“If your pictures aren’t good, then you’re not close enough”

[mark harverson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Found an old library book titled Foundations for art and design.

Robert Capa quote in the Composition section.

Has modern technology and processing in post altered that Capa statement?

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by mark harverson

[Advertisement]

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

[stray cat]

No.

[mark harverson]

Lol. Excellent brevity 

[jankap]

I have never believed that statement, it simply is too simple. Too close can be boring too. Or technically perfect, but an uninteresting subject/composition.

I like this one better: Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. I use lenses from 1970 and earlier.🤪

Edited June 7, 2023 by jankap

[pgk]

A sweeping statement which like most sweeping statements wasn't true when it was made and isn't true now.

[jankap]

Capa pictures. By the way I personally mistrust the authenticity of the photo of a soldier lying in the breakers during the longest day. There was participation of somebody in a darkroom, I suspect.

[mark harverson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On a similar thought I remember an old friend saying to me after I remarked that I wished  that I hadn’t cropped so many of my photos  “then why don’t you get off your arse and get closer”

Edited June 7, 2023 by mark harverson

[jankap]

Cropping is not harmful any more. Sensors with 60 Mp have enough reserves. For a DIN-A3+ print you need 6600 x 4400 pixels, that is 30Mp.

Also with modern software one can increase the number of pixels of a picture.

If you crop a picture of an 28mm lens into a simulated 50mm lens picture, you have a very different perspective. So at the time of the taking of the picture you should imagine how much you must crop to get the perspective the picture needs. Remember your selfie picture (smartphone) at a close distance.

[pedaes]

14 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Why is this posted under Leica M8?

Because it has a cropped sensor?

[84bravo]

12 hours ago, jankap said:

I have never believed that statement, it simply is too simple. Too close can be boring too. Or technically perfect, but an uninteresting subject/composition.

I've always seen the Capa statement as having a double meaning. One needs to be close enough both physically and mentally. I think its good advice, generally speaking.

I'm a fan of his work, but Capa can be a polarizing figure for a variety of reasons. With that in mind, I take any Capa quotes with a grain of salt.

[Ernstk]

On 6/7/2023 at 9:34 AM, mark harverson said:

Found an old library book titled Foundations for art and design.

Robert Capa quote in the Composition section.

Has modern technology and processing in post altered that Capa statement?

 

If you're not close enough, it's pretty easy to crop.

Ernst

[84bravo]

On 6/8/2023 at 6:45 PM, Ernstk said:

If you're not close enough, it's pretty easy to crop.

This is very true with today's tech. However, cropping does have its limitations. Different focal lengths offer different perspectives. Sometimes up close with a wide angle is better than far away with a tele, even if the content of the photo is the same.

[Volodimmer]

I think that a paradoxical phrase should not claim to be an absolute truth. Its purpose is to draw attention to what is usually not taken into account.

[tom.w.bn]

I thought this phrase was not about the technical distance but about access to a subject and commitment. 

 

[charlesphoto99]

4 hours ago, tom.w.bn said:

I thought this phrase was not about the technical distance but about access to a subject and commitment. 

 

You are correct. I also tell students to ‘bend your knees’ and to ‘look behind you.’ Those are metaphors for ‘find new and more interesting angles and don’t stay static’ and ‘sometimes the most interesting thing isn’t happening directly in front of you.’ 

[Mike S]

On 6/14/2023 at 12:57 PM, tom.w.bn said:

I thought this phrase was not about the technical distance but about access to a subject and commitment. 

 

Agreed, the difference between voyeur and participant.