Hi all,

I hope this is not considered off-topic..

I love Photoshop! Honestly, at first I was really against the digital manipulation of photographs as the end result is not in realty the photograph that was originally captured by me and my Leica camera and lens. However at the end of the day, regardless of the equipment used we all want to be able to show great photos and therefore a little tonal manipulation in my opinion, is a good thing.

But.. what are your thoughts on image cropping? By cropping an image we can vastly change the feel of the photograph by essentially, almost recomposing the image. Whilst still the photo is the original photo that was taken, the composure has changed. In my opinion image composure is one of the key things that make a ‘good’ photo/grapher.

Do you think that we should state a photo has been manipulated when it is displayed or should we just throw all of those pretensions to the wind and enjoy good photographs?

-- Jason Vicinanza (jvicinanza@yahoo.co.uk), April 20, 2001

Answers

Jason,

The current issue of Popular Photography features on its cover an article titled "The lost art of Cropping". The picture on the cover is Arnold Newman's famous photograph of Picasso, the uncropped original and the cropped published version that made the rounds around the world. The article states, among other points, that at the time, photographers "would retire to a table with magnifying glasses and loupes and the waxy pencils called china markers and start drawing little rectangles on the proof sheets...true believers would... use L-shaped pieces of cardboard to frame sections of the print... They were making pictures within the pictures..."

PS affords us a quick and repeatable way of cropping and evaluating the effect, no different than the earlier process but a lot more efficient.

Jean-David

-- Jean-David Borges (jdborges@home.com), April 20, 2001.

I say an image is an image and don't sweat it. Does a wet darkroom printer state that a photo has been burned, dodged, masked for contrast, bleached and reduced etc. etc.? If not, why should we digital printers take on the Burden Of Truth? They're just pictures, and unless they're being used as evidence there is no need to get hung up on veracity.

Crop them, hit 'em with curves, clone out the power lines - what you do in the darkroom or PS is just as much a part of the whole process as what you do with the camera. The interpretive and creative process does not end at the Sacred Negative - with the film in your hand you're only halfway there.

Here's a paranoid, seditious thought for you:

Maybe this insistence on "no manipulation, full frame only please" is an attempt by those who shoot and project slides to force the rest of us to share their burden. I say, lay your burden down and get that mouse clicking.

The final image is the only important thing in this hobby, and we should do everything we can to make sure it's a good one. I don't think a viewer is ever going to say "I sure am glad you left that phone pole sticking out of Cindy Crawford's head - it really demonstrates you commitment to the truth."

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), April 20, 2001.

I've read a lot of impassioned essays against so-called "digital manipulation" that smack of altruism. Perhaps it's just many years of dealing with the business world has left me cynical, but I can't help but feel that the the instigation is rooted in another agenda: that some professionals are afraid that the digital tools will enable the un-talented to compete with them on an equal footing. There is no drop-down box in Photoshop with an "Auto Masterpiece" button. Working digital imaging software (especially Photoshop)is more complicated (to some) than chemical darkroom procedures. For me, both are equally boring. Once I take the shot, I'm on to the next shot. Where it's at for me is outdoors (or indoors, but somewhere interesting)seeing the world around me and recording it on some form of media. The immediate expression of my reaction to my surroundings is part and parcel to why I photograph, and essential for the results. Sure I could go back and crop, re-touch, adjust, etc. and probably have a more technically and critically "better" photograph, but I just don't have the interest in doing it. Nonetheless, I don't believe there's fuel for all this ethical debate in the digital issue, inasmuch as "trick" photography and photographic "tricks" have always existed. I still believe a lot of it is based on the irrational fear that technology is finally able to replace talent and imagination.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 20, 2001.

Jay, I agree with a lot of what you say, except on one point. I deal with, on a daily basis, pro photogaphers of all sorts. Everything from journalists to commercial and fashion shooters, and find that pros are the ones who are driving much of the digital 'revolution'. Most pros have wholeheartedly embraced digital, especially in regards to output. Most of these people are astute business people who understand that if they can cut their 'darkroom' time in half, they have more time to be out shooting at their typical $200.00 an hour. At the same time many amatuers, as well love digital because they have time and money to spend on their 'hobby' I put hobby in brackets because many amatuers work is as good as many pros). It seems to me that the ones who complain the most about digital are those -in between- up and comers who aren't really confident in what their capabilities are, and who are fearful that a computer gives someone else an 'artistic' advantage they don't have. Of course all of this is must my own theory. At the end of the day, the only images that should have to admit to being 'Photoshopped', are news images. And we all know that the media never lies ;-)

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 20, 2001.

As soon as you choose where to stand when you push the button you're starting the editing process. There's no reason to think that "illegal" process should start any particular place--if you're being intellectually dishonest it doesn't matter if you crop or not, and if you're lying it doesn't matter if you didn't crop. :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 20, 2001.

Enjoy good photographs. Cropping, dodging, burning, cloning, compositing, whatever are all techniques towards the making of a good photograph. Use them at your discretion. If you're talking photographs for the express purpose of documentation, document them. If others after you choose to use your photographs for documentation purposes that they were not intended to support, the task of verifying that the information presented is valid is on their shoulders.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 20, 2001.

Does any one enjoy the roundes of Leica lenses imagens, for me when I crop I kind of lost part of it, of course we can always crop if we donīt have another option or we want to add something and manipulate, and I think thatīs what technics are there for, but for me the more options I have the more lost I feel, Leica M photography I belive is more intuitive than logical, and you can always opture another frame to recompose, I like full format, and cropping is usualy done on my feet, yes too old to change, specialy when i know that into new technology woulb be like start learning a new craft, and I belive there is still something new to learn from this one.So,no cropping, full frame,2x3 format stick in your head, walk, watch and react, donīt leave much to your brain, let your instincts act,see,feel,frame,index of the rigth hand reflex,here is when the violins do the big entrance.Atmospheres and the rest of senses.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 20, 2001.