Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/04/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Steve, Sounds like the same old crop to me :). First photographers wrestled with the demons of burning and dodging, until now should I use GAF 500 "film" in Exposure 2? And you sometimes still hear "a cropped photo is a ruined photo". I think that some of the experts would have been better as nuns breaking rulers over the wrists of miscreants, instilling guilt...just my take. I know there is some thought that a photo should be a faithful representation of the scene, but why, unless you are making a documentary photo? What would "Moonrise" have looked like before AA manned up and dunked the bottom half of the neg in chromium intensifier? Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org [mailto:lug- > bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Steve Barbour > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 6:56 PM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: [Leica] Just for fun, now cropping. > > On Apr 14, 2009, at 9:44 PM, Ted Grant wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > > > Glad it worked OK. I've heard some folks say they never crop, > > that's always > > their choice. So I'm a tad gun shy about mentioning how a crop will > > and > > does, usually, make for a more eye appealing photo. > > though Ted, as you above all know .... > > a photo by its very nature is always a crop. > > > It's never been clear to me what the difference really is, between > the crop at the time the shot is made, versus a crop done after... > > Maybe someone could explain this, thereby explaining why some make a > fetish out of not doing a crop later... > > :-) > > > Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information