EVF - how do you like it?

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Dr No said:

It depends on intentions and the individual. There are artists who intentionally crop—But it is done with intention.

Some argue that cropping is not photography but image making. There is a difference between the two and we see it more distinctively in modern day with photoshop.

A perfectly framed and exposed negative is the holy grail of photography. It's authentic and when done consistently it is the hallmark of a true artist. Journalism too, it's considered best and most authentic when uncropped and unedited. It's complete and whole in it's existence. When great photography and art bridges journalism, such as Cartier Bresson, Josef Koudelka, Salgado etc in camera cropping elevates the art. The negative stands whole as perfection. The value in this, I think, undeniable and obvious—it's the mark of a great artist.

A great musician learns their instrument and practices relentlessly until perfection. A perfect performance from cultivated talented is celebrated, it's a pinnacle in the same way.

Photography is like a performance. Do you want to be sloppy and fumble about? Or do you want to learn your instrument, find your intention, your point of view, be decisive and work to make a perfect performance?

No one can be perfect all the time, or even often, but they can work towards it and after a life long effort be the best they can be. There will of course be times when cropping is absolutely necessary, but on balance with a body of work over a life time it doesn't matter.

And of course it is fair to say some don't care for all this. For me it is important.

Salgado is quite easily one of my all time favorite photographers. I seriously doubt, however, that he literally meant not to ever crop an image. I agree with the philosophy that framing should be done in camera. One doesn't need to be completely rigid in that approach, however. Nobody is suggesting being sloppy about it, but you must keep in mind we are taking about rangefinder shooting here, in which a portion of the frame is often blocked. I'm sure there were times when even Salgado got thing in his shots that he didn't intend and I doubt he just trashed the images as a result. To suggest that someone who crops an image after the fact doesn't care and cannot be a true artist or serious photojournalist is, in my opinion, a bit snobbish.

I would also make the point that one might be able to see an image in one's mind but for various reasons not be able to get close enough to crop in the camera. You might have only a 50mm lens and your subject might be somewhere you can't walk closer to, but knowing the capability of a sensor like what we have in the M10M, you know you can achieve what you want by cropping in post. Personally, I do not feel this diminishes the final image.

Edited July 19, 2020 by fotografr

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Fontan]

1 hour ago, Dr No said:

A great musician learns their instrument and practices relentlessly until perfection. A perfect performance from cultivated talented is celebrated, it's a pinnacle in the same way.

 

Again, what you works for you, or what you think your philosophy may be - this may or may not apply to other artists / photographers. 

I will borrow your example here. 

One of the greatest pianists of the 20th century, of and of all time, is the Canadian pianist Glenn Gould. He is someone that many modern day pianists list as one of the most influential. Gould, as early as in the 1950's, recognized the advantages of studio recording. By his mid to late 20's, he had completely withdrawn himself from live performances to studio. For rest of his life he had dedicated himself to the art of recording. He would record, portions at a time, then he would cut and paste the tapes himself from numerous takes, to create what he considered to be perfection. By doing so he had left an enormous amount of work for the later generations to enjoy. 

One does not have do it your way to create something of importance or significance. In fact, it is more about the process of finding out what works for you to create something that you are satisfied with is the holy grail. 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Fontan

[Dr No]

27 minutes ago, fotografr said:

Salgado is quite easily one of my all time favorite photographers. I seriously doubt, however, that he literally meant not to ever crop an image. I agree with the philosophy that framing should be done in camera. One doesn't need to be completely rigid in that approach, however. Nobody is suggesting being sloppy about it, but you must keep in mind we are taking about rangefinder shooting here, in which a portion of the frame is often blocked. I'm sure there were times when even Salgado got thing in his shots that he didn't intend and I doubt he just trashed the images as a result. To suggest that someone who crops an image after the fact doesn't care and cannot be a true artist or serious photojournalist is, in my opinion, a bit snobbish.

I would also make the point that one might be able to see an image in one's mind but for various reasons not be able to get close enough to crop in the camera. You might have only a 50mm lens and your subject might be somewhere you can't walk closer to, but knowing the capability of a sensor like what we have in the M10M, you know you can achieve what you want by cropping in post. Personally, I do not feel this diminishes the final image.

Mine too. He was a wonderful man.

He really meant to crop in camera. That is not to say everything always is, but that is a standard to maintain, uphold and achieve.

Rangefinder doesn't matter. And sometimes, in imperfect crop can actually be an interesting thing. Mistakes make the art.

I don't think it's snobbish so I don't care if something thinks it is.

As I said sometimes cropping is essential.

[Dr No]

15 minutes ago, Fontan said:

Again, what you works for you, or what you think your philosophy may be - this may or may not apply to other artists / photographers. 

I will borrow your example here. 

One of the greatest pianists of the 20th century, of and of all time, is the Canadian pianist Glenn Gould. He is someone that many modern day pianists list as one of the most influential. Gould, as early as in the 1950's, recognized the advantages of studio recording. By his mid to late 20's, he had completely withdrawn himself from live performances to studio. For rest of his life he had dedicated himself to the art of recording. He would record, portions at a time, then he would cut and paste the tapes himself from numerous takes, to create what he considered to be perfection. By doing so he had left an enormous amount of work for the later generations to enjoy. 

One does not have do it your way to create something of importance or significance. In fact, it is more about the process of finding out what works for you to create something that you are satisfied with is the holy grail. 

I don't feel you have read or understood what I have written.

I said 'for me.' I said some artists intentionally crop.

Arguably, photography is an established 'thing' over many decades. I can tell you now, these are standards that the best photographers and agencies uphold today. The idea that art is democratic is also just an idea. It is somewhat true but the reality is different.

I said it is down to the individual and the intention. Glenn Gould's intention was to create that. That's different to just trying to make sense of something with no purpose, photographically, it's not like cropping a failed picture to try and make it look better. An artist can do anything with intention. Although that doesn't mean it will be accepted by the art community as such.

Also, like photography and image making are different, the same exists for music. Performance artists and recording artists are often classified differently as such.

This is not 'my way' this is the way of photography. The medium and art that has evolved to do this day and I'm sorry to say the box of acceptance is not as flexible as you might imagine when it comes to certain things. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Steve Ash]

vor 25 Minuten schrieb Dr No:

I don't feel you have read or understood what I have written.

I said 'for me.' I said some artists intentionally crop.

Arguably, photography is an established 'thing' over many decades. I can tell you now, these are standards that the best photographers and agencies uphold today. The idea that art is democratic is also just an idea. It is somewhat true but the reality is different.

I said it is down to the individual and the intention. Glenn Gould's intention was to create that. That's different to just trying to make sense of something with no purpose, photographically, it's not like cropping a failed picture to try and make it look better. An artist can do anything with intention. Although that doesn't mean it will be accepted by the art community as such.

Also, like photography and image making are different, the same exists for music. Performance artists and recording artists are often classified differently as such.

This is not 'my way' this is the way of photography. The medium and art that has evolved to do this day and I'm sorry to say the box of acceptance is not as flexible as you might imagine when it comes to certain things. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

I seriously doubt that the art scene is that much limited and small circled as you perceive it. Just take look at Gursky,  who is very successful and would fall out of your narrow point of view on the art scene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

Personally I never got the idea to ask anybody whether the artist cropped the image or not in any gallery.

By chance talk a walk at Art Basel in Miami and realize how tolerable the art scene is.

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Steve Ash

[Dr No]

5 minutes ago, Steve Ash said:

I seriously doubt that the art scene is that much limited and small circled as you perceive it. Just take look at Gursky,  who is very successful and would fall out of your narrow point of view on the art scene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

Personally I never got the idea to ask anybody whether the artist cropped the image or not in any gallery.

By chance talk a walk at Art Miami and realize how tolerable the art scene is.

 

I'm sorry to say it is bound by certain things. You can always try and change it if you like. 

Gursky's Rhein is a digital manipulation. It is not classified in the same category.

The art scene is many things. It is a funny thing. But many things that move around a core and that core is an established set of rules, much to the frustration of the majority of any new artist. When the core decides to take something in then change happens. But for every one that succeeds there are tens upon tens of thousands who fall.

[Steve Ash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 1 Minute schrieb Dr No:

I'm sorry to say it is bound by certain things. You can always try and change it if you like. 

Gursky's Rhein is a digital manipulation. It is not classified in the same category.

The art scene is many things. It is a funny thing. But many things that move around a core and that core is an established set of rules, much to the frustration of the majority of any new artist. When the core decides to take something in then change happens. But for every one that succeeds there are tens upon tens of thousands who fall.

So I understand that the art scene as such is much wider and that you focus on one special limited area. That is pretty much very ok for me. Anyone can decide on its own.

[Dr No]

14 minutes ago, Steve Ash said:

So I understand that the art scene as such is much wider and that you focus on one special limited area. That is pretty much very ok for me. Anyone can decide on its own.

Yes anyone can decide on their own. But the idea that art is democratic is a populist ideal and unfortunately not fully true. It is, in the sense that anyone is free to declare anything is art, but an artist is beholden to the gate keepers of the art world. It's not entirely simple, intent and provenance and several more things come into it.

The conversation has somewhat drifted. It was really just about in camera framing and cropping, the authenticity of *photography* and the art of photography. A perfectly exposed and framed negative holds more gravitas. It's just something to uphold and achieve; a pinnacle to strive for and one that is considered valuable.

 

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Dr No

[fotografr]

2 hours ago, Dr No said:

Mine too. He was a wonderful man.

He really meant to crop in camera. That is not to say everything always is, but that is a standard to maintain, uphold and achieve.

Rangefinder doesn't matter. And sometimes, in imperfect crop can actually be an interesting thing. Mistakes make the art.

 

When someone picks up a 35mm camera versus a 2 1/4 or 4x5, that is already a form of cropping. Deciding which lens to attach to the camera is an additional crop. Putting the camera up to your eye and moving in or out until what you want in the frame is included and everything else is excluded is a further crop. Certainly, the 24x35mm format isn't sacred as the shape an image must conform to in order to achieve this perfection you refer to. As I see it, the entire process of making an image is a series of cropping decisions and actions.

Rangefinder absolutely matters because unless one uses Live View or the EVF (I choose to use neither), most Leica lenses block some of the view so you are unable to see the entire frame. I've had "surprises" pop into that dark corner and I'm sure others have, too (even Salgado).

Some of the most beautiful landscape images that have been posted on this forum (Andy Barton's, for example) are panoramics that consist of several images stitched together in Photoshop. Those images were never locked within the confines of a viewfinder, but I'm quite sure the photographer/artist knew exactly what the desired final product was and they certainly fit the definition of art in my opinion.

By the way, you said Salgado "was" a wonderful man. As far as I know, he still is.

Edited July 19, 2020 by fotografr

[Dr No]

8 hours ago, fotografr said:

When someone picks up a 35mm camera versus a 2 1/4 or 4x5, that is already a form of cropping. Deciding which lens to attach to the camera is an additional crop. Putting the camera up to your eye and moving in or out until what you want in the frame is included and everything else is excluded is a further crop. Certainly, the 24x35mm format isn't sacred as the shape an image must conform to in order to achieve this perfection you refer to. As I see it, the entire process of making an image is a series of cropping decisions and actions.

Rangefinder absolutely matters because unless one uses Live View or the EVF (I choose to use neither), most Leica lenses block some of the view so you are unable to see the entire frame. I've had "surprises" pop into that dark corner and I'm sure others have, too (even Salgado).

Some of the most beautiful landscape images that have been posted on this forum (Andy Barton's, for example) are panoramics that consist of several images stitched together in Photoshop. Those images were never locked within the confines of a viewfinder, but I'm quite sure the photographer/artist knew exactly what the desired final product was and they certainly fit the definition of art in my opinion.

By the way, you said Salgado "was" a wonderful man. As far as I know, he still is.

Well you've answered yourself. In camera cropping is framing, lenses, formats. You choose and make a decision, that is the whole point. It's not about the shape it's about the image being whole as it was taken. It's an original work, complete in it's entirety. Like an original painting, you could say it's like a signature.

No, rangefinder doesn't matter. You choose your camera.

Salgado "was" a wonderful man the time I met him. Past tense as it was 20 years ago.

[fotografr]

5 hours ago, Dr No said:

Well you've answered yourself. In camera cropping is framing, lenses, formats. You choose and make a decision, that is the whole point. It's not about the shape it's about the image being whole as it was taken. It's an original work, complete in it's entirety. Like an original painting, you could say it's like a signature.

 

That doesn't bode well for the way Leica have marketed the Q and Q2. As you know, those cameras have a fixed 28mm lens but the viewfinder also has 50mm and 75mm frame lines. Thus, the camera is actually designed for cropping, one of the stated advantages of the ultra high resolution sensor. The folks at Leica will be disappointed to learn that Q images shot using anything other than the full 28mm frame cannot fit the definition of "perfectly framed," and therefore have less gravitas. I'm glad I sold mine, even though I didn't realize that was why I didn't like it. 🤔

[Guest BlackBarn]

On 7/19/2020 at 1:18 PM, Dr No said:

The art scene is many things. It is a funny thing. But many things that move around a core and that core is an established set of rules,

Fascinated by this comment....off topic maybe.....but can you give me a clue regarding a couple of those  ‘established set of rules’? 
 

On 7/19/2020 at 1:36 PM, Dr No said:

It was really just about in camera framing and cropping, the authenticity of *photography* and the art of photography. A perfectly exposed and framed negative holds more gravitas. It's just something to uphold and achieve; a pinnacle to strive for and one that is considered valuable.

Not sure that the pre visualization required for in camera framing is the only accepted ‘ pinnacle to strive for’ now. 
 

For some it may be a restriction, for example take Gerhard Richter’s abstract work which is certainly considered ‘valuable’. For these he doesn’t want to plan ahead just continually respond to what appears in front of him which is different from his approach to his photo realism work.  The creative opportunity for photography exists from the moment of inspiration and recorded in camera, through post processing and right up to but not inclusively when the image is displayed /printed.  An intent to produce a perfectly exposed framed negative is not a sign of ‘high art’ photography but of an individuals preference -  no more or less valuable  than the different photographic approaches taken by Salgado, David Hockney or Andy Warhol. 
 

The ‘authenticity and the art of photography’  has been extended to include digital cropping,  post processing and non photographic mark making.  It’s the striving for technical and creative excellence which hasn’t changed....the playground has simply just got bigger. 

[Dr No]

8 hours ago, BlackBarn said:

Fascinated by this comment....off topic maybe.....but can you give me a clue regarding a couple of those  ‘established set of rules’? 
 

Not sure that the pre visualization required for in camera framing is the only accepted ‘ pinnacle to strive for’ now. 
 

For some it may be a restriction, for example take Gerhard Richter’s abstract work which is certainly considered ‘valuable’. For these he doesn’t want to plan ahead just continually respond to what appears in front of him which is different from his approach to his photo realism work.  The creative opportunity for photography exists from the moment of inspiration and recorded in camera, through post processing and right up to but not inclusively when the image is displayed /printed.  An intent to produce a perfectly exposed framed negative is not a sign of ‘high art’ photography but of an individuals preference -  no more or less valuable  than the different photographic approaches taken by Salgado, David Hockney or Andy Warhol. 
 

The ‘authenticity and the art of photography’  has been extended to include digital cropping,  post processing and non photographic mark making.  It’s the striving for technical and creative excellence which hasn’t changed....the playground has simply just got bigger. 

Regarding "rules" well that is a very long topic that would take a long time to consider and write. That is a life time of discovery in the industry and it is constantly changing and is also variable by geography. I would approximate as a 7 year cycle for change. People like to think the arts is this sort of free and boundless ideal, and while it is for the individual artist, it is not for the establishment. For an artist to be very successful they either have to tow the line and create something unique within it or create something incredibly revolutionary and it's often that those people who do are extremely well connected to begin with. Also something revolutionary can appear and the establishment just isn't ready for it or doesn't recognise it. We see this echoed down through time.

Also a side note, something incredibly revolutionary isn't just a simple trick. It is made up by an artists entire life. Their back story, their provenance, their point of view. If you consider art that is "accepted" as a cultural document and rung in a ladder of evolution then it can help to understand how the establishment collective and universally accepts something.

Previsualisation is something else. I am only speaking about framing in camera for photography and this is very much a liquid thing unless you are constructing all elements.  Observe, interpret, react. Pre-visualisation of course can work in conjunction with it and nearly every single artist no matter free and loose has a large component of pre-vis because they have a point of view to begin with. It's not just a case of seeing a photo but finding it. I love the work of Gerhard Richter, one of my favourites, but while his production and execution may not planned he has a very defined point of view to begin with. And while it is still quite visceral it also has a sensibility and aesthetic that is unique to him. I am actually of the belief, depending on what you shoot, that you can not truly plan for a shoot or more importantly there is only so much you can plan. I think for great work to happen there needs the be room for a project to breathe on its own and without looking at what's infront of you you actually miss the magic. Life and everything that can happen is far bigger than us.

i agree that digital has changed the game but this has been a very slow change and still, much of the establishment argues its place and has a slow uptake, some refusing to budge. You put it well—the playground has got bigger. But still, a lot of the children in the playground are a little too old and set in their ways. The last few years in particular we are seing a generational hand over as young curators and even historians come through with fresh perspectives and interpretations. It is very much the case of the new generation challenging the establishment that has always existed (eg. pictorialists v modernist photographers). That is the creation/destruction process of the art world that has always been in place and simply a mirror of our society. 

I have said earlier though, Photography and image making are different things. I think for photography to survive it's best to keep them as such. Much of what you describe in your last sentences comes into he category of image making. That's a long post and another thread, perhaps.

[Guest BlackBarn]

1 hour ago, Dr No said:

That is a life time of discovery

Ah for sure, the money making eco system for ‘art’ is more structured  and a different beast altogether. Giorgio Vasari, Paul Durand-Ruel and Saatchi are examples of influencers, rule makers and breakers in that arena. Although some have chosen to express themselves within that competitive world, for others art/photography may not be about money but more about self expression which facilitates a less ‘rule’ ladened construct altogether.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my previous post - much appreciated.

Sorry to all about going off topic...

 

[Dr No]

1 minute ago, BlackBarn said:

Ah for sure, the money making eco system for ‘art’ is more structured  and a different beast altogether. Giorgio Vasari, Paul Durand-Ruel and Saatchi are examples of influencers, rule makers and breakers in that arena. Although some have chosen to express themselves within that competitive world, for others art/photography may not be about money but more about self expression which facilitates a less ‘rule’ ladened construct altogether.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my previous post - much appreciated.

Sorry to all about going off topic...

 

Too true. Yes, the individual expression of art is what must always come first and it is indeed free from any rules. You must of course go there first and find yourself. It is not something someone can approach like a business, and on this scale of ambition there is probably not a better guarantee of failure. However, of course the most successful artists these days are also quite good at business and clearly communicating their point of view; ie. selling them selves. This is a critical part of a professional artist or anyone who wants to develop beyond dabbling.

Very successful artists aren't in it just for the money either, to be fair. It's like an athlete who strives for Gold at the olympics. The efforts are extreme, the likelihood of failure is highly probable and the financial rewards are likely low, especially for some times, but the journey is a compelling one, it's a calling, and the rewards, at any and all levels of recognition are great and also extremely very fulfilling.

Success is never guaranteed and actually quite rare and can also be fleeting. But no one embarks, endures and succeeds in a career in art for this. Art and expression must come from a place of love and obsession to create and any need for approval must be obliterated.

[astrostl]

On 7/17/2020 at 7:17 AM, Dr No said:

Camera setting have an impact on live view speed.

Which one(s)?

[Robert Blanko]

Am 19.7.2020 um 03:36 schrieb Dr No:

A perfectly exposed and framed negative holds more gravitas. It's just something to uphold and achieve; a pinnacle to strive for and one that is considered valuable.

The question arises who would notice the „gravitas“ (whatever this would actually mean)? Supposedly this is rather for the photographer‘s self-satisfaction? Because if you would show the perfectly cropped (based on Mr. Salgado) photo to his clone brother, the latter would consider the cropped photo to transport perfect gravitas - if you would allege that the cropped photo was taken without cropping. 😏

[Dr No]

14 hours ago, Robert Blanko said:

The question arises who would notice the „gravitas“ (whatever this would actually mean)? Supposedly this is rather for the photographer‘s self-satisfaction? Because if you would show the perfectly cropped (based on Mr. Salgado) photo to his clone brother, the latter would consider the cropped photo to transport perfect gravitas - if you would allege that the cropped photo was taken without cropping. 😏

Peers, collectors, promoters, curators, management agents. Provenance, authenticity and these days, pedigree (both birth and mentors), are some of the highest commodities of an artist. Day to day the general public doesn't know or care about such journeys but the inner circles do.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

As a conservatory trained musician (former), I would simply observe that it is normally obvious to one's ear those who understand, yet artfully bend, break or shatter the 'rules' as opposed to those who transgress or comply by accident or instinct. Certainly there is value in the latter's work, if only as inspiration for those who have a deeper understanding of the craft involved. I won't wade into a discussion of visual art as frankly, there I am a heathen. I generally consider it irrelevant to my photography. I bow to an entirely different set of teachers when it comes to notions of form, proportion, color, tonality, pace and rhythm.

[6bit]

It's ok to have an OVF and EVF version. Not worrying about parallax, not worrying if my rangefinder is spot on with each lens, and being able to see that I am in focus are all great things an EVF brings to the table.