Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/09/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]With all due respect, I think this is nonsense. Cropping has been a standard photographic tool since enlargers first were used. Of course the ideal is to get just the right composition in the frame, but sometimes this is just not possible, either because of restrictions on the vantage point, or a too wide lens mounted on the camera and not enough time to change lenses. So should I give up on a potentially good image because it needs cropping? No way! Of the PAWs I posted last week, this one: http://www.nathanfoto.com/paw/2005/2005_36alt1.jpg is less than half of the frame, and this one: http://www.nathanfoto.com/paw/2005/2005_36alt3.jpg is less than a quarter of the frame. I admit these transgressions with no remorse. Nathan Paul wrote: > For the same reasons, Ric. If you crop a picture you're altering the > perspective symmetry of the composition as much as if you used a > different focal length. > > For me that standard frame is the window through which I see the world. > Where ever I go, whatever I see, it's the same window. I frame of > reference, if you like. > > P. > > ******* > Paul Hardy Carter > www.paulhardycarter.com > ******* > > On 20 Sep 2005, at 00:42, Ric Carter wrote: > >> Okay, that makes good sense artistically, and certainly financially. >> >> What about not cropping? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > -- Nathan Wajsman Almere, The Netherlands General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com Stock photography: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=507 Prints for sale: http://www.photodeluge.com