Sarajevo

I like the idea of Michael's crop, which shows a greater density of graves per square inch of the photo. On the other hand, the haze in the original possibly conveys a sense that there might be graves into the indefinite distance. Which is better? I'm not sure. I lean towards Michael's the longer I look at it.

 

I'm sorry that the crop offended you, Jean-Baptiste. This forum is widely known as a place where alternative versions can be offered as a now traditional method of critique, and some of us happen to think that a crop can actually improve a photo, not desecrate it. I respect those who never crop their photos, and who make that a point of honor, but I have never quite understood their logic.

To me the original wide image blurring into the background depicts thousands of deaths. Cropping the image depicts only the immediate death. Hence the haze and wide angle add a sense of time to the catastrophy. The photographer's orginal creation is best the way it is.

 

As to the merits of the photograph, my childhood recollections of wartime photography are the grainy photo of a street execution in Saigon and a girl burned by napalm on a dirt road. This photo depicts warefare in that sense, not the skyrockets and holiday parades.

i like to make pictures that are happy. This pictures is very good at making me sad. If there is ahappy POW I hope I get to be it.

 

congradulation Jean Baptisite! I can tell you are a good photograhher because this picture is good at making me sad.

The only white object in the frame grabs my attention first and finally. The hastily covered body, face covered to protect their dignity but more importantly to protect us from shame; the makeshift crosses that testify they weren't prepared for the magnitude of this; the shallow graves and crosses receding into the mist that could go on endlessly all work to make this a striking photograph.

I like happy photographs like Alexander but as long as these things go unabated in our world I think we need to see this, be moved to tears, say a prayer and then find a way to help stop the insanity.

I wish people would describe their ideas, rather than actually doing them. For me, that crosses the line.

 

Excellent photograph, Jean-Baptiste.

a greater density of graves per square inch of the photo

 

ugh. ugh.

I wish people would describe their ideas, rather than actually doing them.
What does it mean to "describe" or "do" an idea?

> What does it mean to "describe" or "do" an idea?

 

Forgive me for being insufficiently concrete. I mean that I find it objectionable when people crop or lighten or colorize someone else's photograph, and I would much rather see someone's description, in words, of what they suggest for a photograph, rather than seeing them actually enact it in Photoshop and post it here for all to hrmm and harrumph over.

Why is that? After all, while the photographer did do some work to find, capture and manipulate that image, it's not as if he created it from scratch. In fact, in this particular case, someone died to make that image, which seems to me a sacrifice rather greater than what the photographer made. Was that person's family consulted to get a release for this use of this photo, to see if they found it objectionable or not? If not, why must a photographer be consulted? (Well, if anybody wants to argue this out, he should probably start another thread in an appropriate place and leave a pointer here.)

 

In more practical terms, if someone feels that have a reasonable point to make by posting a modified version, I'd rather see it than just hear about it. I find it much easier to evaluate the person's argument that way.

War

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

Say it again

War

What is it good for

Absolutely nothing

If a crop were deemed to be desirable, I would probably go for something in between the original and Michael's version.

 

On the other hand, I am not at all certain that a crop improves this photo.

 

As for the ethics and traditions of cropping on this site, they are addressed in "Terms of Use," under "Intellectual Property Rights."

if I get to be the POW with my moonrise over phalanges picture it will be ok for everyone to make the chagnes and put them out becaues they wont be able to change that I have the pow. only the elves can chagen that. I only have one rating on it so it wont happen.

I think it's the best photo I have seen as a photo of the week on this site to date. I don't get any of the discussion on cropping, this image is about a message not composition. If the shooter moved here and there and centered things or whatever the message would be the same, and it wouldn't be more powerful. This guy did his job. The fact that fog was there and everything else, damn.

I will add one thing to the cropping discussion. With people that do this type of work the way they generally like to crop them is the way they are shot. That's why when you see images shot on film displayed so many photojournalist will print the negs in a carrier that's been filed out. It's not about an artsy black line around the image it's about showing what you saw in the frame. From the dimensions of the photo, I don't think this guy cropped anything. Kudos to Jean-Baptiste Avril!

David, the discussion about cropping began in earnest when Jean-Baptiste said that he had "never cropped anything in fifteen years of practice."

maybe that is why he only has 6 phots in his portfoloi.

I just being a joker on my last coment

With regard to this immediate photo, the cropping issue was first about how to (or how not to) make the image better. From there it quickly moved to a more general discussion about the value (or lack thereof) of cropping.

 

Perhaps the philosophical issues about cropping should be addressed elsewhere, as in this excellent forum:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008Zdt

Hi everybody!

After my strong reaction to that cropping issue (sorry for that, I aknowledge that I did

over-reacted a bit too much), I owe some explanations about my work.

It was always essential for me to never cropp a picture, and always used 100% frame

cameras (plus leicas). The idea is extremely simple. If you aim to be good (or to believe

you are) the work is in the preparation of the picture and what you have to say about what

happens before your eyes. The rigth preparation about the subject and what you want to

express works right if you know ahead, before shooting. Then, it become a sort of

aesthetic statement. The value of a picture, according to me, is due to that preparation

and to the decision you make when you shoot. Capa used to say "if the picture is not good

enough, it's because you're not close enough" and I hardly shoot with anything but a 24,

28 and 35 mm. Close distance to discover what I'm taking pictures of, to breeze and feel...

and decide...

Another point is that you have to do with what you have, and make the best out of it. You

don't always have the possibility (especially in these situations) to move as easely as you

want and mustt try, however, to make it straight and right.

As I don't only have six pics in my photographer's life :)) you could see on my personal

website (www.jb-avril.com) B/W reportage pictures from other locations (Burma,

Auschwitz) and that principles work the same in my all work.

Thank's a lot anyway for your attention and comments (positive or negative). Anyone is

free to make comments, and by putting this picture on photo.net, I had a prior acceptance

of this fact.

Thank's

JB

you are a good spirit about this jean baptiste avril but I am disagreeing on your words as I think of the painters from teh days of oil painting who would sometimes change the way the painting was goind in hte middle. cropping is changing after the fact of the picture has been started and any changing is ok or none is ok. I dont want to be a not-cropper.

why is there a sunset picture in this conversation.

Henri Cartier-Bresson held to the same belief as Mr. Avril, he also did not crop. As I said before that is why when we were all shooting film what was considered the proper way to print journalistic photos was in a filed carrier showing the edges. Of course, this rule doesn't apply to everything one shoots at a paper, sports for example. But with this type of work uncropped is the standard. It's been a while since people took that into notice as digital has come around.

Anothter point Mr. Avril makes that is relative to this discussion is that shooting like that gets you into your scene. It is a subject I have not heard anyone get into in a long time but a very worthy one. Those of you in the field have heard people talk about how excessive chimping makes you less aware of what needs to go on and takes away from your shooting. It's a simular deal. I believe it is relative to this discussion also, but I will look at that other forum after lunch.

I read that this image of hcb was cropped because of a fence post.

 

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=ALB&E=29YL53KGUTK&Pass=&Total=349&Pic=18&SubE=2S5RYDI9CNRQ clever hcb for cropping the same dimension as his leica.

The whole mood of this is stark, cold and dead - suits the image fine.

Well that's news to me, I have always loved that image. Note that he did make it very clear that he cropped it though, and his lens was blocked as he shot. Many standards and ethical guidelines change over the years. Dorthea Lange's "Migrant Mother" had a part of a hand airbrushed out of the original image, that's something that could get a photojournalist fired or at least in a lot of trouble today. All that said, I shoot images all the time and crop them. I wish I had to discipline to shoot that way though!

this reminds me back some years when i offered a dramatic panorama of auschwitz concentration camp to german, french, us and swiss magazines.

it was the memorial year of emptying the warsaw ghetto.

it showed neighter blood nor deads but a 360 panorama of the baracks with young people passing by around the camera. their faces tell their mood. most interesting was the unbelievable excuse of figaro magazine editor who told(it was at the time of the balcan war with all the grief and deads shown every day) that the image does not show enough grief....one swiss jewish editor even told me it is art! meanwile i have found out why this excuse.

he will never learn what should be done to wake up mankind.

btw: i will display a 3d-stereo-version of this shot soon these days. it can maybe found by entering auschwitz 3d in google.