A blurry photo

On 2013-11-07 15:30:21 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/6/2013 5:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-06 21:17:59 +0000, PeterN said:

On 11/6/2013 11:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-05 20:04:07 +0000, PeterN
said:

Some photos are not supposed to be sharp.
As always, all comments welcome.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/under%20the%20wave.jpg

There is no accounting for taste.

True.

It seems to me that this is one of those shots which should have been
considered a reject (I have a whole bunch of those) and you have cropped
to find something which comes into your definition of artistic
expression. That does not make a blurry, OoF shot in anyway good. This
is a poor capture which you are trying to tell us is actually good when
it isn't.

As you say "some photos are not supposed to be sharp", but just saying
that and implying that this is somehow better for the blur is
dellusional in your part.
Let me go through some of my artistic rejects, and post them here with
the claim that my screw-ups are ultimately works of art. Not in my
wildest dreams would I think that, and I am sorry to say this shot of
yours doesn't rise to the occasion either.


That shot can never be "in focus."

Hmmm...
Could this be the time for, "Never, say never"?

The bird was diving through the wave and was covered with water.

I suspect the crop section was never near the active AF point.



The entire shot, or should I say the crop section is entirely OoF. You
had the shutter speed fast enough at 1/2000 @f/11 to freeze the bird in
flight, the wave, or anything else moving in that area. What would be
interesting would be to see the pre-cropped image and I suspect the
primary focus point would have been somewhere other than that bird, or
that general target area. Somewhere in that image is a nice sharp,
in-focus area, but that bird and the wave behind it never had a chance,
I doubt if you had any of the focus points anywhere near the bird when
you tripped the shutter. I also doubt that you were panning with the
bird as it flew along the wave front.

Personally, as a fellow Nikon shooter, I would have used 3D-Tracking for
the Dynamic Area AF points, along will AF-C rather than AF-S. This is
what I use for stuff in motion, card, planes, cyclists, birds, etc. That
way your birdie and its wave might have had a chance to be captured
cleanly.

In theory you are right. In reality, we can't always achieve the ideal.
I was looking for the birds along hte shore, and I saw this guy. No
time to switch or worry a bout composition. Just a swing and wing, shot.

My point is you know what your subject is likely to be when you intend
to shoot shorebirds either in flight or running around on the beach. So
set your camera up before you get out of your car.
I know you use menu pre-sets on your nikons, so do I. I have a standard
pre-set, an "Action" pre-set, and two others. You shouldn't have had to
think about switching or composition. If I got to an air show knowing I
am going to be shooting planes making low and fast passes I have my
camera set up to deal with that. I still have a bunch of rejects, but I
end up with more to work with with my keepers.

What you do in post is an entirely separate issue, that includes making
a crop in post, and with your D800 files you certainly have room to
make composition crops.

Here are two shots with original comparison. One includes a subject
dealing with a breaking wave, and one moving quite fast through the
air. In both cases I was shooting 3D-Tracking with 51 AF points, set to
AF-C. Both were cropped, and in one the post is obvious.
....and I am not shooting with a D800, I am still using my D300S.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_359.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_358.jpg



However, to my eye the blur looks interesting.

...in the eye of the beholder, etc.

I do appreciate your comment, even if you don't like the shot.

I would have been more inclined to like it if there had been a tad more
deliberation in capture.


I asked him to go back, but he wouldn't cooperate.

Give me a day or two and I will post a link ot the .nef file.

Play time! ;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 03:38:48 GMT, "MC" wrote:

wrote:

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:44:42 GMT, "MC" wrote:

PeterN wrote

snip


...Since I am composing the shot, whether I do it at the time of
shutter
press or in post has no bearing on my art. (My art is my art no
matter what I do!)

And with a 24m pixel camera, I can crop the **** out of it and still
end up with an HD photo. My first camera was 1.8mp.


So, basically, what you are saying is that because technology has moved
on it is OK to be lazy and that to be a half decent photographer you do
not now need to know how to TAKE a photograph, only to how to
manipulate one. Hmmm...

I never said anything about being lazy, or being incompetent.

I said that sometimes you don't have the lens required to take a photo and so
you take whatever you can and try your best to fix it in post. I'd rather have a
cropped image than no image.

Also, my camera has a 95% view, I HAVE to crop 5% to get my original frame. You
like to skip over what people write, don't you?

Also, if I don't know how to compose a frame then I wouldn't know how to crop
one either, would I?? And if I know how to compose my frame I also know how to
improve it in post.

You seem to think that's it's OK to move a zoom ring but NOT OK to move a mouse
pointer? Absurd!


Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is
wrong! Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for
the convenience of not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene
perspective. Any pro will tell you that, it's in all my books. The
proper way to compose is to move your position.


A zoom (or tele) lens is the proper tool for the job if you need to
compose for a distant subject up close, not the crop the hell out of it
to try and get the same image.


And if I don't have such a zoom lens but I have a 24m camera? Looks like I get
the shot, you get sweet **** all!

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:36:33 -0500, nospam wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is wrong!
Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for the convenience
of not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene perspective. Any pro will tell you
that, it's in all my books. The proper way to compose is to move your
position.

no pro will tell you that and you either misread the books you have or
you need to get better books.

I'll look it up again and see. I'll quote whatever I find.

zooms do *not* alter the perspective. moving your position does.

I don't agree. Zooming in compresses the view. EG lets say I'm 20 feet from a
person, and 1 mile from a mountain. if I zoom in the mountain will "move"
closer. whereas walking over to the person leaves the mountain in the
background, as it was before. On the other hand, if you want the whole mountain
you zoom out and push the mountain away. The person in your shot remains
relatively the same. Moving away would leave the mountain the same and make the
person smaller. It's the zoom that changes the scene perspective, walking back
and forth affects the person (closer subject) and leaves the background alone,
so only the zoom changes the angles, the relative size of the person and
mountain remain the same when walking back and forth 15 feet.

Photography 101.

zooms are a convenience over having multiple lenses. that's all.

That's what I said.

the choice between changing the focal length (zoom or swap) versus
moving position, or even a combination of both, depends on what you
want the photo to look like. one does not replace the other.

That's what I said. I am free to do either, or crop if I want. It's my image.

And lastly, most people will tell you to shoot with primes only, if you want pro
results, and proper composition means you have to move closer or farther away,
or replace the lens, and that isn't always possible.

not anymore they won't.

Then why am I hearing that? All I ever hear from my nephew is prime prime prime.
He's a photographer and works for other photographers.

some zooms are *very* good, even better than many fixed focal length
lenses in the same range, notably the nikon 14-24mm.

That's what I say too. I own more zooms than primes, and I only own the primes
to get the speed. EG I have the 16-35 f4 but I also have a 24 f1.8. One is fast,
one is convenient.

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:23:15 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:44:42 GMT, "MC" wrote:
Maybe you should start making sure the composition is correct before
you press the shutter button.
Cropping to obtain the composition you failed to get whilst taking the
image is BAD photography.

The above is BAD philosophy, and has nothing to do with
good photography.

The goal is the photograph. Viewers do not see the
methods used to make the photograph, they see only the
picture eventually produced. Any method chosen that
produces what the photographer wants is good
photography. Settling for less that the best result
in order to implement an ideology is BAD photography.

Much of the skill (art) in photography is in
composition.

That is true! So why then distort it with absurd BS
that has nothing to do with the resulting image?

Cropping should only be done to obtain an aspect ratio not
available out of camera and to use the method to obtain the composition
is an unskillful, lazy habit.

Absurd. A reality check tells why...

In only a fraction of all possible cases is it even
within reason to believe that an exact framing can ever
be achieved without cropping after the image is exposed.
Most camera viewfinders do not show exactly what will be
captured, and even with a camera that does it can never
be as precisely considered before exposure to the degree
it can be considred after the exposure.

Neither is cropping a substitute for a
zoom lens. If you want to get closer to your subject, from a distance,
you need to invest in telephoto equipment. It is as simple as that.

It isn't quite that simple though. That is perhaps true
for large variations, but certainly isn't valid for
small critical variations.

You are never going to learn how to take good photographs if you rely
on cropping to obtain the image you want. By doing so, all you end up
achieving is to producing poor, postage stamp sized images.

You will never even approach being a good photographer
by burdening yourself with this sort of absurd
philisophical attachment to ideology that does not
actually relate to better photography.

That may have been true in the days of film, but has no bearing on today's
digital cameras. Most of my cameras don't have a 100% exact view either, and I'm
always surprised by my shots NOT being what I composed!

Since I am composing the shot, whether I do it at the time of shutter press or
in post has no bearing on my art. (My art is my art no matter what I do!)

It's true that it has no bearing on whether your work is
art, but it does have a very direct influence on your
art! Doing things the most effective way (for you as an
individual) has to be a good influence. What MC
suggested are a number of artificial limitations which
are most likely not effective for anyone, and they are
almost necessarily a very bad influence on anyone's art.

They actually sound like a way to mentally rationalize a
lack of artistic skill. He doesn't get the good results
that other do, and his ego adjustment to that is done by
claiming they used "impure" techniques...

And with a 24m pixel camera, I can crop the **** out of it and still end up with
an HD photo. My first camera was 1.8mp.

Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is wrong!
Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for the convenience of
not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene perspective. Any pro will tell you
that, it's in all my books. The proper way to compose is to move your position.

Nope, it ain't so. The perspective of a photograph
depends absolutely on the angle of view and relative
distances between objects; which is to say it can only
be changed by moving to a different location. Hence the
first objective when visualizing an image should be the
choice of a location.

Then the framing of the image captured can be chosen,
which is done by choosing the appropriate lens focal
length to begin with but is later fine tuned by cropping
to get exactly the right framing for the photograph to
be produced.

To repeat, select perspective first and move to the
appropriate location, only then is the correct focal
length chosen to provide the desired framing and an
exposure made. After the data is captured a detailed
and perhaps even time consuming analysis can be made to
determine the exact cropping needed to produce the best
photograph.

And lastly, most people will tell you to shoot with primes only, if you want pro
results, and proper composition means you have to move closer or farther away,
or replace the lens, and that isn't always possible.

The decision to use a fixed focal length lens instead of
a zoom does not relate to focal length, it is a matter
of specialized characteristics that can be easily be
designed into a lens for one focal length and are
unlikely to exist in a zoom. Bokeh is an example.
There are lenses, such as either Canon or Nikon made
50mm f/1.8 models, that have harsh bokeh and there are
others, such as either Canon or Nikon made 85mm f/1.4
models, that have smooth bokeh. Other characteristics
that are unique to some specific fixed focal length
lenses might be close focusing abilities, fish-eye
projection, and so on.

But it is an absurdity to think that a bag full of fixed
focal length lenses is what is needed for "pro results"
as opposed to the typical 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lenses
that are available. How does one get a 140mm or 165mm
fixed focal length lens???

I am NOT one to say "only use primes", I was only quoting the sentiment.

I agree with everything you said, you said it better than I could!

There may be some confusion on what has been said here, my point about moving as
opposed to changing zoom level has to do with the apparent compression of
perspective with longer lenses. I know that this compression is not real, since
lenses capture the same image, only showing different parts of it on sensor, but
everyone knows that the way to make 2 things look like they're side by side and
not 30 feet apart is to stand back and use a long lens to "squash" them
together. Walking up to one with a short lens would show the other at quite a
distance away. Maybe I described it wrong but I know what happens.

For the guy who is opposed to cropping but likes to use a zoom, someone should
point out that a zoom lens is cropped by the fixed sensor size! (This fact of
physics may be over his head.)

In article ,
wrote:
Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is
wrong! Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for the
convenience of not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene perspective. Any
pro will tell you that, it's in all my books. The proper way to compose is to
move your position.

no pro will tell you that and you either misread the books you have or
you need to get better books.

I'll look it up again and see. I'll quote whatever I find.

please do. then you'll see that it didn't say what you thought it did.

zooms do *not* alter the perspective. moving your position does.

I don't agree.

then you're wrong.

Zooming in compresses the view.

no it doesn't.

you get *exactly* the same effect whether you zoom or crop.

EG lets say I'm 20 feet from a
person, and 1 mile from a mountain. if I zoom in the mountain will "move"
closer. whereas walking over to the person leaves the mountain in the
background, as it was before. On the other hand, if you want the whole
mountain
you zoom out and push the mountain away. The person in your shot remains
relatively the same. Moving away would leave the mountain the same and make
the
person smaller. It's the zoom that changes the scene perspective, walking back
and forth affects the person (closer subject) and leaves the background alone,
so only the zoom changes the angles, the relative size of the person and
mountain remain the same when walking back and forth 15 feet.

nope. perspective changed because you moved your position relative to
the subject.

if you don't move, then nothing changes.

you can use a wide angle lens and then crop and you will have the exact
same photo with the same perspective, only it's lower quality due to
cropping.

Photography 101.

i don't know what class you took but they got it wrong too.

geometry 101.

zooms are a convenience over having multiple lenses. that's all.

That's what I said.

but not for the reasons you gave. choice of lens, whether it's zoom or
fixed focal length, has no effect on perspective.

the choice between changing the focal length (zoom or swap) versus
moving position, or even a combination of both, depends on what you
want the photo to look like. one does not replace the other.

That's what I said. I am free to do either, or crop if I want. It's my image.

yes.

And lastly, most people will tell you to shoot with primes only, if you
want pro results, and proper composition means you have to move
closer or farther away, or replace the lens, and that isn't always possible.

not anymore they won't.

Then why am I hearing that? All I ever hear from my nephew is prime prime
prime. He's a photographer and works for other photographers.

it used to be true that fixed focal length lenses were better, because
zooms are more complex.

that is no longer true, yet the belief lives on.

modern zooms are *extremely* good, and in some cases (nikon 14-24mm),
better than fixed focal length lenses in its range.

the rest of the time, you can only measure a difference in the lab.

some zooms are *very* good, even better than many fixed focal length
lenses in the same range, notably the nikon 14-24mm.

That's what I say too. I own more zooms than primes, and I only own the primes
to get the speed. EG I have the 16-35 f4 but I also have a 24 f1.8. One is fast,
one is convenient.

that part is true.

In article ,
wrote:

There may be some confusion on what has been said here, my point about moving
as opposed to changing zoom level has to do with the apparent compression of
perspective with longer lenses. I know that this compression is not real, since
lenses capture the same image, only showing different parts of it on sensor, but
everyone knows that the way to make 2 things look like they're side by side and
not 30 feet apart is to stand back and use a long lens to "squash" them
together. Walking up to one with a short lens would show the other at quite a
distance away. Maybe I described it wrong but I know what happens.

you're moving in relation to the subject.

that's what causes the squashing or stretching. not the lens.

On 2013-11-08 02:00:25 +0000, said:

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:23:15 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:44:42 GMT, "MC" wrote:
Maybe you should start making sure the composition is correct before
you press the shutter button.
Cropping to obtain the composition you failed to get whilst taking the
image is BAD photography.

The above is BAD philosophy, and has nothing to do with
good photography.

The goal is the photograph. Viewers do not see the
methods used to make the photograph, they see only the
picture eventually produced. Any method chosen that
produces what the photographer wants is good
photography. Settling for less that the best result
in order to implement an ideology is BAD photography.

Much of the skill (art) in photography is in
composition.

That is true! So why then distort it with absurd BS
that has nothing to do with the resulting image?

Cropping should only be done to obtain an aspect ratio not
available out of camera and to use the method to obtain the composition
is an unskillful, lazy habit.

Absurd. A reality check tells why...

In only a fraction of all possible cases is it even
within reason to believe that an exact framing can ever
be achieved without cropping after the image is exposed.
Most camera viewfinders do not show exactly what will be
captured, and even with a camera that does it can never
be as precisely considered before exposure to the degree
it can be considred after the exposure.

Neither is cropping a substitute for a
zoom lens. If you want to get closer to your subject, from a distance,
you need to invest in telephoto equipment. It is as simple as that.

It isn't quite that simple though. That is perhaps true
for large variations, but certainly isn't valid for
small critical variations.

You are never going to learn how to take good photographs if you rely
on cropping to obtain the image you want. By doing so, all you end up
achieving is to producing poor, postage stamp sized images.

You will never even approach being a good photographer
by burdening yourself with this sort of absurd
philisophical attachment to ideology that does not
actually relate to better photography.

That may have been true in the days of film, but has no bearing on today's
digital cameras. Most of my cameras don't have a 100% exact view
either, and I'm
always surprised by my shots NOT being what I composed!

Since I am composing the shot, whether I do it at the time of shutter press or
in post has no bearing on my art. (My art is my art no matter what I do!)

It's true that it has no bearing on whether your work is
art, but it does have a very direct influence on your
art! Doing things the most effective way (for you as an
individual) has to be a good influence. What MC
suggested are a number of artificial limitations which
are most likely not effective for anyone, and they are
almost necessarily a very bad influence on anyone's art.

They actually sound like a way to mentally rationalize a
lack of artistic skill. He doesn't get the good results
that other do, and his ego adjustment to that is done by
claiming they used "impure" techniques...

And with a 24m pixel camera, I can crop the **** out of it and still
end up with
an HD photo. My first camera was 1.8mp.

Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is wrong!
Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for the convenience of
not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene perspective. Any pro will tell you
that, it's in all my books. The proper way to compose is to move your position.

Nope, it ain't so. The perspective of a photograph
depends absolutely on the angle of view and relative
distances between objects; which is to say it can only
be changed by moving to a different location. Hence the
first objective when visualizing an image should be the
choice of a location.

Then the framing of the image captured can be chosen,
which is done by choosing the appropriate lens focal
length to begin with but is later fine tuned by cropping
to get exactly the right framing for the photograph to
be produced.

To repeat, select perspective first and move to the
appropriate location, only then is the correct focal
length chosen to provide the desired framing and an
exposure made. After the data is captured a detailed
and perhaps even time consuming analysis can be made to
determine the exact cropping needed to produce the best
photograph.

And lastly, most people will tell you to shoot with primes only, if you
want pro
results, and proper composition means you have to move closer or farther away,
or replace the lens, and that isn't always possible.

The decision to use a fixed focal length lens instead of
a zoom does not relate to focal length, it is a matter
of specialized characteristics that can be easily be
designed into a lens for one focal length and are
unlikely to exist in a zoom. Bokeh is an example.
There are lenses, such as either Canon or Nikon made
50mm f/1.8 models, that have harsh bokeh and there are
others, such as either Canon or Nikon made 85mm f/1.4
models, that have smooth bokeh. Other characteristics
that are unique to some specific fixed focal length
lenses might be close focusing abilities, fish-eye
projection, and so on.

But it is an absurdity to think that a bag full of fixed
focal length lenses is what is needed for "pro results"
as opposed to the typical 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lenses
that are available. How does one get a 140mm or 165mm
fixed focal length lens???

I am NOT one to say "only use primes", I was only quoting the sentiment.

I agree with everything you said, you said it better than I could!

There may be some confusion on what has been said here, my point about
moving as
opposed to changing zoom level has to do with the apparent compression of
perspective with longer lenses. I know that this compression is not real, since
lenses capture the same image, only showing different parts of it on
sensor, but
everyone knows that the way to make 2 things look like they're side by side and
not 30 feet apart is to stand back and use a long lens to "squash" them
together. Walking up to one with a short lens would show the other at quite a
distance away. Maybe I described it wrong but I know what happens.

For the guy who is opposed to cropping but likes to use a zoom, someone should
point out that a zoom lens is cropped by the fixed sensor size! (This fact of
physics may be over his head.)

When it comes to "perspective" an understanding beyond any metaphoric
interpretation of the word is needed.
First, in graphical representation ie. "graphical perspective", drawing
perspective guidelines between a distant solid object and a fixed point
of focus will mean that the observer of that scene will see objects
restrained by those guidelines as proportionate and maintaining the
correct perspective for all elements of that image. That means an
observer moving toward, or away from that distant object within the
guideline framework will maintain a constant perspective view of the
distant object the proportional size of the target changes, while the
perspective remains constant.

This applies in photography, and can be, and has been verified with a
simple experiment. Take a subject target such as a building and choose
a fixed point from which to photograph it. Mount a camera on a tripod
at that position. Choose an aim point on the target. Fit a 20mm Prime
lens to the camera and capture the image. Repeat with a 50mm, a 180mm,
& zoom say an 18-200mm (shooting at 20, 50 & 180mm). You should now
have six images all shot at different focal lengths with the same
camera position, or view point, the same distance between camera &
target, and the same focus point point on the target. The result is a
change in the angle of view due to the focal length constraints of each
lens, while the actual perspective remains unchanged.
The converse can be shown if you take a camera with a prime mounted,
say a 20mm and you take a series of shots as you move closer to the
target while using the same target aim point. In this case initially
there will be no apparent perspective change, but as the camera moves
closer, the virtual perspective lines drawn between the target and the
moving focus point (the lens position) have measurable angular changes
effectively changing the perspective.

So, to summarize, changing lenses, prime or zoom, and shooting any
given scene from a fixed shooting position will not result in a change
of photographic, or graphic perspective. Move the camera in any
direction changing the angular sight lines between the camera and the
subject will result in a change of perspective. Perspective will only
change if the fixed positions of camera & subject change. This is a
reason POV video & effects can be disorienting ad at time disturbing.

Any image cropped in post will maintain the original perspective at the
time of capture.

Then there is the issue of optical illusion created by "forced
perspective" which is something else entirely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-11-08 02:01:51 +0000, nospam said:

In article ,
wrote

Le Snip


Zooming in compresses the view.

no it doesn't.

you get *exactly* the same effect whether you zoom or crop.

Correct.

EG lets say I'm 20 feet from a
person, and 1 mile from a mountain. if I zoom in the mountain will "move"
closer. whereas walking over to the person leaves the mountain in the
background, as it was before. On the other hand, if you want the whole
mountain
you zoom out and push the mountain away. The person in your shot remains
relatively the same. Moving away would leave the mountain the same and make
the
person smaller. It's the zoom that changes the scene perspective, walking back
and forth affects the person (closer subject) and leaves the background alone,
so only the zoom changes the angles, the relative size of the person and
mountain remain the same when walking back and forth 15 feet.

nope. perspective changed because you moved your position relative to
the subject.

Correct.

if you don't move, then nothing changes.

you can use a wide angle lens and then crop and you will have the exact
same photo with the same perspective, only it's lower quality due to
cropping.

Correct.

Le Snip

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-11-08 03:01:04 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2013-11-08 02:00:25 +0000, said:

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:23:15 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:44:42 GMT, "MC" wrote:
Maybe you should start making sure the composition is correct before
you press the shutter button.
Cropping to obtain the composition you failed to get whilst taking the
image is BAD photography.

The above is BAD philosophy, and has nothing to do with
good photography.

The goal is the photograph. Viewers do not see the
methods used to make the photograph, they see only the
picture eventually produced. Any method chosen that
produces what the photographer wants is good
photography. Settling for less that the best result
in order to implement an ideology is BAD photography.

Much of the skill (art) in photography is in
composition.

That is true! So why then distort it with absurd BS
that has nothing to do with the resulting image?

Cropping should only be done to obtain an aspect ratio not
available out of camera and to use the method to obtain the composition
is an unskillful, lazy habit.

Absurd. A reality check tells why...

In only a fraction of all possible cases is it even
within reason to believe that an exact framing can ever
be achieved without cropping after the image is exposed.
Most camera viewfinders do not show exactly what will be
captured, and even with a camera that does it can never
be as precisely considered before exposure to the degree
it can be considred after the exposure.

Neither is cropping a substitute for a
zoom lens. If you want to get closer to your subject, from a distance,
you need to invest in telephoto equipment. It is as simple as that.

It isn't quite that simple though. That is perhaps true
for large variations, but certainly isn't valid for
small critical variations.

You are never going to learn how to take good photographs if you rely
on cropping to obtain the image you want. By doing so, all you end up
achieving is to producing poor, postage stamp sized images.

You will never even approach being a good photographer
by burdening yourself with this sort of absurd
philisophical attachment to ideology that does not
actually relate to better photography.

That may have been true in the days of film, but has no bearing on today's
digital cameras. Most of my cameras don't have a 100% exact view
either, and I'm
always surprised by my shots NOT being what I composed!

Since I am composing the shot, whether I do it at the time of shutter press or
in post has no bearing on my art. (My art is my art no matter what I do!)

It's true that it has no bearing on whether your work is
art, but it does have a very direct influence on your
art! Doing things the most effective way (for you as an
individual) has to be a good influence. What MC
suggested are a number of artificial limitations which
are most likely not effective for anyone, and they are
almost necessarily a very bad influence on anyone's art.

They actually sound like a way to mentally rationalize a
lack of artistic skill. He doesn't get the good results
that other do, and his ego adjustment to that is done by
claiming they used "impure" techniques...

And with a 24m pixel camera, I can crop the **** out of it and still
end up with
an HD photo. My first camera was 1.8mp.

Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is wrong!
Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for the convenience of
not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene perspective. Any pro will tell you
that, it's in all my books. The proper way to compose is to move your position.

Nope, it ain't so. The perspective of a photograph
depends absolutely on the angle of view and relative
distances between objects; which is to say it can only
be changed by moving to a different location. Hence the
first objective when visualizing an image should be the
choice of a location.

Then the framing of the image captured can be chosen,
which is done by choosing the appropriate lens focal
length to begin with but is later fine tuned by cropping
to get exactly the right framing for the photograph to
be produced.

To repeat, select perspective first and move to the
appropriate location, only then is the correct focal
length chosen to provide the desired framing and an
exposure made. After the data is captured a detailed
and perhaps even time consuming analysis can be made to
determine the exact cropping needed to produce the best
photograph.

And lastly, most people will tell you to shoot with primes only, if you
want pro
results, and proper composition means you have to move closer or farther away,
or replace the lens, and that isn't always possible.

The decision to use a fixed focal length lens instead of
a zoom does not relate to focal length, it is a matter
of specialized characteristics that can be easily be
designed into a lens for one focal length and are
unlikely to exist in a zoom. Bokeh is an example.
There are lenses, such as either Canon or Nikon made
50mm f/1.8 models, that have harsh bokeh and there are
others, such as either Canon or Nikon made 85mm f/1.4
models, that have smooth bokeh. Other characteristics
that are unique to some specific fixed focal length
lenses might be close focusing abilities, fish-eye
projection, and so on.

But it is an absurdity to think that a bag full of fixed
focal length lenses is what is needed for "pro results"
as opposed to the typical 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lenses
that are available. How does one get a 140mm or 165mm
fixed focal length lens???

I am NOT one to say "only use primes", I was only quoting the sentiment.

I agree with everything you said, you said it better than I could!

There may be some confusion on what has been said here, my point about
moving as
opposed to changing zoom level has to do with the apparent compression of
perspective with longer lenses. I know that this compression is not real, since
lenses capture the same image, only showing different parts of it on
sensor, but
everyone knows that the way to make 2 things look like they're side by side and
not 30 feet apart is to stand back and use a long lens to "squash" them
together. Walking up to one with a short lens would show the other at quite a
distance away. Maybe I described it wrong but I know what happens.

For the guy who is opposed to cropping but likes to use a zoom, someone should
point out that a zoom lens is cropped by the fixed sensor size! (This fact of
physics may be over his head.)

When it comes to "perspective" an understanding beyond any metaphoric
interpretation of the word is needed.
First, in graphical representation ie. "graphical perspective", drawing
perspective guidelines between a distant solid object and a fixed point
of focus will mean that the observer of that scene will see objects
restrained by those guidelines as proportionate and maintaining the
correct perspective for all elements of that image. That means an
observer moving toward, or away from that distant object within the
guideline framework will maintain a constant perspective view of the
distant object the proportional size of the target changes, while the
perspective remains constant.

This applies in photography, and can be, and has been verified with a
simple experiment. Take a subject target such as a building and choose
a fixed point from which to photograph it. Mount a camera on a tripod
at that position. Choose an aim point on the target. Fit a 20mm Prime
lens to the camera and capture the image. Repeat with a 50mm, a 180mm,
& zoom say an 18-200mm (shooting at 20, 50 & 180mm). You should now
have six images all shot at different focal lengths with the same
camera position, or view point, the same distance between camera &
target, and the same focus point point on the target. The result is a
change in the angle of view due to the focal length constraints of each
lens, while the actual perspective remains unchanged.
The converse can be shown if you take a camera with a prime mounted,
say a 20mm and you take a series of shots as you move closer to the
target while using the same target aim point. In this case initially
there will be no apparent perspective change, but as the camera moves
closer, the virtual perspective lines drawn between the target and the
moving focus point (the lens position) have measurable angular changes
effectively changing the perspective.

So, to summarize, changing lenses, prime or zoom, and shooting any
given scene from a fixed shooting position will not result in a change
of photographic, or graphic perspective. Move the camera in any
direction changing the angular sight lines between the camera and the
subject will result in a change of perspective. Perspective will only
change if the fixed positions of camera & subject change. This is a
reason POV video & effects can be disorienting and at times disturbing.

Any image cropped in post will maintain the original perspective at the
time of capture.

Then there is the issue of optical illusion created by "forced
perspective" which is something else entirely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective

Regarding the cropped image, if you take the example of a cropped image
I posted earlier in this thread, you will see illusory magnification of
the subject with no change to the original perspective.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_358.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2013110719010484630-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2013-11-08 02:00:25 +0000, said:

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:23:15 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:44:42 GMT, "MC" wrote:
Maybe you should start making sure the composition is correct before
you press the shutter button.
Cropping to obtain the composition you failed to get whilst taking the
image is BAD photography.

The above is BAD philosophy, and has nothing to do with
good photography.

The goal is the photograph. Viewers do not see the
methods used to make the photograph, they see only the
picture eventually produced. Any method chosen that
produces what the photographer wants is good
photography. Settling for less that the best result
in order to implement an ideology is BAD photography.

Much of the skill (art) in photography is in
composition.

That is true! So why then distort it with absurd BS
that has nothing to do with the resulting image?

Cropping should only be done to obtain an aspect ratio not
available out of camera and to use the method to obtain the composition
is an unskillful, lazy habit.

Absurd. A reality check tells why...

In only a fraction of all possible cases is it even
within reason to believe that an exact framing can ever
be achieved without cropping after the image is exposed.
Most camera viewfinders do not show exactly what will be
captured, and even with a camera that does it can never
be as precisely considered before exposure to the degree
it can be considred after the exposure.

Neither is cropping a substitute for a
zoom lens. If you want to get closer to your subject, from a distance,
you need to invest in telephoto equipment. It is as simple as that.

It isn't quite that simple though. That is perhaps true
for large variations, but certainly isn't valid for
small critical variations.

You are never going to learn how to take good photographs if you rely
on cropping to obtain the image you want. By doing so, all you end up
achieving is to producing poor, postage stamp sized images.

You will never even approach being a good photographer
by burdening yourself with this sort of absurd
philisophical attachment to ideology that does not
actually relate to better photography.

That may have been true in the days of film, but has no bearing on today's
digital cameras. Most of my cameras don't have a 100% exact view
either, and I'm
always surprised by my shots NOT being what I composed!

Since I am composing the shot, whether I do it at the time of shutter press or
in post has no bearing on my art. (My art is my art no matter what I do!)

It's true that it has no bearing on whether your work is
art, but it does have a very direct influence on your
art! Doing things the most effective way (for you as an
individual) has to be a good influence. What MC
suggested are a number of artificial limitations which
are most likely not effective for anyone, and they are
almost necessarily a very bad influence on anyone's art.

They actually sound like a way to mentally rationalize a
lack of artistic skill. He doesn't get the good results
that other do, and his ego adjustment to that is done by
claiming they used "impure" techniques...

And with a 24m pixel camera, I can crop the **** out of it and still
end up with
an HD photo. My first camera was 1.8mp.

Your suggestion that you need to use a ZOOM lens to compose a shot is wrong!
Zoom lens were NOT invented to compose shots, but simply for the convenience of
not changing lenses. Zooms alter the scene perspective. Any pro will tell you
that, it's in all my books. The proper way to compose is to move your position.

Nope, it ain't so. The perspective of a photograph
depends absolutely on the angle of view and relative
distances between objects; which is to say it can only
be changed by moving to a different location. Hence the
first objective when visualizing an image should be the
choice of a location.

Then the framing of the image captured can be chosen,
which is done by choosing the appropriate lens focal
length to begin with but is later fine tuned by cropping
to get exactly the right framing for the photograph to
be produced.

To repeat, select perspective first and move to the
appropriate location, only then is the correct focal
length chosen to provide the desired framing and an
exposure made. After the data is captured a detailed
and perhaps even time consuming analysis can be made to
determine the exact cropping needed to produce the best
photograph.

And lastly, most people will tell you to shoot with primes only, if you
want pro
results, and proper composition means you have to move closer or farther away,
or replace the lens, and that isn't always possible.

The decision to use a fixed focal length lens instead of
a zoom does not relate to focal length, it is a matter
of specialized characteristics that can be easily be
designed into a lens for one focal length and are
unlikely to exist in a zoom. Bokeh is an example.
There are lenses, such as either Canon or Nikon made
50mm f/1.8 models, that have harsh bokeh and there are
others, such as either Canon or Nikon made 85mm f/1.4
models, that have smooth bokeh. Other characteristics
that are unique to some specific fixed focal length
lenses might be close focusing abilities, fish-eye
projection, and so on.

But it is an absurdity to think that a bag full of fixed
focal length lenses is what is needed for "pro results"
as opposed to the typical 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lenses
that are available. How does one get a 140mm or 165mm
fixed focal length lens???

I am NOT one to say "only use primes", I was only quoting the sentiment.

I agree with everything you said, you said it better than I could!

There may be some confusion on what has been said here, my point about
moving as
opposed to changing zoom level has to do with the apparent compression of
perspective with longer lenses. I know that this compression is not real, since
lenses capture the same image, only showing different parts of it on
sensor, but
everyone knows that the way to make 2 things look like they're side by side and
not 30 feet apart is to stand back and use a long lens to "squash" them
together. Walking up to one with a short lens would show the other at quite a
distance away. Maybe I described it wrong but I know what happens.

For the guy who is opposed to cropping but likes to use a zoom, someone should
point out that a zoom lens is cropped by the fixed sensor size! (This fact of
physics may be over his head.)

When it comes to "perspective" an understanding beyond any metaphoric
interpretation of the word is needed.
First, in graphical representation ie. "graphical perspective", drawing
perspective guidelines between a distant solid object and a fixed point
of focus will mean that the observer of that scene will see objects
restrained by those guidelines as proportionate and maintaining the
correct perspective for all elements of that image. That means an
observer moving toward, or away from that distant object within the
guideline framework will maintain a constant perspective view of the
distant object the proportional size of the target changes, while the
perspective remains constant.

This applies in photography, and can be, and has been verified with a
simple experiment. Take a subject target such as a building and choose
a fixed point from which to photograph it. Mount a camera on a tripod
at that position. Choose an aim point on the target. Fit a 20mm Prime
lens to the camera and capture the image. Repeat with a 50mm, a 180mm,
& zoom say an 18-200mm (shooting at 20, 50 & 180mm). You should now
have six images all shot at different focal lengths with the same
camera position, or view point, the same distance between camera &
target, and the same focus point point on the target. The result is a
change in the angle of view due to the focal length constraints of each
lens, while the actual perspective remains unchanged.
The converse can be shown if you take a camera with a prime mounted,
say a 20mm and you take a series of shots as you move closer to the
target while using the same target aim point. In this case initially
there will be no apparent perspective change, but as the camera moves
closer, the virtual perspective lines drawn between the target and the
moving focus point (the lens position) have measurable angular changes
effectively changing the perspective.

So, to summarize, changing lenses, prime or zoom, and shooting any
given scene from a fixed shooting position will not result in a change
of photographic, or graphic perspective. Move the camera in any
direction changing the angular sight lines between the camera and the
subject will result in a change of perspective. Perspective will only
change if the fixed positions of camera & subject change. This is a
reason POV video & effects can be disorienting ad at time disturbing.

Any image cropped in post will maintain the original perspective at the
time of capture.

Then there is the issue of optical illusion created by "forced
perspective" which is something else entirely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective

I was not aware of the use of forced perspective in the final scene of
"Casablanca". It's quite well done.