I've never heard of "get it exact in the camera" before.
I've always heard "get it right in camera" ... not the same thing.
I've always interpreted that to mean expose it properly & frame it so
that you don't chop off heads & feet or any other features you might
want in your print later.
You can always crop down to get the image you want, but it's hard to
crop "up".
On 8/23/2013 2:12 PM, George Sinos wrote:
Hi Stan
The problem you present is one of the reasons I don't agree with the
"get it exact in the camera" philosophy. My theory is that a lot of
that type of thinking was a result of technology limitations of
historic days. There was a time when the only thing most people could
make from a large format negative was a contact print. More recently,
many of us shot transparency film. You exposed and framed to get it
exact in the camera because the original image was the only image.
Today, especially with digital, the image you capture on the sensor is
only one step in the processing chain. When you don't know the final
use (and there may be many) you need to shoot pretty loose to give you
freedom to crop the final image. I felt the same way when I shot B&W
35mm negative film.
You might want an 8x10 enlargement, a 5x7 or Square to more easily fit
a printed book page and something along a 16:9 ratio to be sent to
your TV screen.
None of those are the same aspect ratio as your 2x3 viewfinder or
original image.
When you don't know what your going to do with the final image, shoot
loose and crop later.
One of the cameras I use has an option to project guidelines for
different aspect ratios on the viewfinder image. I seldom use the
feature because I usually don't know what aspect ratio I need for the
final image. I use the full image size capability of the camera and
shoot loose.
gs
George Sinos
--------------------
www.GeorgesPhotos.net
www.GeorgeSinos.com
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Stan Halpin
<s...@stans-photography.info> wrote:
Rick Wormer recently posted a very nice PESO:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17505433&size=lg
Comments he has received so far mention the good composition. I totally agree -
it is a boffo shot as presented.
However, viewing it quickly brought to mind some mild struggles I have been
having. The recent workshop I attended yielded several shots I have been
motivated to print, and I have started layout of a Blurb book based on that
week's shots. The problem I am having is that many of my compositions, as seen
through the viewfinder and as captured by the sensor, and as viewed on my
monitor, are just about exactly the way I want them. But the format is not an
8x10 nor 11x14 nor 13x17. So I need to print with too wide margins top or
bottom. Same problem with Blurb layouts. Looking at Rick's image, I cannot see
how he would be able to print the image in any standard format; any cropping on
the sides would damage/destroy his composition.
Paper can be trimmed, mats and frames can be custom cut. But it is still a nuisance. I would
love to have firmware in the camera that would show the viewing area with an 4x5 ratio (or other
selectable ratio) partial mask. Many P&S cameras have a selectable format ratio when taking
the photo; I wouldn't want that. But if I am thinking "this shot could make a nice
print", I would like a viewfinder reminder of the area(s) that would correspond to print
format ratios. If I decide on a different presentation mode later, I would still have the
full-frame image to work with, unlike with the P&S approach.
stan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
