Posts
The opposite of cropping is the person who always insists on using the full film/sensor size in both dimensions so that they don't throw away any film or pixels. For example, if they shoot 35 mm. all images are either 3X2 or 2X3. If they shoot panoramic, say with a 7X17 camera, then no image is 5X17 or 7X13.
If we assume that there are a limited number of great images to be obtained from any one scene, even if those great shot were equally distributed amongst the various image ratios from square to panoramic, the number of shots which perfectly fit the format the photographer is using has to be severely limited.
In fact, framing is a function of the elements of the scene and there's no promise that there's even a single great image in exactly one particular format. A scene may look terrific in panoramic format but completely unworkable in square format.
The alternative argument is that there are an infinite number of great photographs from any given scene. My own experience working scenes is that this is pretty unlikely. On the contrary, often there is only one way to photograph a scene that works and every other image isn't as good. Look at the contact sheets of master photographers and it's amazing how poor all the other images are compared to the one classic image. No, I can't see there being an infinite number. There may be a dozen different ways to frame a scene which results in a great image, but hundreds, thousands, millions, I don't think so.
So, there's not an infinite number and no guarantee that any of the great images suit the format the photographer is using. It is therefore logical to conclude that a photographer who insists in using his full frame at all times is dramatically limiting the possible number of great photographs he can take, or he's compromising on composition and framing to justify his format.
Some photographers who shoot full frame do so because they are making contact prints and anything less than full frame results in an unacceptably small image, not to mention cropping difficulties. Others are not using enough film or pixels and can't afford to lose any.
Some of these photographers however argue that either it's too complicated having an infinite range of possible aspect ratios with which to compose, or they need the edges of the view finder or ground glass to compose, or they like the discipline of limiting themselves to one format, possibly even to one or two lenses.
There's no doubt that it does simplify things, but frankly I find that it's hard enough to find good images out there without severely limiting myself to only one aspect ratio/format or to a single focal length lens.
Now this doesn't apply to people who are creating their images in a studio in which they can make things fit, but I'm talking about where we can't move that tree over, we can't rerun the football play with the quarterback just a little to the left.
I think the cost of simplifying one's photography this way is just too much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
It is therefore logical to conclude that a photographer who insists in using his full frame at all times is dramatically limiting the possible number of great photographs he can take, or he's compromising on composition and framing to justify his format?
Those seem to be rather pointed questions, eh? I have to disagree somewhat with your reasonings. First, why would a photographer be "limiting" chances at a great photo by using only the full frame? Don't forget, photographic style and personal vision are far more important than what a particular scene may present. One photog may see a scene as a horizontal panoramic stitch, but another may see it as a 2:3 vertical. Who is wrong? The other guy, naturally.
Photographic (artistic) styles naturally vary between individuals, with each taking what he/she deems valuable, and disregarding the rest. That goes not just for photographers with a propensity to print full-frame, but also to those who shoot exclusively black and white, or exclusively color, or those that use a stylized technique on all their prints (such as a blurred layer combined with multiply).
Using that same full-frame argument, are we to assume that John Sexton or Clyde Butcher have greatly limited themselves and their careers because they shoot primarily (exclusively?) b/w? What about Jay Maisel or Jim Brandenburg and their color work?
The fact is that each of us have a "style", and while we may not personally connect with anothers style, that does not make them "wrong", which seems to be the opinion in the Luminous Landscape, it just makes them different.
I should also point out that style differences are not exclusively between other photographers, but sometimes within one photographer. For instance, my personal and professional styles are quite different. As a working photographer, I shoot primarily color and crop a great many of the images. My personal work is in b/w and gets cropped very little. Although I am NOT entirely against cropping my fine art work, I do prefer to show a scene as framed in the viewfinder (I know it's only 95% of the frame).
I do think that photographers limit their options when out photographing. If I don't carry a 500 mm. lens then I can't shoot certain long shots, if I don't have a super wide, likewise. If I only carry black and white film I'm dramatically limiting the possible shots.
The point however is that this is entirely normal. Often these limitations don't really count - if I am not trained to see and work with colour, it wouldn't be much of an advantage to carry colour film with me and the more I work with colour the less practice I get with black and white.
On the other hand, while many of my pictures from the badlands of Alberta are horizontal panoramas, I also have square images which I wouldn't have been able to take had I a fixed rule about format.
I think what has to be realized is that photographers learn to see in certain formats simply because of the tools they use and they may not 'see' images in other formats. If they don't see them then I guess you could argue they don't miss them, but they are out there and they are being missed by photographers who like the simplicity of fixed aspect ratios.
What isn't clear is whether it's better to learn one way of seeing extremely well or alternatively to be more flexible about one's options.
In the world of digital compacts, some models (like Fuji F30) give you the choice of different framing ratios while still using about the same number of pixels (e.g. cropping horizontally but adding vertically). In fact, the brand new Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 gives user 3 different formats: 4:3 (3072x2304), 16:9 (3328x1872), and 3:2, all preserving the wide 28mm angle.
Marcin
The Fuji F30 has only 2800 pixels across but in 3:2 mode, it upsizes the jpeg file from 2800 to 3100 pixels, while trimming the vertical pixels. The net result is definitely a loss in pixels. I don't know how the new Panasonic does it - the Lx2 has a native 16X9 sensor and any other ratio is a crop, throwing out pixels, but there are also cameras which do it the other way, throwing out pixels to get 16X9, the latter keep the full wide angle potential while the former shows only 28 mm. width with the 16X9 ratio shots.
I fully agree with you. Though I think sometimes it is a great tool for training yourself (to be a better photographer) to insist on full frame. Sometimes I find that limitations force you to think better, see better.
George, from what I have read about Fuji F30 (no authoritative source, though) due to the Super CCDs honeycomb arrangement the camera processor reads all 6mp pix as 12mp pix. They are then interpolated back down to 6mp, so in 3:2 mode they are just interpolated differently to get 6mp (a bit wider and shorter) pix.
As to Pana TZ3 and TZ2, they did something else, they put an imaging chip which is oversized for all 3 shooting ratios, ie. unlike LX2 here you always crop, there is no so-to-say native mode (where you would use all the available pixels). TZ3 has 8.50 megapixels but records 7.2MP, TZ2 has 7.39 MP, but records 6MP. What do you think of this concept?
Marcin
No camera actually uses all it's available pixels. Since pixel RGB values are calculated using neighboring pixels, the pixels at the edges exist only to be "neighbors" rather than picture data. In a grayscale mode, there is no reason they could not be made use of by the cameras firmware (if that mode were available) but since the edge pixels do not have sufficient "neighbors", the cannot be used for color.
The FZ3 has a sensor with almost a round pattern of pixels which means that to take advantage of the full width of the sensor, one can't have a very high image - perfect for 16:9. Likewise, the 4:3 image takes full advantage of the height of the sensor but loses some of the width - this kind of sensor results in less loss of pixels at the extreme but no format uses all of the pixels so the average loss of pixels across the various formats isn't different.
Annonymous says that the full 28 mm. is used in all formats but if by this you mean the horizontal angle of view, then no, the 4:3 throws away pixels at left and right and therefore is more like a 35 mm. lens, no matter what Panasonic likes you to think. Only the 16:9 uses the full width of the sensor and therefore the maximum angle of view.
George, the 28mm image circle is used edge-to-edge in all 3 frame modes, go here and see the introductory flash clip: http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/tz3_2/index.html
More detail if you click Press Release.
I'm sorry, the link was truncated. Here it is, split into 3 parts:
http://panasonic.co.jp
/pavc/global/lumix
/tz3_2/index.html
marcin: you will note that they refer to the diagonal measurement - and their own illustrations show that you lose a little on the horizontal angle of view as you go from 16;9 to 4:3. This arrangement results in less wastage of pixels though, all be it that you never get to use all the pixels in the chip - still they never said you had them in the first place so you can hardly miss them.
Post a Comment