Have mobiles made traditional crops less important?

Rodinal said:
She was a good judge of character then. But there again everyone is entiteld to an opinion!
Click to expand...
Well that proves my point. She completely made up a name I don’t have and you take her side:banana:

The other side of that story was that we as a family were supposed to look up to her cos she was a ‘civil servant’ with a very important job.

The punchline? I’m also a civil servant, and if she was on my team; I’d be her boss’ boss’ boss.

And if she was still alive; she’d still claim she knew more about the work than I do cos… she was there 20 years before me :headbang:
 
Last edited:
Rodinal said:
I never thought of that,... but wait... You can imagine that you are a TT winner in the Isle of Man. Imagination is a wonderous thing but some things do need skill and that takes skill. No not winning every time, possibly even never. if you don't have the skill to carry it out. The skill needed is not only a primary essential it is possible a way of staying alive Skill 1 Imagination 0
Click to expand...
You don't get it do you? I'm not sure you even understand what the creative process is.

I'm on about making pictures not riding fast motor bikes. You have the idea, THEN you get the skills to make it happen, or you do what you can with the skills you have - which might actually lead to an even better outcome than you envisaged because you've done something different than the norm.
 
TimHughes said:
I understood @Ed Sutton to be referring to "imagination" in the sense of creative vision and storytelling when crafting a compelling photograph, irrespective of the camera being used—not as mere wishful thinking or fantasy.
Click to expand...
As would any sensible reader on a photography forum. If I'd posted on a bike forum then he'd have had a point with his 'witty' response.
 
I've looked at the post on my phone and laptop - now the vertical works best on the phone and horizonal works best on my laptop. So, for me it's all about where and how the image is going to be displayed. I wonder if the size and shape of the smartphone will change in the future and how images framed in the vertical will look on any new device - so I don't think the crop itself is a gimmick but the mode of display might not always be around and the photo might not look great on what replaces it - a square smartphone?
 
For me, I shoot mainly in 'landscape' orientation. Mainly 3:2 or 4:3 with the occasional 5:4 chucked in there. 'Portrait' orientation are always 4:5 or 3:4, very rarely 2:3 & never 9:16!!

I do shoot some phone shots in a vertical IG/FB friendly crop but that is only if they are intentionally shot to be uploaded as a story or something whilst on location or doing something.
 
Phil V said:
Your posts reminded me of my auntie some time ago.

She was the self appointed ‘matriarch’ of the family, and was aghast should we ever point out that her old fashioned views were racist etc. but that’s not the main point.

When I turned 30, as a full grown married father of 2, she thought she should mark the occasion by giving me a birthday card.
The envelope for which had beautifully written Philip Roy (surname). I asked ‘Who’s Philip Roy?’ As I have never had a middle name (my dad’s middle name was Roy).
Her response? ‘You are, ya daft sod!’
And no amount of me arguing that I’d know if I had a middle name could convince her she was wrong.

C’est la vie.
Click to expand...

You do realise everyone on here is going to call you Philip Roy from now on right? :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
LeeRatters said:
never 9:16!!
Click to expand...


Back in APS days, I used to take the occasional panorama in portrait orientation - church spires, cliffs and a few other subjects lost in the mists of time!
 
I think they do offend the sensibilities. I've had friends show me their photos, and they plainly think they are marvellous. But as far as I can see, with my little knowledge of composition, they look dreadful. :(
 
Phil V said:
... if she was on my team; I’d be her boss’ boss’ boss.

And if she was still alive; she’d still claim she knew more about the work than I do cos… she was there 20 years before me :headbang:
Click to expand...
I have an ex-wife who thought like that...

I know I'm not a very good photographer, I just enjoy it; but my process is to imagine - have an idea in my minds eye - and try to utilise my skills, such as they are, to realise that image in my head, in a 2D format. But in truth my photographs never give me the thrill and pleasure of being there in the moment that an image is created, the best they can do is remind me of how it felt at that point in time in that place.
 
lindsay said:
I have an ex-wife who thought like that...

I know I'm not a very good photographer, I just enjoy it; but my process is to imagine - have an idea in my minds eye - and try to utilise my skills, such as they are, to realise that image in my head, in a 2D format. But in truth my photographs never give me the thrill and pleasure of being there in the moment that an image is created, the best they can do is remind me of how it felt at that point in time in that place.
Click to expand...
My photo's very rarely please me personally, but because I shoot for other people, I do get to experience reflected joy from my work.
 
To be controversial, portrait orientation is likely to suit portraits especially whole body shots.
But is less likely to suit landscapes which might be best in ... landscape orientation.
I do use 1:1 quite a lot it works OK on FB and Instagram too.
 
I came into this thread wondering if wheat and barley were becoming less popular :LOL:

I think it does depend on where you intend to show the images and what suits the subject. The vertical format works well for social media on phones.

Phil V said:
My photo's very rarely please me personally, but because I shoot for other people, I do get to experience reflected joy from my work.
Click to expand...
I was made to feel like I had a terrible self esteem problem when I mentioned at my camera club that I was nearly always disappointed with my photos. I attended a great talk by Chris Packham at The Photography Show and he is similarly inflicted.... except that his photos are amazing. It felt good to know I wasn't the only one.
 
Jesus fk me. Didn't mean to start a thing haha :)

Lots of good replies. Here's my take.

I reckon the more we stare at phones, the more we are consumed by social fkn media and all the bastardly things therein, the more the digital world wraps it's clutches around us and squeezes, the more it will take of the old world. Including "old" photography. I can't predict the future but it fkn terrifies me. I'm getting too old too quick :)
 
garryknight said:
..... And most of the people I see with a DSLR, these days the camera of choice by professionals, newcomers to photography, and a still fairly large percentage of tourists, seem to take most of their shots in landscape orientation. Most often with the camera held up in front of their eyes, using the LCD to frame the shot.
Click to expand...
I couldn't believe what I was seeing first time I saw somebody do that with a dSLR camera. They had the camera held virtually at arm's length. I'd love/hate to see the results. Camera shake was probably quite spectacular.
 
kt53 said:
I couldn't believe what I was seeing first time I saw somebody do that with a dSLR camera. They had the camera held virtually at arm's length. I'd love/hate to see the results. Camera shake was probably quite spectacular.
Click to expand...

With the advent of modern mirrorless, shooting on the screen seems to be the go-to normal for the majority of wedding photographers now (I base this from experience having seen a lot this year). Face tracking means all they have to do is keep the subject(s) in the frame at arms length and their finger on the trigger. I don't personally shoot like that but as I say, it's very common now.
 
Really interesting. I would find it hard to change from using the viewfinder now from habit as much as anything. Although I did adapt a little for action photograpy, using the viewfinder but holding the camera a little way form the face so that I had some peripheral vision.
 
FWIW as an old school wedding photographer, I would compose on the ground glass screen of my bronica at waist height. However the camera would usually be on a tripod.
 
With my phone I use it either way up, whichever suits the scene best.
With a DSLR I try and avoid portrait orientation as much as possible. Most of my viewing is on a monitor, and I don't much like looking at a small vertical image in the middle of the screen.
 
ancient_mariner said:
FWIW as an old school wedding photographer, I would compose on the ground glass screen of my bronica at waist height. However the camera would usually be on a tripod.
Click to expand...
The good old 6x6 format: portrait, landscape or turn it on a corner to get a diamond image!

Plus ... if someone gets agressive, a Rolleiflex on a Rolleigrip, with a pentaprism, makes one hell of a crowd control device. :naughty:

Adam with Rolleiflex E2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top