Close photography (part 2)

sepiareverb said:
I don't know how to put your theme in delicate terms, but then that third one has blown my theory anyhow so I'm off the hook.
Click to expand...

That's why the third one is called token-white-men.jpg :D

Also, it's summer, it's hot. You know. And I'm taller than most of my, errrr, subjects, so I have to look down a bit.

I'd suggest you throw a wider lens yet on there for a half a roll and see what happens- I often find a lot going on that I don't necessarily conciously see when exposing when I play with a wide lens and shoot fast. The jumble can be great.
Click to expand...

Ah. Seeing unconsciously. No, I don't think I'm any good at that.

colin
 
memphis said:
Didn't robin williams in Dead Poet's Society make a big speach about the look at the world from a different perspective while jumping on a desk --- the added height to your frame give a great perspective

wish I were that tall
Click to expand...

I saw the film a long time ago, and liked it a lot. It seems I've forgotten a lot too though :)

I'm not excessively tall. I just said I was taller than my subjects :)


BTW, I fixed the stupid IMG image link above, from my post yesterday. All in the gallery...

colin
 
memphis said:
Magus, first off, I like and respect your opinions...
Click to expand...


Oh dear. Crop! Don't crop! Crop! Don't.


I like and respect both of your opinions. I guess what Magus is saying is that it's a bad habit to get into - encourages laziness, and will not lead to photographic enlightenment. On the other hand, Memphis points out that many famous pictures have been cropped - so where's the problem?

Tricky, tricky. Now that last example was an *extreme* crop. But I like the "pose" (which is authentic and unposed, as it were) and the expression. To me it looks like something from a film, or an advert - something commercial. That I got it just walking around town and taking the odd picture, quite frankly surprises me. So I posted it.

There's another picture in the gallery which to me has something more and more surprising and magical the closer I zoom in on the full 5400 dpi scan. Yet it has one of the lowest view counts. (reminds me of lots of comments with "go figure") I'm not surprised though, with the 900 pixel limit.

I also don't mind about view counts. I've had some encouragement from the people I respect here - and that's enough. I'm pleased for myself and happy for anyone else who likes the images.


For now, I've decided to look at the pictures I like, and at the ones which didn't make it, and try to see how the one could have been turned into the other, by framing or timing. The other way of improving is, knowing my character, too difficult and discouraging. Maybe later :)

Thanks for your interest. It's very stimulating. This "project" has really got me thinking. Very strange :eek:

colin
 
memphis said:
face it, magus and I are both sith lords, pulling you deeper into the darkslide...
Click to expand...


Aren't there always only two? The master and his apprentice? And yet ... I sense something ...

Darth Papa, father of Obi Wan K'Baby
 
sepiareverb said:
I like to see the image in my head and get it on film precisely. Then the printing remains consistent- with full frame black border prints every time. To further the music analogy I find cropping like eliminating the woodwinds from one passage rather than subduing them. Have I thrown out otherwise fine images because some small intrusion frame right bugs the hell out of me? Absolutely. ...
Click to expand...

Well, for the moment, that clinches it for me. I thought for a while that maybe you would all agree it depends to a certain extent how much control you have over the situation, and how much time!

If it's an absolute, I wouldn't have any decent pictures! It's not as if I like cropping, you know :)

colin
 
colinh said:
Well, for the moment, that clinches it for me. I thought for a while that maybe you would all agree it depends to a certain extent how much control you have over the situation, and how much time!

If it's an absolute, I wouldn't have any decent pictures! It's not as if I like cropping, you know :)

colin
Click to expand...

Take a look at some of your full frame images- you might be surprised at what is there when all of it is there. I'm a fan of the cluttered image though- I'll often step back to get more crap in there! (thus my current fascination with wider glass).
 
In my personal experience I find that I crop a lot more if I use rectangular format, like 35mm - Leicas, Canons, etc. I tried some in MF, and find that when I do 6x6 - I almost never crop. Maybe I frame better with a square format, or not good enough with rectangular - don't know. But I shot same things, just to test this, with Leica and MF 6x6 and I like it much better in 6x6 for some reson. Just looks more natural to me. Even croping 35mm frame to make it square often makes for a better composition for me.
Anyone else notice this sort of thing?
 
Krosya said:
In my personal experience I find that I crop a lot more if I use rectangular format, like 35mm - Leicas, Canons, etc. I tried some in MF, and find that when I do 6x6 - I almost never crop. Maybe I frame better with a square format, or not good enough with rectangular - don't know. But I shot same things, just to test this, with Leica and MF 6x6 and I like it much better in 6x6 for some reson. Just looks more natural to me. Even croping 35mm frame to make it square often makes for a better composition for me.
Anyone else notice this sort of thing?
Click to expand...


Errr, I often crop to make 35 mm square. Square format rules!
Just occurred to me - Leica could make a revolutionary camera! a 35 mm square format RF. It would be called the M3-squared. ie.

Code: 
 2
M  -  9


colin

PS Next I will try close up candid street photography with the 500c
 
colinh said:
PS Next I will try close up candid street photography with the 500c
Click to expand...


Having a large-ish, loud-ish Hassy "candid" might be difficult. ;) But I'll look forward to your results.
 
The 2:3 format is a historical coincidence which "caught on". I do not think that all subjects should be or can be constrained to those proportions. One thing which probably is not a coincidence is paper sizes, in which 2:3 is rare.
 
The square format is a technological change that came with waist level TLRs. It is difficult to compose verticals with that design of camera. The composition could be made vertical or horizontal after it was shot.
 
memphis said:
rereading this thread reminds me of why I frequent here... It's chock full of knowledge, nuts, and fiber... I always learn something --- honestly, someone can learn more about the process and history of photography just by reading thru these threads than they ever would at an art school
Click to expand...

I concur, this forum is full of intelligent informed people with intelligent opinions. I've learned to much since "hanging out" here and really enjoy all the different personalities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top