Photo Competition Discussion Thread

[henk4]

Lazyness on behalf of the viewer, or the poster?

you accused the viewer of being lazy, because not using the right click function of the mouse. You can try to talk yourself out of this, but I maintain that your original accusation was, lets call it, b.s. (or hardly productive)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I'm one of those who don't care either way.

Not particularly serious business

[pat_ernzen]

I am one of those who even care if the photo has been cropped or not, as I'm one of those who always forgot there is the possibility to crop and I always "waste" a lot of time trying to get the right point of view.

You make it sound as if cropping means that you no longer have to frame/compose a shot... like it's lazy or something and that's simply not the case. I'd argue that not cropping a poorly framed shot is more lazy.

EDIT: Oh, and my shot for comp 255 is uncropped.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Most of the excellent photographers I know of (and indeed some of the excellent photos) are framed perfectly without the need for a crop.

Very situation based analysis, of course

[LeonOfTheDead]

You make it sound as if cropping means that you no longer have to frame/compose a shot... like it's lazy or something and that's simply not the case. I'd argue that not cropping a poorly framed shot is more lazy.

EDIT: Oh, and my shot for comp 255 is uncropped.

No no, that's not the case absolutely.
It happened some times that I had limited freedom to move around the subject, and the angle at which I was taking the image was allowing me to position the object on one side of the photo, or in the middle, etc. It always take me a while that I can then crop the shot to achieve, or try to achieve what I was thinking of in first place.
It's like bumping the exposition in a dark environment, trying to shoot something which is moving, and then saying "oh damn, I have the flash!".

[pat_ernzen]

I really do feel like this forum is like Bizarro World when it comes to photography some times.

[henk4]

EDIT: Oh, and my shot for comp 255 is uncropped.

so that is about the only aspect of the shot you did not doctor with...

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I really do feel like this forum is like Bizarro World when it comes to photography some times.

I guess it's one of those things where there are some who like to see the process of a photo's creation, while others like the end product.

[henk4]

I guess it's one of those things where there are some who like to see the process of a photo's creation, while others like the end product.

I also would like to get info on the creation if I don't like the end product....

[IBrake4Rainbows]

And indeed the end product may arise from creation methods you aren't happy with.

Ends Justify the Means, or Means justifying the ends

[henk4]

And indeed the end product may arise from creation methods you aren't happy with.

Please stop interpreting, there are enough shots which I don't like that were created with means that I like. (You wouldn't want to know how many shots I delete after one weekend along the track)

[pat_ernzen]

so that is about the only aspect of the shot you did not doctor with...

Pretty much, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Rather have a great shot with significant processing than a mediocre/poor shot with none. Not to say great shots aren't possible without post-processing, but very few can't be improved in some regard with some processing.

[LeonOfTheDead]

That's debatable.
There isn't something objective defining a "great shot".

[pat_ernzen]

That's debatable.
There isn't something objective defining a "great shot".

What's debatable? Whether or not a shot can be improved through post-processing? Sure there's objectivity, but there also certain principles/standards/etc and technical aspects that are undeniable. For example, there's a reason that the rule of thirds has been in practice for more than a hundred years and taken into consideration with virtually all types of design and art.

I also hate this apparent line-of-thought that post-processing somehow equates to less skill, effort or ability. In my mind, it's the complete opposite or at the very least, there's little relation. Like with the talk of cropping. It's very possible I'm misinterpreting, but again, you seem to think that the only reason someone would every want/need to crop a photo is because they were "too lazy" to frame the shot properly.

I feel like I have a drastically different view on photography than most people here (the vocal members, anyway), but I don't feel like my view is odd or out of line in any way whatsoever. I just find it so strange.

[LeonOfTheDead]

My abilities with PS or the camera itself are low in both cases, so there is nothing about abilities in my posts over here.

Once again, I do not think cropping is a lazy thing. I found myself feeling dumb after taking a shot from a weird angle and then thinking I could have it done from a better point of view, cropping what I didn't like, being a fat dog sitting next to a flower or a black wall I didn't like next to a car I was shooting.

Seriously, I may not like the heavy photoshop you did with the last shot, but it's pretty obvious you have skills I can only dream of. Cropping, editing or not.

What I referred to as debatable is exactly what I wrote, if shot is "great" or not, referring to post processing, but also setting the camera. The rule of third, which indeed works, isn't related to using or not PS and the likes rather than a simple point and shoot camera.