Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
I have to agree with Shel on this one. Is manipulation that does not change the meaning of the photo evil? How about those millions of grip and grin photos your have seen in the newspapers over the years, every one of them posed? Yes, photos can lie. Reporters can lie. Editors can lie. But their leaving something out that is not relevant to the story is not a lie, it is just ordinary editing (cutting the irrelevant). graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. As for De gustibus non disputandum est, I cannot comment, for I am ignorant of the meaning. Shel [Original Message] From: John Forbes I 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 your superior Photoshop skills, are able to do a lot to improve the presentation of 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 cases produced a 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 what 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 want to see element that downplayed. De gustibus non disputandum est. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
I do actually agree with what you (and Shel) are saying. My point was that a time comes when what you do to a picture is no longer an improvement but a new picture. When that point is reached is of course very subjective, which is what gave rise to this discussion. I actually liked what Shel did, but I thought that what he had done was so major that in both cases he produced a new image, rather than an improvement to the original image. Another way of saying this is that he removed elements in the original picture that I liked, and that I felt belonged in the picture. Shel thought otherwise. Both our points of view are surely equally valid as they simply reflect our own personal responses to the original image. John On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:22:12 -0500, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to agree with Shel on this one. Is manipulation that does not change the meaning of the photo evil? How about those millions of grip and grin photos your have seen in the newspapers over the years, every one of them posed? Yes, photos can lie. Reporters can lie. Editors can lie. But their leaving something out that is not relevant to the story is not a lie, it is just ordinary editing (cutting the irrelevant). graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. As for De gustibus non disputandum est, I cannot comment, for I am ignorant of the meaning. Shel [Original Message] From: John Forbes I 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 your superior Photoshop skills, are able to do a lot to improve the presentation of 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 cases produced a 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
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:22:12 -0500, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to agree with Shel on this one. Is manipulation that does not change the meaning of the photo evil? How about those millions of grip and grin photos your have seen in the newspapers over the years, every one of them posed? Yes, photos can lie. Reporters can lie. Editors can lie. But their leaving something out that is not relevant to the story is not a lie, it is just ordinary editing (cutting the irrelevant). Tom, I'm not sure if you're responding to John or me here, but I just want to go on record as saying that manipulation is not evil. I don't believe that I've ever said it is. I have only said that I choose not to do it for myself. That's a personal choice, and whatever anyone else chooses to do with their photos is fine by me. I make no value judgements on such activities. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
General comment, Frank. BTW, do you still wear that white wig when checking out the list? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- frank theriault wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:22:12 -0500, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to agree with Shel on this one. Is manipulation that does not change the meaning of the photo evil? How about those millions of grip and grin photos your have seen in the newspapers over the years, every one of them posed? Yes, photos can lie. Reporters can lie. Editors can lie. But their leaving something out that is not relevant to the story is not a lie, it is just ordinary editing (cutting the irrelevant). Tom, I'm not sure if you're responding to John or me here, but I just want to go on record as saying that manipulation is not evil. I don't believe that I've ever said it is. I have only said that I choose not to do it for myself. That's a personal choice, and whatever anyone else chooses to do with their photos is fine by me. I make no value judgements on such activities. cheers, frank -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 3/18/2005
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:14:13 -0500, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: General comment, Frank. BTW, do you still wear that white wig when checking out the list? Nah, just the bunny ears, and even then not so often as I used to. vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
In a message dated 3/18/2005 4:26:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3207780size=lg I sort of felt stupid for saying I liked after seeing others' reactions. But taking a second look, nope, going against the stream, I still like it. They are absorbed in their music. That comes across. They don't need to interact with the audience, musicians are often in the world of their own when playing. Just like artists when painting. However, I am the least experienced here, so take with a grain of salt. Marnie
RE: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
Hi Shel a good crop and adjustment of the original, I like the photo this way. greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 3:52 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/frankpic.html My first thought about an interpretation of your pic. Shel
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
I agree with you, Marnie. Shel's version makes for a more powerful image, but the orginal told more of a story, which I think was the point here. And I like the OOF guy, too. John On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 03:33:51 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/18/2005 4:26:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3207780size=lg I sort of felt stupid for saying I liked after seeing others' reactions. But taking a second look, nope, going against the stream, I still like it. They are absorbed in their music. That comes across. They don't need to interact with the audience, musicians are often in the world of their own when playing. Just like artists when painting. However, I am the least experienced here, so take with a grain of salt. Marnie -- 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
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
This version certainly gives the picture a lot more more ooomph, but for my taste the crop on the guitarist is too tight. It's that right arm that's making the music, and if we can't see it, the guy becomes rather irrelevant. This is a pity, because although he may not be in focus, to me he's still a vital part of the picture. John On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:59:30 -0800, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, thanks ... but as was pointed out in another message, it doesn't tell the whole story that I think Frank was trying to convey (F and I were talking off list). However, I did another fiddle last night that I sent to Frank directly as it was late and I was tired and cranky, and didn't feel like uploading it. In that one I brought down the tone of the horn player's sweater (which, IMO, was a real distraction), cropped the shot tightly but kept the guitar player in the frame, got rid of the background distraction, and fiddled with the skin tomes. It was a crummy Photoshop job - real quick just to get a sense of what was possible and to share an idea or two with Frank. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/frankpic2.html There are certainly many ways to interpret a scene. Shel [Original Message] From: Markus Maurer Hi Shel a good crop and adjustment of the original, I like the photo this way. greetings http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/frankpic.html My first thought about an interpretation of your pic. -- 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
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
Why don't you present your version and we can see how it looks. There's a balance between information, information that's implied, and the overall balance and symmetry in a photograph itself that sometimes has to be maintained. Shel [Original Message] From: John Forbes This version certainly gives the picture a lot more more ooomph, but for my taste the crop on the guitarist is too tight. It's that right arm that's making the music, and if we can't see it, the guy becomes rather irrelevant. This is a pity, because although he may not be in focus, to me he's still a vital part of the picture.
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
In a message dated 3/19/2005 10:00:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/frankpic2.html There are certainly many ways to interpret a scene. Shel = Now that looks good! ;-) Without losing either guy. I felt frank had the shot in there somewhere. I think you've brought it out (maybe it could be less cropped, but not bad at all). Yup, many way to interpret. Get down! Marnie aka Doe
RE: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
Well, thanks ... but as was pointed out in another message, it doesn't tell the whole story that I think Frank was trying to convey (F and I were talking off list). However, I did another fiddle last night that I sent to Frank directly as it was late and I was tired and cranky, and didn't feel like uploading it. In that one I brought down the tone of the horn player's sweater (which, IMO, was a real distraction), cropped the shot tightly but kept the guitar player in the frame, got rid of the background distraction, and fiddled with the skin tomes. It was a crummy Photoshop job - real quick just to get a sense of what was possible and to share an idea or two with Frank. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/frankpic2.html There are certainly many ways to interpret a scene. Shel [Original Message] From: Markus Maurer Hi Shel a good crop and adjustment of the original, I like the photo this way. greetings http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/frankpic.html My first thought about an interpretation of your pic.
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
Shel, I 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 your superior Photoshop skills, are able to do a lot to improve the presentation of 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 cases produced a 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 what 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 want to see element that downplayed. De gustibus non disputandum est. John On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:04:47 -0800, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why don't you present your version and we can see how it looks. There's a balance between information, information that's implied, and the overall balance and symmetry in a photograph itself that sometimes has to be maintained. Shel [Original Message] From: John Forbes This version certainly gives the picture a lot more more ooomph, but for my taste the crop on the guitarist is too tight. It's that right arm that's making the music, and if we can't see it, the guy becomes rather irrelevant. This is a pity, because although he may not be in focus, to me he's still a vital part of the picture. -- 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
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
Element that should of course read that element. J On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:58:57 -, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shel, I 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 your superior Photoshop skills, are able to do a lot to improve the presentation of 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 cases produced a 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 what 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 want to see element that downplayed. De gustibus non disputandum est. John On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:04:47 -0800, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why don't you present your version and we can see how it looks. There's a balance between information, information that's implied, and the overall balance and symmetry in a photograph itself that sometimes has to be maintained. Shel [Original Message] From: John Forbes This version certainly gives the picture a lot more more ooomph, but for my taste the crop on the guitarist is too tight. It's that right arm that's making the music, and if we can't see it, the guy becomes rather irrelevant. This is a pity, because although he may not be in focus, to me he's still a vital part of the picture. -- 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
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
That is not so any more, Marnie. You have learned a little something over the past few years (grin). However being new sometimes allows a fresh way of looking at photos. What Shel proposes is the age old way of eliminating distracting backgrounds in BW photography. In this case it would probably be effective, but then it would look like ten million other jazz photos. Stylistic choices in photography are aways a trade off. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I am the least experienced here, so take with a grain of salt. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
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. 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. 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. 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? 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. As for De gustibus non disputandum est, I cannot comment, for I am ignorant of the meaning. Shel [Original Message] From: John Forbes I 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 your superior Photoshop skills, are able to do a lot to improve the presentation of 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 cases produced a 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 what 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 want to see element that downplayed. De gustibus non disputandum est.
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
In a message dated 3/19/2005 1:33:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is not so any more, Marnie. You have learned a little something over the past few years (grin). However being new sometimes allows a fresh way of looking at photos. What Shel proposes is the age old way of eliminating distracting backgrounds in BW photography. In this case it would probably be effective, but then it would look like ten million other jazz photos. Stylistic choices in photography are aways a trade off. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I am the least experienced here, so take with a grain of salt. === Hehehehe. I guess you have a point. Not anymore... Okay, then, I like the original better. The crop on Shel's version is too tight. I agree with John (forbes) on that. However, I would crop off some of the top, not all, but some. It's sort of a dead area. But that crop would only remove some black and white areas, not any of the players. That is one thing I liked about Shel's version, the top was cropped off (and to be honest, I didn't spend a lot of time doing a side by side comparison). I've been thinking about this the last few days. Stand up and say what I think regardless of what others say. No matter who the others are. My opinion is still my opinion, and, may or may not, add to the discussion or give insight/input to the shooter. There are plenty others more experienced, but my take on things is still *my* take. Thanks for nudging me, graywolf. g A lot of frank's shots are fresh or engaging, exactly because they don't look like a zillion other photos. There is a certain air of spontaneity and naturalness about them. And I still like the combo of guitar player and trumpet player the best of the three. To me, it looks like something is happening in that photo, while the others just look like ho-hum portraits. I love the trumpet player's scrunched up forehead. He's working it, man. Marnie
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
P.S. That is not to say, frank, (see my previous comments re this pic, where forehead was specifically mentioned) that I think out-of-focus works every time. Because I still think Taking the Bloor Train Home was one of your best shots to date. IMHO, standard disclaimers re just my opinion, grain of salt, etc. Marnie aka Doe Don't want you to get a swelled head. ;-)
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
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 I 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 your superior Photoshop skills, are able to do a lot to improve the presentation of 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 cases produced a punchy image which grabs the attention. I like both. However, I think that when you crop an
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:56:19 -, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip He [frank] 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. snip Well, this has certainly turned into an interesting thread behind my back! Well, not behind my back, but I went to bed last night with one or two comments on this pic (plus a brief off-list convo with Shel), and haven't been on-line since. Log on this evening, and I see this very interesting discussion! g I want to look over the posts in more detail, but I did want to comment on the above parargraph, just so I don't forget: First of all, I did certainly notice the great big sign. It was hard even for me to miss vbg. I took the sign out, very clumsily (on purpose) for humour. Someone off-list sent me a version in which they quite expertly cloned out the sign, and I must say, it looked great - very seemless, and one would never know that a sign had ever been there. But, I'd never show the pic that way. It's just not what I do. Just as I really liked Shel's second rework of the photo that spawned this thread (the one with both players in it). I told him that. It may even be better or more compelling than my original version. But I'd never use it, and would never do that to a photo myself. I have no problems with people working their own photos that way. But, for me, it would be a dishonest photo. What's in the frame when I take the photo is what stays in the photo. I'll crop rarely, if absolutely necessary. I'll allow my lab guy to dodge and burn and I'll do the PS equivalent. But that's it. Nothing more. If a photo will look better by doing other stuff, well, that's too bad. One could argue that if I dodge and burn and crop, then it's inconsistent not to consider other manipulations. That may be so, but I won't do it. I don't have to be logical, or justify my photo philosophy to anyone, it's just the way I choose to do it. This isn't meant to take you to task, John, or to disagree with anything you said, I'm just explaining why certain things are the way they are. Now to look over the rest of the thread with more of a critical eye, and likely comment a bit more vbg. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
Well, thanks ... but as was pointed out in another message, it doesn't tell the whole story that I think Frank was trying to convey (F and I were talking off list). However, I did another fiddle last night that I sent to Frank directly as it was late and I was tired and cranky, and didn't feel like uploading it. In that one I brought down the tone of the horn player's sweater (which, IMO, was a real distraction), cropped the shot tightly but kept the guitar player in the frame, got rid of the background distraction, and fiddled with the skin tomes. It was a crummy Photoshop job - real quick just to get a sense of what was possible and to share an idea or two with Frank. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/frankpic2.html There are certainly many ways to interpret a scene. Shel Frank. I have just read through 1-2 of the comments on this photo you are presenting for a Paw. I like the concept but, and i'm no back alley, or pro bar shooter by any means(yetg)but i think Shel has a good rendition of your shot in the above link. I'm just going on the 4-5 times i have shot my friends, the Nuraw Blooze in clubs. Grainy BW film and existing light were made for jazz and blues. They insist i shoot them in colour, but, i alsways get some good BW which BTW they love when they see them. Hopefully no hard feelings,but the original, to me, just did not portray the feel of the club. Not having read all the threads(i have 1200 i'm going over now), was this flash or just well lit. Dave
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
Sorry if I got my facts slightly wrong, Frank. There were so many responses/versions I rather lost track. But, hell, why let the facts get in the way of a good discussion? John On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:42:24 -0500, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:56:19 -, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip He [frank] 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. snip Well, this has certainly turned into an interesting thread behind my back! Well, not behind my back, but I went to bed last night with one or two comments on this pic (plus a brief off-list convo with Shel), and haven't been on-line since. Log on this evening, and I see this very interesting discussion! g I want to look over the posts in more detail, but I did want to comment on the above parargraph, just so I don't forget: First of all, I did certainly notice the great big sign. It was hard even for me to miss vbg. I took the sign out, very clumsily (on purpose) for humour. Someone off-list sent me a version in which they quite expertly cloned out the sign, and I must say, it looked great - very seemless, and one would never know that a sign had ever been there. But, I'd never show the pic that way. It's just not what I do. Just as I really liked Shel's second rework of the photo that spawned this thread (the one with both players in it). I told him that. It may even be better or more compelling than my original version. But I'd never use it, and would never do that to a photo myself. I have no problems with people working their own photos that way. But, for me, it would be a dishonest photo. What's in the frame when I take the photo is what stays in the photo. I'll crop rarely, if absolutely necessary. I'll allow my lab guy to dodge and burn and I'll do the PS equivalent. But that's it. Nothing more. If a photo will look better by doing other stuff, well, that's too bad. One could argue that if I dodge and burn and crop, then it's inconsistent not to consider other manipulations. That may be so, but I won't do it. I don't have to be logical, or justify my photo philosophy to anyone, it's just the way I choose to do it. This isn't meant to take you to task, John, or to disagree with anything you said, I'm just explaining why certain things are the way they are. Now to look over the rest of the thread with more of a critical eye, and likely comment a bit more vbg. cheers, frank -- 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
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
Well, the second is a better picture of the guitarist (or at least more interesting). The look on the trumpeter's face is still not too great. I'd say the second shot is an improvement overall. Bruce Friday, March 18, 2005, 4:25:37 PM, you wrote: ft Okay, ya gotta help me out here. ft A couple of weeks or a month ago, I posted a couple of shots of my ft buddy Tim, a bike courier/jazz trumpeter, taken at his Tuesday night ft jam session at a local bar. Basically, the comments were more or less ft that it was a pretty boring shot. Nothing compelling, not much of ft interest. I think those comments were pretty accurate. ft Just to jog your memory, here's the one that got the most mundane ft comments (the comments weren't mundane, rather, the shot was judged to ft be mundane...): ft http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3115576size=lg ft So, here's another taken on the same night. (This one's actually the ft PAW) I think the body positions of the two players is a bit more ft interesting, and I think maybe the angle of the trumpet is a bit more ft compelling: ft http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3207780size=lg ft What do you think? Is it a bit more interesting? Pretty much the ft same old thing? Am I just barking up the wrong tree with this one? ft I did take some with different focal length lenses, including some ft wide angle shots, but for various reasons, they really didn't turn ft out. Part of the problem is where they were playing - the background ft was really distracting, and I feel I need a narrow dof to blur it so ft it's not so noticeable. ft Anyway, your comments are appreciated. I'm not so good at concert ft shots, and feedback will help some. That, and just going out and ft shooting more vbg. Thanks. ft cheers, ft frank
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
In a message dated 3/18/2005 4:26:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3207780size=lg What do you think? Is it a bit more interesting? Pretty much the same old thing? Am I just barking up the wrong tree with this one? I did take some with different focal length lenses, including some wide angle shots, but for various reasons, they really didn't turn out. Part of the problem is where they were playing - the background was really distracting, and I feel I need a narrow dof to blur it so it's not so noticeable. Anyway, your comments are appreciated. I'm not so good at concert shots, and feedback will help some. That, and just going out and shooting more vbg. Thanks. cheers, frank === Much, much more interesting, frank. Now the low key concentration of the guy in the back is in context (because someone else is whaling away and he is listening and going along). The second one is definitely a keeper. Marnie
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3207780size=lg Much nicer than the first one. I really like the look of effort on the trumpet player's face. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
I'd love to help you out Frank. Which way did y'come in? rim shot Better, but it's still a boring shot. Lighting adds nothing to the pic. I can see having gotten a little mote oomph by exposing for the highlights, letting the background go much darker (which might also get rid of, and certainly reduce, distracting elements), burning down the sweater, and concentrating more on the face, horn, and hands. There's a photograph in there somewhere, but the full frame, overly bright shot you've presented does a great job of hiding it. Shel [Original Message] From: frank theriault So, here's another taken on the same night. (This one's actually the PAW) I think the body positions of the two players is a bit more interesting, and I think maybe the angle of the trumpet is a bit more compelling: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3207780size=lg What do you think? Is it a bit more interesting? Pretty much the same old thing? Am I just barking up the wrong tree with this one? I did take some with different focal length lenses, including some wide angle shots, but for various reasons, they really didn't turn out. Part of the problem is where they were playing - the background was really distracting, and I feel I need a narrow dof to blur it so it's not so noticeable.
RE: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/frankpic.html My first thought about an interpretation of your pic. Shel
Re: PAW: Lee and Tim, Blowing
Frank: It's definitely more interesting. Perhaps I feel that way because the trumpeter's eyes are visible to the viewer and to the audience, whereas the guitarist seems more absorbed in what he's doing. Next time, you might want to try getting some shots with the musicians interacting with the audience with their eyes, gestures, smiles and, see if you can get the lighting to be less flat by going for low key shots. Jim frank theriault wrote: Okay, ya gotta help me out here. A couple of weeks or a month ago, I posted a couple of shots of my buddy Tim, a bike courier/jazz trumpeter, taken at his Tuesday night jam session at a local bar. Basically, the comments were more or less that it was a pretty boring shot. Nothing compelling, not much of interest. I think those comments were pretty accurate. Just to jog your memory, here's the one that got the most mundane comments (the comments weren't mundane, rather, the shot was judged to be mundane...): http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3115576size=lg So, here's another taken on the same night. (This one's actually the PAW) I think the body positions of the two players is a bit more interesting, and I think maybe the angle of the trumpet is a bit more compelling: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3207780size=lg What do you think? Is it a bit more interesting? Pretty much the same old thing? Am I just barking up the wrong tree with this one? I did take some with different focal length lenses, including some wide angle shots, but for various reasons, they really didn't turn out. Part of the problem is where they were playing - the background was really distracting, and I feel I need a narrow dof to blur it so it's not so noticeable. Anyway, your comments are appreciated. I'm not so good at concert shots, and feedback will help some. That, and just going out and shooting more vbg. Thanks. cheers, frank
