Another great refresher lesson Cropping; you are spot on with your thoughts IMO Maybe all could consider: not every subject/scene is made to fit perfectly on every digital sensor or film format . I cam remember B/W perfection nerds printing right to the edge of the film strip (think sprocket holes 😂) to prove they didn't crop. Didn't ROT come about because artists wanted their painting to stand out from average in the center Joe Blow
Good video and well worth the time. Thank you. I have no disagreement with the idea that a person should be doing what works for them and post-processing for composition as well as other concerns can make a huge difference - and be a wonderful thing. I think that where the disagreement can lie is philosophical. To give a little context - I'm rather old and I'm not a pro by any stretch of the imagination but I've gone from film box cameras to film DSLRs to very digital and some very demanding non-mainstream photography and that gives me a perspective which may or may not be of value to others. When you have a film camera with a pretty limited amount of film and not a lot of money with which to get things processed (and cannot access a darkroom) you have to develop at least some sense of composition and have it hard-wired into your brain that what you shoot is what you get. Post-processing was not an option. So some of us have the concept of not doing much of anything in post-processing. Some simply don't like post-processing. That includes my daughter who actually got formal training and then dumped the idea of photo-processing because she doesn't like doing it - and I'm not all that far off from her - and dumped one form of photography because I didn't like the technical aspect of image acquisition and of processing. Now for the more philosophical part? I divide those who photograph into three major (note necessarily fully exclusive) camps: 1. Those who want to produce an image showing what they WANTED to see (or to show). This individual tends to really embraces processing the images to create a sense of what the photographer wanted to see, not what they actually saw. I tend to think of this as more "artsy" (not a perjorative). 2. Those who want to produce an image showing what they DID see. This approach may include a modest amount of processing of the image and I think most are willing to do at least a little cropping for composition. 3. Those who want to snap an image and just aren't going to do any processing if the camera doesn't do it automatically. A lot of this is now done with smartphone cameras which actually will do a surprisingly good job of touching up an image. I think most pros are in the first category and I'm betting that generally sells best. I think National Geographic requires the #2 approach and is the category I think I mostly want to be in. Most people are in #3 and some will sneer at them - but it is their camera and the images are what they want so I think it's a great approach. My wife is definitely #3 and if she would learn some compositional skills she'd make images I'd like a whole lot more. But she is happy with what she gets with her smartphone camera - and that means they are good photos whether I like 'em or not. Well, just an oldsters perspective. Keep making these videos and I'll keep watching them! Valuable perspectives and information.
Thank you for taking the time to let me know your thoughts. Like you I started in the darkroom, but now I'm teaching and the cost is far too much for many. I agree with what you say - I had to get it perfect in camera in the old days but now I have to get the work done quickly and don't havre the luxury of time. The main thing is that you enjoy what you are doing and not what others are doing. Keep it up and send me some of your images. I'd love to see them.
Great info, thanks!
Thanks!
Another great refresher lesson
Cropping; you are spot on with your thoughts IMO
Maybe all could consider: not every subject/scene is made to fit perfectly on every digital sensor or film format . I cam remember B/W perfection nerds printing right to the edge of the film strip (think sprocket holes 😂) to prove they didn't crop.
Didn't ROT come about because artists wanted their painting to stand out from average in the center Joe Blow
Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. 📷
nice to see a good video on my stream from a smaller channel
0:39 thanks Ian for your comments.
Interesting, Thank-you!
You are welcome!
Good video and well worth the time. Thank you.
I have no disagreement with the idea that a person should be doing what works for them and post-processing for composition as well as other concerns can make a huge difference - and be a wonderful thing.
I think that where the disagreement can lie is philosophical. To give a little context - I'm rather old and I'm not a pro by any stretch of the imagination but I've gone from film box cameras to film DSLRs to very digital and some very demanding non-mainstream photography and that gives me a perspective which may or may not be of value to others.
When you have a film camera with a pretty limited amount of film and not a lot of money with which to get things processed (and cannot access a darkroom) you have to develop at least some sense of composition and have it hard-wired into your brain that what you shoot is what you get. Post-processing was not an option. So some of us have the concept of not doing much of anything in post-processing.
Some simply don't like post-processing. That includes my daughter who actually got formal training and then dumped the idea of photo-processing because she doesn't like doing it - and I'm not all that far off from her - and dumped one form of photography because I didn't like the technical aspect of image acquisition and of processing.
Now for the more philosophical part? I divide those who photograph into three major (note necessarily fully exclusive) camps:
1. Those who want to produce an image showing what they WANTED to see (or to show). This individual tends to really embraces processing the images to create a sense of what the photographer wanted to see, not what they actually saw. I tend to think of this as more "artsy" (not a perjorative).
2. Those who want to produce an image showing what they DID see. This approach may include a modest amount of processing of the image and I think most are willing to do at least a little cropping for composition.
3. Those who want to snap an image and just aren't going to do any processing if the camera doesn't do it automatically. A lot of this is now done with smartphone cameras which actually will do a surprisingly good job of touching up an image.
I think most pros are in the first category and I'm betting that generally sells best. I think National Geographic requires the #2 approach and is the category I think I mostly want to be in. Most people are in #3 and some will sneer at them - but it is their camera and the images are what they want so I think it's a great approach.
My wife is definitely #3 and if she would learn some compositional skills she'd make images I'd like a whole lot more. But she is happy with what she gets with her smartphone camera - and that means they are good photos whether I like 'em or not.
Well, just an oldsters perspective.
Keep making these videos and I'll keep watching them! Valuable perspectives and information.
Thank you for taking the time to let me know your thoughts. Like you I started in the darkroom, but now I'm teaching and the cost is far too much for many. I agree with what you say - I had to get it perfect in camera in the old days but now I have to get the work done quickly and don't havre the luxury of time. The main thing is that you enjoy what you are doing and not what others are doing. Keep it up and send me some of your images. I'd love to see them.