My comments interspersed:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:13:40 -0800, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I tend to agree with you, there are a few points that may merit more
discussion.
First, as to my Photoshop skills - they really are rudimentary. To call them "superior" in any way surprises me, although I have to admit feeling OK about it ;-)) Oh, I don't see presenting your interpretation as competition. Frankly, I was hoping to see what you had to offer and to learn something from it.
Only those who know much, know how little they know.
More interesting to me is framing and cropping. Let's use Frank's work and
my work as examples, only because we (the list in general) are familiar
with them. Frank has often said that he doesn't crop. He's also said that
he often doesn't notice certain elements in his photos until he's viewing
contact sheets or prints. It's likely that he frequently ends up with
elements in his photos that, had he seen them when looking through the
finder, may not have been included in the image. He's also said that he's
included elements in his photos that he knew were inappropriate for any
number of reasons, such as being in a hurry, using a wider lens than
necessary for the shot, and so on. Does removing or reducing those
unneeded and unwanted elements really change what was originally seen as
the photo? I think not, because they weren't supposed to be there in the
first place, so getting rid of them by cropping, burning, dodging, or any
other means would bring the image closer to what was intended, closer to
the photographers original vision.
Recently Frank posted an excellent picture of a woman walking in the snow. He was (politely) taken to task by Bob W (I think) for having a rather prominent sign in the picture (and a speck!). Both were unnecessary to the picture, and were toned down or removed in later versions. So I would agree that Frank doesn't always notice things that other people might notice, and that removing these inessential elements improved that particular picture without fundamentally changing it.
In the present case, your cropping was pretty radical, and to my mind changed the picture completely, thereby creating a new picture, rather than improving the original. You clearly had a view of the picture that was very different from mine, and elements of the picture which I considered essential were, for you, simply extraneous.
OTOH, I crop a lot. Most all my photos are presented in a 5x7 format
although I shoot 35mm format. But I crop because that's how I most often
see the world through the viewfinder. I wear glasses, generally don't see the full frame (except when using certain lenses on certain Leicas) often
shoot quickly, and what I usually end up framing through the finder fits
closer to the 5x7 format than the 35mm format. So I crop the final
results, but I'm not cropping what I saw and how the final photograph was
envisioned.
I crop a lot, too (though that's hardly a recommendation). It's allowed if you use prime lenses!
So, the question then is this: in the situations described, is cropping really changing the intended image, or does cropping bring the image to where it was intended to be as seen at the time by the photographer?
It all depends. You and I have different views of what Frank intended (and since you've spoken to him, you will have a better idea than I do). If Frank intended what you produced, then that's fine. If not, then you've made a new picture. It may be a good picture, but it's not Frank's picture.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement that cropping changes the image (speaking only of the photographers original vision) even though it may change what has been caught on the film or the sensor. I also think, depending on a number of variables, that enhancing an image in Photoshop can change it more than cropping.
If cropping amounts to no more than removing what is superfluous, then I agree. As long as we can all agree on what is superfluous. I also agree that PS can be used to change an image totally.
As for "De gustibus non disputandum est," I cannot comment, for I am ignorant of the meaning.
It means "matters of taste cannot be argued with". But they can certainly be discussed! I meant that neither your view nor my view can be called wrong. They're just different views.
John
Shel
[Original Message] From: John Forbes
superiorI actually liked Frank's original framing of this picture, and wouldn't wish to change it. It works for me. I think that you, with yourPhotoshop skills, are able to do a lot to improve the "presentation" ofproduced
the image (if that's a suitable word) to produce an excellent final
"print". I can't compete with you on this, and wouldn't dream of trying.
I also think that with your tight cropping you have in both casesa punchy image which grabs the attention. I like both. However, I think
that when you crop an image (as opposed to trimming) you are changing it rather than just enhancing it. You are in effect making a new image. Simply dodging and burning some areas doesn't create a new image; it's still the same picture, seen at its best.
I'm not making a philosophical point here, or criticising what you've done. I just like Frank's original framing, and in my view all that's needed is to do what you have done, without the cropping.
I also take your point about the importance of balance and symmetry. It
might be that HCB could have produced a picture that contained all the
information in Frank's picture, but with more poetry. However, Frank did
towhat he did, and for me the picture is more satisfying with all it's elements intact than with some of them removed or reduced in the name of balance. I might think otherwise in the case of a more abstract image, but here I like the contrast between the two performers, and don't wantsee element that downplayed.
De gustibus non disputandum est.
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005
