Photography Experiement - Full Frame Photos

[my_daroga]

For some time, it's been annoying me that the aspect ratio for standard photo sizes has nothing to do with the actual film. To get a 4x6 or 5x7, you're cropping a significant portion of the image. Not really internalizing this, I've always composed "in camera" and am frustrated when my carefully-aligned images get cut off.

So here's what I'm doing.

I'm choosing 12 or so negatives at a time from my "best work" to get 8x12 prints done. Some of these you've probably seen before. But I want to try to find a "next level" for my photography, and at the moment this is my best next step. I'm not sure what to do with these now, but take a look and tell me what you think. Is this a quality I should pursue? To set me apart, just a little?

Comments

[my_daroga]

I'm trying to find something *I* can do, you know? That's at least slightly interesting. And I'm thinking not-fiddling with photos might be one of them.

[men-in-full.livejournal.com]

ceridwen_daae is studying photography in art school, and I remember her remarking to me once that "art photos" are often heavily doctored, either in the developing process, or through cropping, or if digital, through something like Photoshop. It just occurred to me that the analogy would be painting, where (in an oil painting) the artist often scrapes, re-paints, etc. In watercolor, though, once it's down, it's down forever (usually.) So in a sense, it sounds like what you are thinking of are "watercolor photographs," i.e. where the composition is all done on the camera/shooting end, and "what you see is what you get." I think that's cool; it is a more 'natural' kind of photography.

[my_daroga]

I'm not a fan of studio or abstract photography--which, maybe, makes me less "arty" but I like a documentary style anyway.

So this seems a valid way to go. Thanks!