I think Bob is making a good statement and case here. But...
Recently, on my amateur level, I was photographing a play my son's high school put up. I was in the last row of the auditorium with a tripod and a Mamiya 645 and a 300mm lens. If I had not cropped some of the prints I made, they would have been so full of clutter. Instead, when I photographed I imagined the way I was going to crop it to try to make the most out of the negatives. If I have ever wished for a telephoto zoom lens, this was the occasion.
With that said, I really try to use the full negative as often as possible. But as the years go, my vision changes and I see things differently from when I exposed the negative. Already in the last five years my approach has changed drastically.
I do agree with the notion to try to get it right 'in camera', but sometimes I have a square format camera and want a rectangular print when everything is said and done. Sometimes I want a square image when I shoot a rectangular format. And taking those crops into consideration would be 'getting it right in the camera' too, wouldn't it? I don't think the camera format should dictate how you print in the darkroom. I think you would be robbing yourself of making the most out of any print if you do.
To me, trying to get it right twice just means you tried harder.
I think if you want to convey a message with a print, it is my opinion that the actual composition, the content, and the vision of the photographer is the most important. If that adversely affects the print quality to a small extent, then I am very willing to sacrifice that to get the message across. Does the viewer really concern themselves that much with grain size and physical dimensions of images, even in a large collection or portfolio?
Do you look at a single print that is really good and that is, say 8x12 inches from a 35mm neg, and exclude it from a show because it doesn't have the same grain pattern, sharpness, and physical dimensions as, say a 10x10 from a medium format neg and exclude it from a show for that reason?
The reason for wanting to include both could be that it's a series continuing over a decade, and that the equipment available along that time line could change.
Bob Carnie obviously has fifty times the experience I have with this sort of thing, so I'm on very thin ice here. But I believe that either you create an image for its individual value and print that image according to your vision for that single image. Whatever cropping has to take place to lift that message forward is allowed.
Then if you're deliberately shooting to create a portfolio you may want to pay attention to make it look coherent. But already at the point where you consider both vertical and horizontal rectangular prints you're deviating from how things are presented.
You could also include older work in a portfolio of certain subject matter, and it could well be shot in a different format.
All things said, one good example of conforming format is a show I saw with David Eisenlord at the Icebox gallery in Minneapolis. All square prints in vertical mats. The presentation was stunning. And then I went to the Minneapolis Institute of Arts and saw two or more prints with Andre Kertesz next to eachother. One a 5x5" color polaroid that looked awesome next to a 16x20 black and white (I forget the name of the print but it was the one with the doorway, stairs, table, and coat rack).
- Thomas
