thinking.

 

Jeff

 

 

. . . . . . !

[SJP]

. . . . . . !

indeed !!

[Jeff S]

 

Perhaps this more clearly explains my thinking.

 

Jeff

 

Methinks you think too much.

 

My gauge for appreciating a great photograph, or other work on paper, is simply to decide if I would like to (hypothetically) hang it on my wall to see every day.

 

Jeff

[stunsworth]

My gauge for appreciating a great photograph, or other work on paper, is simply to decide if I would like to (hypothetically) hang it on my wall to see every day./quote]

 

Jeff, I understand what you are saying, but I think that's too narrow a definition. I went round the current Don McCullin in Salford a few weeks ago, and while the photographs were very powerful I don't think there were too many I'd want to have hanging on my wall. To be honest people can sometimes over intellectualise things too much. A good photograph is just as obvious as a poor one, it's just that what we individually think of as "good" can differ rather a lot, and photography can be just as much a victim of fashion as kipper ties and flared trousers.

[peter_n]

Are you sure about that? HCB was not interested in doing his own darkroom work.

Yes, I'm sure about that. I know that HCB didn't do darkroom work for most of his career. That's why the so-called "Scrapbook" is different - because it consists solely of prints done by himself early in his career.

nhabedi is correct and I'm comprehensively wrong in post #168 above, which I apologize for but I'm unable to edit and correct it. I just assumed that Gassman had printed and didn't check my dates, my bad. Gassman didn't actually start his printing business until 1950 although HCB knew him since the 1930s and probably learned a lot from him. As nhabedi points out, see the Scrapbook catalog p.23: "Indeed, at that time, Cartier-Bresson printed his own photos; it was only later that he entrusted the printing to Pierre Gassman, who perfectly understood what he wanted." So in addition to his compositional abilities, HCB was also able to print a silk purse out of a sow's ear of a neg! Remarquable!

[Michael Hiles]

On Youtube there is a series of 7-8 minute segments that make up a 1 hour program on HCB. Search on "Impassioned Eye". Section 7 or 8 has a short clip of HCB looking at prints of one of his portraits of Henri Matisse as it is coming out of the wash - Pierre Gassman is part of the clip.

 

I think that HCB cared very much for the quality of the prints of his work. The fact that he did not want to make prints himself is unimportant, in my view.

 

Additionally there is a very interesting clip (in French) that has HCB commenting, and it also shows a few of his contact sheets. See Contacts Henri Cartier Bresson english subbed on Vimeo

[Jeff S]

My gauge for appreciating a great photograph, or other work on paper, is simply to decide if I would like to (hypothetically) hang it on my wall to see every day./quote]

 

Jeff, I understand what you are saying, but I think that's too narrow a definition. I went round the current Don McCullin in Salford a few weeks ago, and while the photographs were very powerful I don't think there were too many I'd want to have hanging on my wall. To be honest people can sometimes over intellectualise things too much. A good photograph is just as obvious as a poor one, it's just that what we individually think of as "good" can differ rather a lot, and photography can be just as much a victim of fashion as kipper ties and flared trousers.

 

I think the problem is with my term "appreciate." Yes, I can appreciate all sorts of art that I wouldn't want to own. Instead, I was really talking about whether I personally 'love' something, although there's probably a better term or description, which escapes me.

 

I visit many museums and galleries, and have very eclectic tastes. But, one thing I like to do after any artist exhibit is to decide which one work (or several if a large show), if I had the luxury to choose, that I would want to own and live with long term. This forces me to more critically evaluate the works.

 

My point to Jeff D., in a roundabout way, was that it's the work that's important, not the means to get there. I couldn't care less if the photographer stood on his head to get the shot.

 

Jeff

[azzo]

Additionally there is a very interesting clip (in French) that has HCB commenting, and it also shows a few of his contact sheets. See Contacts Henri Cartier Bresson english subbed on Vimeo

__________________

Michael

 

 

 

What was it ... ten, fifteen minutes? I don't know ! ....

All I know is that I enjoyed it.

 

Thank you for the link Michael.

[Guest mc_k]

...Extreme crops often create a sense of distorted perspective. An example of this phenomena might be a photographer that shoots a tight headshot where the center of the camera lens is pointed towards the center of the subject's face. But then the photographer crops in close to only show only half of the subject's face in the final print. The perspective often "feels" skewed as if the subject is falling outside of the frame. The latter is an extreme example but this skewed feeling is often present in many heavily cropped photos. Of course, sometimes that feeling might actually work well if the photographer is trying to create a strange sense in the viewer. But most of the time it doesn't work.

 

Another aspect that I don't like about cropping is the way it looks when viewed within a series of photographs created by a single photographer. For example, a fashion photographer might shoot an editorial consisting of 6-10 photographs on his 35mm camera. Each picture in the series will usually have a similar look in terms of resolution since they were all shot with the same camera. However, if the photographer finds the need to crop heavily into one or more images within the editorial then he breaks the momentum of the resolution of the series and the cropped photos can start to look out of place when viewed next to their un-cropped counterparts.

 

I'm not sure I followed this. Anyway, the post is interesting. In the first example (face cropped to half a face) are you making some point about apparent perspective? I agree that there is an art in cropping to a partial face and most can't do it, but maybe for reasons beside perspective. In the second example, are you complaining the cropped picture is just not as sharp??

 

As for fashion photography, I think both of these examples have always been stock-in-trade.

[Guest mc_k]

...

 

People may say 'ah but I always saw it a square image but had to take it on my 35mm camera'.Or is the truth of the matter that later sitting at the computer they thought, oh I'll crop away left and right it looks better as a square image. Nothing wrong with that but it requires little skill.

...

 

I don't know, I think it requires just as much gift or mastery to compose after the fact. But to excel at 3 X 2's, I can see shooting only that form.

[lct]

I wonder if those insisting on the photographer's skills are claiming photography as an art. Just curious.

[Gentleman Villain]

I'm not sure I followed this. Anyway, the post is interesting. In the first example (face cropped to half a face) are you making some point about apparent perspective? I agree that there is an art in cropping to a partial face and most can't do it, but maybe for reasons beside perspective. In the second example, are you complaining the cropped picture is just not as sharp??

 

As for fashion photography, I think both of these examples have always been stock-in-trade.

 

You are 1000% correct that these examples are stock-in-trade for fashion photography. It's sloppy and bad craftsmanship. But the readers of fashion magazines don't seem to mind and they are the ones that buy clothes. The purpose of fashion photography is to sell clothes, so craftsmanship isn't the priority and a little sloppiness can be considered acceptable. There is a psychology to the placement of the lens axis on the subject. It doesn't seem to be popular to discuss in forums but I've been in plenty of studios where it's literally the starting point of a photograph. I thought it was worth mentioning if for no other reason than to get away from the predictable conversations that usually spring up around the topic of cropping.

 

First, I'll try and give an example of something similar but not exactly the same...I recall when Roman Polanski shot a scene in "Rosemary's Baby" where there is an actor carrying a conversation in a room. The camera position was placed down the hall from the room so that only part of the actor was visible and the rest of him was obscured behind a wall. The purpose of the angle was to give the viewer a sense of wanting to look around the wall and a feeling of suspense at not being able to see the entire actor as he was talking. It also led to a feeling of secrecy...as if the actor was not telling the whole truth or was hiding something.

 

In my previous example, Polanski mostly used the wall and the hallway to create a psychological effect. But, there are other psychological effects that can occur simply by the choice of lens axis placement on a subject. Let's imagine that a photographer is shooting a portrait of a female subject in a studio. Now, let's imagine that the subject's body is turned to the left side of the frame and she is looking back over her shoulder at the camera. The purpose of the pose might be to give the viewer a sense that the subject is moving away from the viewer or attempting to hide something from the viewer. The photographer could actually emphasize this feeling in the viewer by placing the lens axis to the right of the subject and then using a shift movement in the camera to bring the entire subject into the frame. By placing the lens axis to the right of the subject, he adds to the feeling that the subject is moving even farther away towards the left of the frame from the viewer. Of course, this type of shot can't be done with a Leica. It would have to be done with a view camera or something with movements. But this phenomena is still relevant when discussing cropping of Leica images because extreme crops will change the position of the lens axis within the frame and that does cause a psychological effect even if it is only subconscious. I took a bit of a risk mentioning this around here because a lot of people haven't been exposed to it before and it's not easily explained, so there is a lot of room for miscommunication.

[jaapv]

I'm trying to remember - in Gunther Ostherloh's Leica R there was just the image of the girl moving out of the frame to the left and looking back like you mention iirc. The effect was quite provocative. Of course you are absolutely right, but used that way the crop changes the meaning of the photograph, and takes more skill to get right. It should make Jeff happy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[chrism]

This thread went right off the rails and into a nostalgiagasm with the mention of kipper ties and flared trousers. My kipper was egg yolk yellow, and I wouldn't blame anyone now for cropping it out!

 

Chris

Bliss it was, in that dawn to be alive...