Format is my shepard
Tony Spadaro
A sentence which calls up the choices we all make in photography - 35mm 6x45
6x6, the BIG stuff, Crop/no crop, Frame edges with emulsion numbers
showing/not showing.
Okay snapsters - how do you feel about the format of your camera(s). If
you use on;y one format do you feel the limitations are good for your
shooting or hold you back? Do you think cropping is evil, or merely
misguided? Are you a closet cropper? Do you think anyone who would rather
not have the shot if it's necessary to trim a quarter inch off the bottom is
a complete idiot? Or perhaps a person with principles?
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Old site with some pictures still up at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast
overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.
Ian Ash
> Okay snapsters - how do you feel about the format of your camera(s). If
> you use on;y one format do you feel the limitations are good for your
> shooting or hold you back?
I only own a 35mm camera and it's great for my purposes. I can't imagine
I'll ever want to enlarge anything to wall size, so I don't really see why I
need to lug a bigger and heavier camera around. Also, I tend towards nature
and sports photography, so is there any other choice?
Do you think cropping is evil, or merely
> misguided?
I always try for an image that will be perfect just as it was taken, but if
it needs to be cropped for the best impression, so be it. I can't see
anything wrong with cropping. Given that I work with zooms (which some would
argue is misguided in itself), cropping doesn't seem substantially different
from twisting the zoom barrel slightly, except that it is after the fact.
Again, though, I'd prefer not to have to crop, but that's mainly so that I
don't have to enlarge too small an area.
> Are you a closet cropper?
Well, no, I prefer to crop at my dining room table ... ;)
> Do you think anyone who would rather not have the shot if it's necessary
to trim a quarter inch off the bottom is
> a complete idiot? Or perhaps a person with principles?
A person with principles. But some principles are idiotic :)
Actually, I don't care one way or another ... each to his own.
Regards,
Ian
Ahriman
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:54CR7.241693$HA6.44...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> In another thread Lewis Lang said; "Format is my servant, not my
master."
> A sentence which calls up the choices we all make in photography - 35mm
6x45
> 6x6, the BIG stuff, Crop/no crop, Frame edges with emulsion numbers
> showing/not showing.
> Okay snapsters - how do you feel about the format of your camera(s). If
> you use on;y one format do you feel the limitations are good for your
> shooting or hold you back? Do you think cropping is evil, or merely
> misguided? Are you a closet cropper? Do you think anyone who would rather
> not have the shot if it's necessary to trim a quarter inch off the bottom
is
> a complete idiot? Or perhaps a person with principles?
I don't crop very often, and I do prefer to print full-frame, leaving
borders, but I'm no Cartier-Bresson about it - I'll happily crop if my
original image was a square one from a 35mm frame, or a rectangular one from
a 6x6 frame. My most heavily cropped shot is of an old man with a flat cap
and a pipe at a bingo stall at a fair; when I saw him I was a fair way away,
and only had a 55mm lens on, and the enlargement is about 1/5th of the
frame - but a combination of PanF and a 55mm f1.8 Super-Takumar lens at f5.6
meant that the enlargement is sharper than Tri-X full frame! I was
gobsmacked, well and truly!
Ahriman
Al Denelsbeck
Tony Spadaro wrote in message
<54CR7.241693$HA6.44...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>...
> In another thread Lewis Lang said; "Format is my servant, not my
master."
>A sentence which calls up the choices we all make in photography - 35mm
6x45
>6x6, the BIG stuff, Crop/no crop, Frame edges with emulsion numbers
>showing/not showing.
> Okay snapsters - how do you feel about the format of your camera(s). If
>you use on;y one format do you feel the limitations are good for your
>shooting or hold you back?
I feel a little limited by 35mm in terms of sharpness and
enlargeability - there's definitely a limit. But with my chosen field of
nature/wildlife, medium format just can't do what 35mm can. There are no
lenses that come close to the range 35mm has, and the equipment is bulkier
and heavier. Not to mention exhorbitant expense. The plus side to this is,
everyone else in the field works with the same limitations :-)
> Do you think cropping is evil, or merely
>misguided? Are you a closet cropper? Do you think anyone who would rather
>not have the shot if it's necessary to trim a quarter inch off the bottom
is
>a complete idiot? Or perhaps a person with principles?
Closet cropper, but I've decided to 'come out' on this newsgroup. Aren't
you all lucky?
No, in all seriousness I feel cropping is part of the art form, and will
do it wherever I feel it is warranted. My compositions tend towards using
the 35mm porportions, but I'll gladly take the shot if I feel it's gonna
work in square or panoramic cropping, whatever. I've seen the difference in
subtle changes that can make or break good photos.
If anyone is abandoning shots because they can't make them work within
the frame, when cropping would give them what they're after, they've got
some serious hangups.
Frame edges, mattes, et cetera? I think frame edges look sloppy, but in
some cases (like model shoots) they give a feel for the photography end of
things, rather than the subject. If this is what you're after, fine. I
personally display my own photos on borderless foamcore with the edges
blackened, but have used mattes for 'professional' display and am doing some
matte effects on my new website (not up yet). I feel they're accents, and
use them to highlight the use of color within the photo itself. My own
choice for frames is simple and stark, but then again so's my taste in
furniture and china.
For what it's worth,
- Al.
--
Remove an 'E' from Speed for direct reply.
Online photo gallery at www.ipass.net/~denelsbeck.
Matt Clara
Rarely is the full frame the most effective composition. When it is the
most effective comp, I wonder if I shouldn't have included more in the
frame!
I've recently purchased an RB67 ProS, just to help me capitalize on this
fact.
Matt
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:54CR7.241693$HA6.44...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
McEowen
> misguided? Are you a closet cropper? Do you think anyone who would rather
> not have the shot if it's necessary to trim a quarter inch off the bottom
is
> a complete idiot? Or perhaps a person with principles? >>
What the heck are you talking about?!?! Why should be we bound by a proportion
created by adding two frames of movie film together nearly 100 years ago. I've
forgotten most of the theory I've ever studied but as I recall the 2x3 format
of the 35mm frame doesn't even match the ideal proportions that all designers
and artists have worked with for centuries.
OF COURSE cropping is allowed! If you need a 1x10 proportion to make your point
in your photos then sobeit. To hold the view that there is something wrong with
cropping is to be a slave to other people's ideas -- hardly the mark of a
creative person or an artist!
Forget convention. What do YOU want to say with your pictures?
Skip
Whhoeee, Tony, you do want to open a can o' worms, don't you!?
I primaritly shoot 35mm, with an occasional foray into (rented) 6x7. I much
prefer the handling of the 35, but sometimes the limitations of the negative get
to me.
Which brings me to cropping. Sometimes, in the field, especially, I shoot to
crop. In other words, I can't quite get what I want, so I figure I'll finish
off the composition in the darkroom. So, sometimes I am taking an 8x10 out of
the middle of what would be a 16x20 enlargement. And that's when the
limitations of the format occasionally rear their ugly heads. Of course,
enlarging 35mm to 8x10 requires some cropping, unless you leave the edges, which
I have a few times. Cropping is just a tool, and like any tool, it can be
misused.
Skip
--
*********************************************************************
SHADOWCATCHER IMAGERY
Fine Art Black and White Photography
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Skip and Heather Middleton
*********************************************************************
KB
> you use on;y one format do you feel the limitations are good for your
> shooting or hold you back?
In painting class, we use a set of 12 harmonic rectangles, ranging from a
square (1:1) to a double square (2:1). These rectangles are all based on
some particular construction, and each has its own name (e.g. diagon, auron,
quadriagon,...). Because of that, I don't see any reason why I should
confine myself to the single format of 2:3 in photography. But most of my
pictures end up as 2:3. It's just as if the viewfinder forces me to accept
that format.
Koen
Tommy Huynh
heavily, many of their cover shots were actually shot horizontally. I think
it's just another step where you can add your interpretation to the image.
Besides, not everyone has 100% viewfinders and not every picture you see is
ideally suited to the 2x3 aspect ratio.
Lewis Lang
print if need be, and if someone doesn't like my work for a spurious reason I
crop them out and go onto my next shot.
Even HCB crops (I believe the man leaping over the puddle is one such image,
but even if he never cropped, it wouldn't matter to me, though I always try to
compose w/o the need for cropping, if a shot needs cropping due to my error or
limitations of the equipment or logistics of the shooting situation, I have no
compunction in doing it. Purists have (usually unnecessarily artificially
imposed self-made) principles - I'd rather have good photographs and don't care
if my photos have to take the bus or the train or cropping in an enlarger (or
PS) to get there (to being a good photograph). Cropping isn't a sin but
willfull anal stupidity/purity cetainly "borders" on it ;-).
Regards,
Lewis
I've set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want
to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience.
Thanks.
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Anthony Polson
> In another thread Lewis Lang said;
> > "Format is my servant, not my master."
> > A sentence which calls up the choices we all make in photography - 35mm 6x45
> > 6x6, the BIG stuff, Crop/no crop, Frame edges with emulsion numbers showing/
> > not showing.
>
> Okay snapsters - how do you feel about the format of your camera(s). If
> you use on;y one format do you feel the limitations are good for your
> shooting or hold you back? Do you think cropping is evil, or merely
> misguided? Are you a closet cropper? Do you think anyone who would rather
> not have the shot if it's necessary to trim a quarter inch off the bottom is
> a complete idiot? Or perhaps a person with principles?
Hi Tony,
What a provocative series of questions - every one a good'un.
I used to have no particular feelings about format, meaning square
(1:1), or 1:1.333, 1:1.50 etc, until I began shooting a high proportion
of my work on rollfilm. For the work I do in medium format (and that is
a very big caveat) a square frame gives you the greatest number of
options for cropping without having to turn the camera. Not having to
turn the camera is pretty vital if working on a tripod and under
pressure of time.
Yes, you could buy a camera with a rotating back (RB67 etc.) or one of
those fancy tripod heads that allows the camera to rotate without moving
the flash, but the easiest and most widely used option is a 6x6 camera.
I foolishly thought that a 645 outfit would do, and bought a Bronica
ETRSi and three lenses. But it's hard work. Unnecessarily hard. My
next MF buy will be a Hasselblad 503CX, now that prices have fallen far.
--
Best regards,
Anthony Polson
McEowen
>options for cropping without having to turn the camera
That is one of the finest examples of elaboration on the obvious that I've ever
seen . . .
Anthony Polson
Leicaddict
beginning of Western Civilization. I would also argue that proportion is
proportion and not "a" proportion, as if there are numerous ones. The
proportion of 35 mm = 1:1.5, si? But do want you want, who cares? It's not
going to cure world hunger, and it's not brain surgery. Which brings up
another interesting question; would you want any photographer operating on
your brain?
"McEowen" <mce...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011212075327...@mb-fu.aol.com...
Leicaddict
and posting to the web.
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:54CR7.241693$HA6.44...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Tony Spadaro
What I noticed with my own shots many of which I had printed full frame was
a need to crop for the web. The prints would probably be seen by a dozen
people over the course of a year, the website was getting at least that many
visits a day. Suddenly stuff had to look more polished.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Old site with some pictures still up at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast
overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.
"Leicaddict" <leica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:urWR7.300915$5A3.11...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
McEowen
beginning of Western Civilization. >>
I was refering to the 35mm format -- the double 35mm format, in fact. I could
be mistaken but I don't think that dates back much more than 100 years.
KB
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:54CR7.241693$HA6.44...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
master."
> A sentence which calls up the choices we all make in photography - 35mm
6x45
> 6x6, the BIG stuff, Crop/no crop, Frame edges with emulsion numbers
> showing/not showing.
> Okay snapsters - how do you feel about the format of your camera(s). If
> you use on;y one format do you feel the limitations are good for your
> shooting or hold you back?
Roger
Rolliflex TLR was a bit awkward to use at first but really quite
versatile. What really disappointed me was the lack of a side mounted
tripod mount. There were countless times when I felt that rotating the
camera would give me more formatting options. I eventually got to be
quite accomplished using the reversed image in the TLR focusing screen
- even got so I could think sdrawkcab. But I digress...
However, the lack of this feature on the 6x6 camera disappoints me
even more than the lack of MLU on Fuji single use I use for underwater
photography. I've really decided to stick with the 35mm format. The
amount of time I've spent looking for the side mount Rolly, Bland, or
Seagulls could have easily been put into designing a rotating back, an
RB66 maybe.... Bummer. <g>
It was a long meeting of dry stuff... this is what resulted. Thanks
Tony for the inspiration.
Regards,
Roger
Anthony Polson <acpo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Tony Spadaro wrote:
>> In another thread Lewis Lang said;
>> > "Format is my servant, not my master."
>> > A sentence which calls up the choices we all make in photography - 35mm 6x45
>> > 6x6, the BIG stuff, Crop/no crop, Frame edges with emulsion numbers showing/
>> > not showing.
>>
.... snip ...
Russell Williams
If
> > you use on;y one format do you feel the limitations are good for your
> > shooting or hold you back?
I shoot mostly 35 and some digital. I've shot a little 4X5 in the past. 35mm
gives me the best compromise of convenience and image quality, though
I expect the tradeoff to tilt to digital *for me* within the next couple of
years.
35 is (again, *for me*) head and shoulders above all other formats,
including
digital, in camera ergonomics,while providing image quality I like -- very
nice
12X18 enlargements (scan, use Photoshop, print on Epson). 35 beats all other
formats in lens selection, control layout, AF speed, features like wireless
flash and IS lenses, etc.
I like the 35mm aspect ratio, but I crop freely -- I almost never print
completely
full frame. 35 holds me back only in the weight and size of fast glass, and
its
lack of ultimate image quality (for me, that's somewhere just short of 4X5,
where you can blow up an image to *any* size so that when you stand close
enough so you can just see the entire image your eye cannot resolve all the
detail or see the grain). Digital can already produce images this good (and
with better dynamic range than film, too), but with unusable (for me)
ergonomics -- scanning back cameras (see Stephen Johnson's work).
Russell Williams
not speaking for Adobe Systems
Gordon Moat
mm, 6x6, and 4x5 dominate. I am considering returning to the 645 format. I seem
to prefer rectangular to square.
I do not think that one format could be limiting, if it accomplishes the
desired results. There are many famous photographers that have stuck with just
one format, some of them 35 mm.
Cropping is another great creative tool. It is very useful for some images. I
have heard that Henri Cartier-Bresson did not crop any of his images, so it
would seem that his technique did not consider cropping as a creative tool. The
opposite would be the famous photo of Picasso, with his hand on his face. That
one was cropped from a larger image. i do not recall the photographer though.
I have done a couple platinum prints with rough edges. I seem to like that
look. Probably similar to my dislike of having a edge on my oil paintings . . .
I wish I could paint the entire world sometimes, but there is always an edge.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Rod
I currently shoot exclusively 35mm. However in the old days of high school,
I shot almost exclusively with a Yashica TLR. The 6x6 format was very nice
for the style of shot required for the yearbook and newspaper. The idea for
most of the shots were sporting events (TLR is great for basketball if you
can get close enough) or other candid shots of the students during
activities. Invariably there was never much time to perfectly frame the
shot, you just wanted to get the moment on film. The darkroom was where you
would make the shot the editor wanted (as the audio engineer says, "the fix
is in the mix"), square, rectangular, (as noted by others) whatever fit on
the page they were formatting. And the big negative gives lots of room for
finding the right crop.
I guess the above experience is why I have never been adept at "seeing" the
artistic photos that you all seem to delight in. I will always be a snap
shooter and when I try to be artistic the photos look more autistic. Since I
don't consider my images as art but more as moments captured in time, I
think cropping for me is a necessity.
I would love to get back into MF but the costs and convenience factor of
35mm make it the choice for now.
Rod
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:54CR7.241693$HA6.44...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Leicaddict
post full frame (but there are exceptions to the rule.) Because, for the
most part, I shoot full frame, and I've decided to let it all hang out. Lot
of times, when I have 15 minutes to kill, I'll go over to Photo.Net to see
what's been uploaded in the last day or so (many times, a humbling
experience.) The quality of many of the uploads leads me to believe that
it's a conscious decision. I think a lot of people shoot color negative
film, and they scan a negative in, and suddenly go "whoa," because it looks
so different than the 4x6 print, that is basically arbitrarily cropped by a
machine. In fact, I wish I could find a Photoshop Plugin that was full of
cropping templates. For instance, a template that would allow me to move an
8x10 outline around a scan to see what looks best.
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Tu%R7.255593$HA6.47...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
McEowen
post full frame (but there are exceptions to the rule.) Because, for the
most part, I shoot full frame, and I've decided to let it all hang out. >>
Why would you possibly make your visual communication a slave to some arbitrary
shape determined by some camera manufacturer 75 years ago? There is no reason
for it.
Tony Spadaro
Poets will adapt the sonnet form or the haiku, in music one might do a
strict fugue, or a theme and variation approach, etc. Even in popular music
the rhythmic pattern greatly narrows the path the melody can take. Movie
makers have been limited to a very few formats since the invention of the
movie camera, and portrait shooters tend to stick to the format that makes
framing the work easy.
I don't think it's as simple as being unable to see outside the box as it
were.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Old site with some pictures still up at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast
overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.
"McEowen" <mce...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011213193729...@mb-fn.aol.com...
Lisa Horton
I shoot only 35mm today, although previously I shot 6x7 and before
that 6x6. Whatever format I use, I think I tend to see pictures in
that format. I don't find it limiting at all though. I usually do
all cropping in camera, but I'm willing to crop afterwards. I'd
rather crop in camera though, so to use all of the negative area.
Sometimes I'll do a shot, knowing that it will need to be cropped
later because that's the only way the shot will work. Like knowing
that it will be cropped from the 2:3 aspect ratio of 35mm to the 4:5
ratio of an 8x10 print.
I would think that if someone consistently finds themselves cropping
later, they might want to think about shooting closer.
I think this stuff about showing the film edges, emulsion numbers and
like that is, to me, affected and pretentious.
Lisa
Tony Spadaro
gone back to the old way though. I make a full frame print and use the
cropping Ls. Photoshop 6 has considerably improved the cropping tools,
however I frequently have to "live" with a picture for a while before I know
where I want to crop.
I'll write up a description of my old crop tool tonight and post it
here. I have to check a few details first so I won't make any mistakes in
the writeup.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Old site with some pictures still up at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast
overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.
"Leicaddict" <leica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6JbS7.303680$5A3.11...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
Anthony Polson
>
> For years, I've been looking for the right 6x6 camera. I found my
> Rolliflex TLR was a bit awkward to use at first but really quite
> versatile. What really disappointed me was the lack of a side mounted
> tripod mount. There were countless times when I felt that rotating the
> camera would give me more formatting options. I eventually got to be
> quite accomplished using the reversed image in the TLR focusing screen
> - even got so I could think sdrawkcab. But I digress...
>
> However, the lack of this feature on the 6x6 camera disappoints me
> even more than the lack of MLU on Fuji single use I use for underwater
> photography. I've really decided to stick with the 35mm format. The
> amount of time I've spent looking for the side mount Rolly, Bland, or
> Seagulls could have easily been put into designing a rotating back, an
> RB66 maybe.... Bummer. <g>
>
> It was a long meeting of dry stuff... this is what resulted. Thanks
> Tony for the inspiration.
Hi Roger,
Thanks for the thanks, but have you never tried a tripod head that
allows the camera to be used on its side?
Anthony Polson
> Confusing your question is!
>
> I shoot only 35mm today, although previously I shot 6x7 and before
> that 6x6. Whatever format I use, I think I tend to see pictures in
> that format. I don't find it limiting at all though. I usually do
> all cropping in camera, but I'm willing to crop afterwards. I'd
> rather crop in camera though, so to use all of the negative area.
> Sometimes I'll do a shot, knowing that it will need to be cropped
> later because that's the only way the shot will work. Like knowing
> that it will be cropped from the 2:3 aspect ratio of 35mm to the 4:5
> ratio of an 8x10 print.
>
> I would think that if someone consistently finds themselves cropping
> later, they might want to think about shooting closer.
>
> I think this stuff about showing the film edges, emulsion numbers and
> like that is, to me, affected and pretentious.
Hi Lisa,
If shooting "affected and pretentious" was a profitable enterprise,
would you refuse it? Unhesitatingly? Or maybe ...
Lisa Horton
easily confused:)
I've shot affected and pretentious people before, for money. Does
that count?
As I interpret your question, you're asking if I would do things I
consider affected and pretentious if they made me more money. If
someone requested such a thing, I'd certainly consider it, as long as
they were paying me. Would I initiate such a thing? Probably not.
It all depends on the circumstances. I strive to avoid
pretentiousness in my life and work.
Lisa
Roger
botched attempt at some backside humor - I don't think anyone got it
and I'm not sure I do either. Rotating a 6x6 format doesn't seem to
make any sense to me at all, and that was the point. Anyway, I did
enjoy my Rolleiflex but alas it was stolen and I lost my darkroom
capabilities about the same time so I haven't restarted any MF stuff.
Regards,
Roger
Anthony Polson <acpo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Roger <lei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> For years, I've been looking for the right 6x6 camera. I found my
>> Rolliflex TLR was a bit awkward to use at first but really quite
>> versatile. What really disappointed me was the lack of a side mounted
>> tripod mount. There were countless times when I felt that rotating the
>> camera would give me more formatting options. I eventually got to be
>> quite accomplished using the reversed image in the TLR focusing screen
>> - even got so I could think sdrawkcab. But I digress...
>>
.. snip ..
Lewis Lang
>From: Roger lei...@yahoo.com
>Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2001 4:52 PM
>Message-id: <n4nh1u4pooq5v4d71...@4ax.com>
>
>For years, I've been looking for the right 6x6 camera. I found my
>Rolliflex TLR was a bit awkward to use at first but really quite
>versatile. What really disappointed me was the lack of a side mounted
>tripod mount. There were countless times when I felt that rotating the
>camera would give me more formatting options. I eventually got to be
>quite accomplished using the reversed image in the TLR focusing screen
>- even got so I could think sdrawkcab. But I digress...
>
>However, the lack of this feature on the 6x6 camera disappoints me
>even more than the lack of MLU on Fuji single use I use for underwater
>photography. I've really decided to stick with the 35mm format. The
>amount of time I've spent looking for the side mount Rolly, Bland, or
>Seagulls could have easily been put into designing a rotating back, an
>RB66 maybe.... Bummer. <g>
>
>It was a long meeting of dry stuff... this is what resulted. Thanks
>Tony for the inspiration.
>
>Regards,
>Roger
What was "a long meeting of dry stuff" exactly?
Lewis Lang
>I
>have heard that Henri Cartier-Bresson did not crop any of his images, so
>it
>would seem that his technique did not consider cropping as a creative tool.
>The
>opposite would be the famous photo of Picasso, with his hand on his face.
>That
>one was cropped from a larger image. i do not recall the photographer though.
Could it be Arnold Newman?
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2001 8:00 AM
>Message-id: <9v72un$h77$1...@naxos.belnet.be>
A format (and ratio) is like the grammar?/dialect? of a language and most
people have a home language (format/ratio) in photography, even when they are
fluent in many different "languages" 35mm/rectangular, square/6x6cm, etc.). I
can and have composed people and still life (and a combination of people/still
life in 2:3 (35mm), square (6x6cm), rectangular (645 and 6x7cm), as well as
what can only be considered Cinerama or ultra panoramic (long very thin
horizontal strip), but I find I am most at home in the 35mm format and 2:3
ratio (though other formats are just as easy to compose in for me). Usually I
can "juggle/balance the elements" in my compositions in my "home format" almost
"seemingly" w/o thinking (actually I do a lot of thinking about it but it has
become as natural/easy/automatic for me as hitting a volleyball or riding a
bicycle), it only takes slightly more effor to compose in another format/ratio.
I think we all gravitate to a home format (at least in photography where the
"walls" (borders/edges of the viewfinder) of the frame are fixed at the time we
take/make/compose an image we are most comfortable seeing in, but the true
artist will go beyond the home format (by that I mean the ratio, not
necessarily the largeness/proportions of the film) when necessary and either
leave it alone or crop anything from a litttle bit to the hell out of it as the
picture dictates, or jump to a different film format (ie. from 35mm to
square/6x6cm) not according to "visual habit" but according to the visual
needs/"necessary composition" of the shot.
Mike Lipphardt
the most work, not because of outstanding imaging ability - although used
correctly, with good lenses and films, I feel it comes close to 645 - but
because it's fast and convenient. The MF stuff gets used when the mood
strikes, when I'm shooting something rather formal like portraits or other
occasions where image quality is paramount.
Mamiya 7 rules :)
Mike
"Russell Williams" <will...@adobe.com> wrote in message
news:bG5S7.259$YE4....@newshog.newsread.com...
Mike Lipphardt
Mike
Gordon Moat
<http://www.icp.org/exhibitions/newman/index.html>
There is the photo at the beginning of this. It was originally cropped from a
larger shot. This is one of my favourite shots of Picasso.
Thanks.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Anthony Polson
> How about a camera that allows the tripod to be used on it's side?
Or even a tripod that allows the photographer to shoot from a reclining
position.
Iskandar Taib
Tony Spadaro <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
> I used to do this in photoshop - it's actually rather simple. Lately I've
>gone back to the old way though. I make a full frame print and use the
>cropping Ls. Photoshop 6 has considerably improved the cropping tools,
>however I frequently have to "live" with a picture for a while before I know
>where I want to crop.
Cropping tools? Is there really any more to (the mechanical aspects
of) cropping other than drawing the box, then selecting Image -> Crop?
(I'm not talking about making the choice of where to crop, of course -
I know there's a lot involved there.)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
Tony Spadaro
desired location. This is okay but with the "Ls" one does not continue to
see the area being cropped out and therefore is not influenced by it. The
new tool in Photoshop 6 allows for the cropped out area to be anywhere from
fully visible to completely blacked out.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Old site with some pictures still up at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast
overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.
"Iskandar Taib" <nt...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9vr7cg$ltp$3...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
Iskandar Taib
Tony Spadaro <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
>In Photoshop 5 the cropping tool was a simple box that one could move to the
>desired location. This is okay but with the "Ls" one does not continue to
>see the area being cropped out and therefore is not influenced by it. The
>new tool in Photoshop 6 allows for the cropped out area to be anywhere from
>fully visible to completely blacked out.
Ah.. OK, thanks, that explains it.
Sounds like a pretty useful tool.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Spadaro
proof tacked to the wall for a couple weeks' way of working now that I
wonder why I didn't do it more during my chemical darkroom days.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Old site with some pictures still up at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast
overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.
"Iskandar Taib" <nt...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:a00ef3$89a$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...