To crop or not to crop.....

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The level of skill required does create a higher level of artistic value, otherwise what is it all about?

 

I'm sure a large number of art objects should have been binned years ago.

 

The quality of vision of the photographer is the yardstick especially when it is applied when the photograph is taken, not later in front of the computer when there is ample time to compare one crop with another etc.

 

So when you show a 'good' print to another photographer why do they always ask, have your cropped that?

 

Why is HCB's 'behind the gare st lazare' often shown with an added black border to imply that it is the whole image as taken?

 

Jeff

I think you are confusing art and craft here.

[delander †]

I dont think so Jaap, I'm referring to both artistic skill and craft skill used at the instant of taking the photograph.

 

Michaelangelo was an incredible craftsman and artist. They go together.

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

 

Why is HCB's 'behind the gare st lazare' often shown with an added black border to imply that it is the whole image as taken?

 

But you still haven't addressed my question about HCB's Behind the Gare photograph. According to your definition, he exhibited less skill in this photo than in others where he did not crop. And I still say that's just silly.

 

He couldn't have taken the photo any other way at the time. His artistic skill, and craft, remained intact for this and his other works. Cropping, or adding black borders, does not change this fact.

 

This is the same issue as when different aspect ratios or cameras dictate a different framing (my point several times, Bill's point, and others). Sometimes, the vision at time of photographing does not coincide with the conditions, or equipment, at hand. The vision (and artistic ability) is not compromised. And the craft required to achieve the outcome does not diminish the result...or else HCB's photo would always be talked about as an almost success.

 

Jeff

[delander †]

But you still haven't addressed my question about HCB's Behind the Gare photograph. According to your definition, he exhibited less skill in this photo than in others where he did not crop. And I still say that's just silly.

 

He couldn't have taken the photo any other way at the time. His artistic skill, and craft, remained intact for this and his other works. Cropping, or adding black borders, does not change this fact.

 

This is the same issue as when different aspect ratios or cameras dictate a different framing (my point several times, Bill's point, and others). Sometimes, the vision at time of photographing does not coincide with the conditions, or equipment, at hand. The vision (and artistic ability) is not compromised. And the craft required to achieve the outcome does not diminish the result...or else HCB's photo would always be talked about as an almost success.

 

Jeff

The HCB behind the Gare St Lazare photo is reproduced with a narrow black border to imply that it is the complete image and why is that?

 

My point is what requires more skill artistic or craft taking the best photo at the time or cropping later at leisure on the computer. And when we look at images how do we differentiate between these different levels of achievement?

 

I understand that most on here think there is no difference, but that is not my view. I have also agreed that the camera chosen to take the photo imposes a restriction on the aspect ratio and that if you want an alternative aspect ratio then you have to crop.

 

Jeff

[stunsworth]

The HCB behind the Gare St Lazare photo is reproduced with a narrow black border to imply that it is the complete image and why is that?

 

I've no idea, and does it matter? Surely it's the photograph that's important, not whether it's been approved by the supreme soviet responsible for artistic integrity?

[andybarton]

Don't forget that the Gare "decisive moment" was also set up

[cbretteville]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A little tongue-in-cheek nod to HCB Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Carl

[Jeff S]

The HCB behind the Gare St Lazare photo is reproduced with a narrow black border to imply that it is the complete image and why is that?

 

My point is what requires more skill artistic or craft taking the best photo at the time or cropping later at leisure on the computer. And when we look at images how do we differentiate between these different levels of achievement?

 

I understand that most on here think there is no difference, but that is not my view. I have also agreed that the camera chosen to take the photo imposes a restriction on the aspect ratio and that if you want an alternative aspect ratio then you have to crop.

 

Jeff

 

 

Well, at least you've caved in on the aspect ratio issue. However, once you concede that, you also have to recognize the circumstances that cause one to need a different aspect ratio...and I pointed out a few of those in post #118. In fact, HCB dealt with one of those reasons when he took the le Gare photo, i.e., there was an object (a fence) in the way.

 

The point you still haven't directly addressed is whether you think HCB displayed a "lesser level of achievement" (your words) in so doing. And, again, I don't.

 

Jeff

[Fotomiguel]

One single picture has no valeu at all to judge a photographer. Even the worst photographer can take one incredible good picture. HBC had thousands of not cropped good pictures. His technique was so good because he trained a lot and he learnt from experience and mistakes. His idea or concept of photography was clear and simple. If you try his way and you train a lot, you will crop less. But I'm sure that none of us will get so many good pictures as HBC unless our experiences were as interesting as HBC experiences were. This is what is really difficult. His life was an adventure. If you combine a really interesting life and the pefect way on seeing and taking pictures, you get HBC pictures.

I can't avoid it. I worship HBC.

[jaapv]

I dont think so Jaap, I'm referring to both artistic skill and craft skill used at the instant of taking the photograph.

 

Michaelangelo was an incredible craftsman and artist. They go together.

 

Jeff

I still think, with all respect to opposing views, btw, that the end result should be judged and that the process of arriving there, be it a stony road or an easy ride, is irrelevant. The initial vision and the final impact are the only relevant parameters in my view.

[stunsworth]

His technique was so good because he trained a lot and he learnt from experience and mistakes

 

Well if you look at his photographs you'll realise that his technique was pretty poor, fortunately he had a good printer who could take the negatives and make something worthwhile out of them.

 

However, photography is a craft that doesn't rely just on technique. Technique is what you learn and then forget, not in the sense that it isn't important, but it's something you should not need to think about when taking photographs, i.e. it becomes a reflex.

[Jeff S]

One single picture has no valeu at all to judge a photographer.

 

And who suggested that?

 

My question was about one photograph, not about a photographer's body of work. It was meant to use as a proxy for other photographs subject to similar constraints.

 

Don't worry, Miguel, I'm not messing with your idolatry.

 

Jeff

[Fotomiguel]

HBC was not happy of cropping that picture but he was so delighted with the result of a lucky shot in which his intuition played the major role. He always explained it and admited. This is a nice and humble attitude. That gives much more importance to that picture and give us the idea of my previos post.

[azzo]

" HCB's Behind the Gare photograph."

 

 

 

" HBC was not happy of cropping that picture but he was so delighted with the result of a lucky shot in which his intuition played .."

 

" Don't forget that the Gare "decisive moment" was also set up"

 

I'm just curios about HCB's photo. Was it a 'set up' or was it a 'lucky' shot ? ...

Not that I would like it any less if this photo was actually a set up.

[ohnri]

On some of my best shots I have seen what is before me, visualized the crop I will perform, and largely pre-determined what may be a rather lengthly and complex sequence of post processing steps that will lead to the result I envision.

 

On other shots, I know that what I am shooting will be nearly exactly what I print. Geting this kind of shot tends to be easier and more common for me.

 

Of the two, I am tempted to say the former requires more skill at the moment of exposure. Those tend to be the shots that make people exclaim, "That's amazing! How did you ever see that? I've been there 100 times and I've never seen it in that way before!"

 

With the second type of shot I often hear, "Wow, what great timing!" or "You were so lucky to be in just the right place!" or "You must have a really nice camera!"

 

To consistently get the second type of shot certainly also requires considerable skill but to get the first type of shot I need all of the skills for the second type PLUS a whole other skill set that, frankly, most photographers don't have.

 

People that think that all cropped and post-processed prints are done as leisurely fishing expeditions after the fact of the exposure don't appear to understand how a sophisticated photographer may approach a shot.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[andybarton]

 

I'm just curios about HCB's photo. Was it a 'set up' or was it a 'lucky' shot ? ...

Not that I would like it any less if this photo was actually a set up.

 

He took half a dozen or so shots with the man jumping over the puddle several times. It wasn't just serendipity. I'm not saying it's not a great photograph, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

[azzo]

He took half a dozen or so shots with the man jumping over the puddle several times. It wasn't just serendipity. I'm not saying it's not a great photograph, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Thanks Andy.

I must have missed reading this in one of his books.

[giordano]

I still think, with all respect to opposing views, btw, that the end result should be judged and that the process of arriving there, be it a stony road or an easy ride, is irrelevant. The initial vision and the final impact are the only relevant parameters in my view.

 

... except that the initial vision is usually known only to the photographer - and even if they tell us about it how do we know we're getting the real story?

 

On some of my best shots I have seen what is before me, visualized the crop I will perform, and largely pre-determined what may be a rather lengthly and complex sequence of post processing steps that will lead to the result I envision.

 

Yes; but is there any limit to what is permissible?

 

See REJLANDER, OSCAR GUSTAVE: A History of Photography, by Robert Leggat

[lct]

Intending to tell the 'real story' is a PJ's purpose but photography is not reduced to photo journalism fortunately.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[delander †]

Well, at least you've caved in on the aspect ratio issue. However, once you concede that, you also have to recognize the circumstances that cause one to need a different aspect ratio...and I pointed out a few of those in post #118. In fact, HCB dealt with one of those reasons when he took the le Gare photo, i.e., there was an object (a fence) in the way.

 

The point you still haven't directly addressed is whether you think HCB displayed a "lesser level of achievement" (your words) in so doing. And, again, I don't.

 

Jeff

 

I think you are misunderstanding my point although I have stated it many times.

HCB took the picture he was able to take and that is fine, but because I have now learnt that it is a cropped photo (represented as complete image in its reproduction) it is not the same to me as it I thought it was. That is my view, simply that. To you it does not matter to me it makes a difference.

 

I have not 'caved in' as you say and still believe that an after the event crop is not as satisfactory as getting it right first time.

 

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 accept that you and Jaap and most others here have a different view.

 

Jeff