davidrosen

I’ve gotten some good points from this discussion. Cropping is not a cop out for sub-par photos, but simply a tool to help the artist tell a story, whether it’s done pre or post shutter release.

Crystal Beach, ON, Canada

If we consider digital technology on the timeline with painters, Daguerre, and film, they all changed the methodology of art. Digital photography does not necessarily have to be a technique of “catch all” and then cull like the fisherman and his net, or the miner and his mining pan. Some photographers are very intentional and methodical. I wish I was more like that. But for now I have to cast my net.

I thought I wanted all my images to at least match the camera’s native ratio even when I crop. But 1) I think most digital cameras offer at least two aspect ratios (my MFT offers two); 2) Lightroom offers a handful of standard aspect ratios; 3) square often begs to be used sort of like a photo begging to be b&w when viewed originally in color. So perhaps it is the artist who decides and not the film or camera manufacturer.

After reading the Images > Seeking Critique > Babie-face thread I thought about cropped photos. I crop most of my photos because of my method of shooting. They’re not planned shots, with a tripod setup, waiting for perfect lighting, framing the view from edge to edge. Often I don’t fully realize what I have captured until I have downloaded into the computer and studied the results. I may discover an area in the photo I want to zoom in on, and so I have to crop. When I do crop, I try to conform to the rule of thirds to end up with an intentional composition. One downside to my method is the obsession over megapixels is rendered moot (because of cropping). Whenever possible I try to keep it to a minimum. I’m always pleasantly surprised when I have a final image with no crop.

Ok, let me get us back to the original intention of this post, described a little differently. If you make a print of your photo but nobody sees it, does it Inspire, affect, thrill, touch?

I’ve seen photos by famous photographers that do not speak to me at all. My closest critic is quick to say what she likes and doesn’t like. Then I’ll “explain” why the photo “speaks” to me.

There is some truth to that statement. There are bad photos I just cannot bring myself to delete. I guess they "speak" to me in some way. Is not that a sound?

Enough to say only the photographer needs to be the viewer (that is, if you consider the act of photographing more than mere vacation or family event snapshots).

So, although the photographer can view his or her photos, Adams distinguished between photographer and viewer. I contend it is not enough for the photographer to be the only viewer.

Ok, so when I told my wife about this posting she did not get it. I told that's the story of my life; most people don't. What I really wanted to discuss is whether you think it is worthwhile to take photos if nobody else sees them? That is not to say we should derive pleasure from our own work. But, is that the end game? Are we not looking for some validation from other people? And for some, in the form of monetary compensation?

If you take a picture but no one is there to see it, does it make a sound?

No I haven’t but my old boss left the very same message on my Instagram account. He also grew up in Buffalo and said everybody went to the midway in Crystal Beach. They just completed a new beach for the residents.