Cropping and Street Photography

[GRHazelton]

Cropping can sometimes make an interesting picture out of an otherwise mundane shot. Playing around with my 10-20mm WA on my DSLR I took a beach scene snap of my Wife and her Son walking out of the left side of the frame. Later on toying around with the image I realized that by cropping them out I had a much more interesting image, which showed a pair of abandoned shoes - no footprints - in the lower left corner. I like to think that it presents an unanswered question....

 

[logan2z]

Really interesting discussion so far, thanks to everyone for their responses.

 

[MattKing]

An puzzling/interesting aspect (at least to me) of (too much) cropping is the relationship between field of view and depth of field, also known as perspective.
If the cropped image looks too much different from the fully framed version taken closer of with a longer lens, then maybe the crop is just too much?

Or am I just barking up the wrong tree here?

Bill (BSP)

Yep - wrong tree
Perspective is formed from the relationship between items in the scene and the apparent depth between them. It is controlled entirely by the distance between the subject and the camera.
Cropping gives exactly the same result as switching to a longer (narrower angle) lens and has no effect on perspective.
If instead of cropping or switching to a longer lens you decide to walk closer to your subject, you will be changing the perspective while adjusting the relative size of the elements in the image.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Again it is the end result which matters.

And therein lies the dilemma. From several different classes I have taken from ethics to leadership, people have different "styles". For some folks it's the process that matters, for others it's all about the end result. I crop many if not most of my images and shoot knowing I will. If you know you need to print the whole negative to be satisfied, then just don't press the shutter if you can't capture a good full negative shot and be OK knowing you likely will miss some possibly powerful images. Seems restrictive to me, but then some people won't step on sidewalk cracks, I just want to get to my destination

 

[BSP]

Yep - wrong tree

I really should have written "OR with a long lens" instead of "OF with a longer lens" - my typo.

I get it now - so glad I didnt buy that 75mm lens in addition to my 50.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Yep - wrong tree
Perspective is formed from the relationship between items in the scene and the apparent depth between them. It is controlled entirely by the distance between the subject and the camera.
Cropping gives exactly the same result as switching to a longer (narrower angle) lens and has no effect on perspective.
If instead of cropping or switching to a longer lens you decide to walk closer to your subject, you will be changing the perspective while adjusting the relative size of the elements in the image.

While this is technically correct, so even though perpsective does not get altered in itself, cropping, especially significant one, does bring subjects closer to the front and changes visual impact every time it is done, not necessarily for the better, of course.

 

[Saganich]

Cropping can be part of the solution to the problem of realizing the image you originally intended.

 

[CMoore]

All hobbies seem to develop these bizarre debates.
Musicians/Singers scoff at any kind of auto-tune, but see no problem with compression.

Some guy raises his nose at the mere thought of cropping, but he has no problem orchestrating a shot and taking 20 frames of it.......OK boys, let me move over here, and then you kids jump through that hole in the wall again.

Dodging and Burning, filtration, toning are no "better" than cropping.

 

[CropDusterMan]

This whole crop/not crop argument is rather silly. A strong image is a strong image. A lot of the greats didn't want
people seeing their contacts for two reasons...because these photographers often "worked" a scene from multiple
angles to achieve the end result, and often...they cropped. There is nothing wrong with either of these.

If you crop into a weak photo...you just show the weakness even clearer. But...if the content is there, it's still a good
image.

J

 

[BobD]

I think cropping is fine. I also think that if one chooses to play the game of compose-in-camera-without-cropping, that's fine too.

There was a sort of fad for a while of filing down one's negative carriers so the original film frame edge was visible in the finished print thus "showing off" that one did not crop the image. I can appreciate that. It is an accomplishment that is worth showing off. But I don't think it's a must.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Framing by intuition is of great value in cinematography, because aspect is fixed and zomming in post can be painful, they require several people very well coortinated, one moves the crane, another one adjusts focus on the fly, another one frames and the actors have also to speak when they have focus on them

Cinema cameras viewfinders always show more than is captured/ soft or hard matted - precisely so that you can see booms etc before they wander suddenly into shot - essentially the context of a rangefinder and the precise framing of a reflex. If everyone is well rehearsed and you aren't trying to pull focus at a T1.0-T2.0 range on long glass at close range, focusing is as much question of hitting your marks in the correct order. Working handheld documentary style is trickier but really a question of understanding what your available depth of focus is.

Post zooming is really largely producers trying to exploit the resolution of a format to interfere with/ 'improve' a shot.

 

[Pieter12]

Cinema cameras viewfinders always show more than is captured/ soft or hard matted - precisely so that you can see booms etc before they wander suddenly into shot - essentially the context of a rangefinder and the precise framing of a reflex. If everyone is well rehearsed and you aren't trying to pull focus at a T1.0-T2.0 range on long glass at close range, focusing is as much question of hitting your marks in the correct order. Working handheld documentary style is trickier but really a question of understanding what your available depth of focus is.

Post zooming is really largely producers trying to exploit the resolution of a format to interfere with/ 'improve' a shot.

That's why you don't see much "street cinematography." The allure and challenge of street photography is the captured, candid moment.

 

[Lachlan Young]

That's why you don't see much "street cinematography." The allure and challenge of street photography is the captured, candid moment.

That's not what I was saying - there are however plenty of shots in films that do exactly what you describe. What I was getting at is that a cinema camera can give both the contextual view of a rangefinder viewfinder and the precision framing (ie what's inside the lines is exactly what will be captured) of a single lens reflex viewfinder.

 

[Pieter12]

That's not what I was saying - there are however plenty of shots in films that do exactly what you describe. What I was getting at is that a cinema camera can give both the contextual view of a rangefinder viewfinder and the precision framing (ie what's inside the lines is exactly what will be captured) of a single lens reflex viewfinder.

I realize you might have been making a point about movie cameras and their viewfinders. And there are shots in films that are candid moments, unstaged or unplanned that would compare to still street photography. But there is no genre of (mainstream) cinema that I am aware of that is composed entirely of those shots, as is street still photography.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I realize you might have been making a point about movie cameras and their viewfinders. And there are shots in films that are candid moments, unstaged or unplanned that would compare to still street photography. But there is no genre of (mainstream) cinema that I am aware of that is composed entirely of those shots, as is street still photography.

Because like 90+% of what calls itself "street photography" it'd be unwatchably banal.

 

[Vaughn]

The only time I don't crop is when cropping is needed.

I like it. Actually, the only time I ever hear about 'purity' in regards to cropping is from people who crop when they talk about people who don't. I just tend to choose from the infinite number of possible images that I can make full-frame...as opposed to using any of the infinite number of possible images that are created by cropping the image on the film. Those who do both (full-frame/crop) do not have any more choices, because infinite is infinite...there is no more, and no less, infinite...

I am using 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14 cameras, printing the full negative (including its rebate as part of the final image). Cropping would mean that I would be showing a print that is presented significantly differently from the rest...which is fine in some situations, but mostly not when working on portfolios. YMMD

I use modified darkslides to expose two 4x10 images and two 5.5x14 images on 8x10 and 11x14 film respectively...while keeping a rebate around each image...so technically, I am not cropping down from an 8x10 image to get a 4x10 image.

 

[Vaughn]

Cropping can sometimes make an interesting picture out of an otherwise mundane shot...

Careful study of ones work (proof sheets are nice) can help one go from the mundane to the interesting without cropping (printing only full-frame just pushes the issue). Then make more prints and do more study to make images that go from interesting straight to meaningful.

 

[Pieter12]

Because like 90+% of what calls itself "street photography" it'd be unwatchably banal.

More like 98%.

 

[Pieter12]

I like it. Actually, the only time I ever hear about 'purity' in regards to cropping is from people who crop when they talk about people who don't. I just tend to choose from the infinite number of possible images that I can make full-frame...as opposed to using any of the infinite number of possible images that are created by cropping the image on the film. Those who do both (full-frame/crop) do not have any more choices, because infinite is infinite...there is no more, and no less, infinite...

I am using 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14 cameras, printing the full negative (including its rebate as part of the final image). Cropping would mean that I would be showing a print that is presented significantly differently from the rest...which is fine in some situations, but mostly not when working on portfolios. YMMD

I use modified darkslides to expose two 4x10 images and two 5.5x14 images on 8x10 and 11x14 film respectively...while keeping a rebate around each image...so technically, I am not cropping down from an 8x10 image to get a 4x10 image.

But I'd bet you are not taking candid "street photographs" with those cameras.

 

[Vaughn]

Actually, I got a nice 8x10 in Yosemite Valley along a 'street' going to Yosemite Falls. Also in Santiago, Chile (5x7 platinum print. I also took an image while it was still light, but have not printed it)...

 

[NB23]

Cropping is cheating.

yeah, some ladies feel attacked when I say that. And I don’t care.

 

[awty]

Why would anyone need to seek approval to crop? Be brave and make your own decisions, people respect that.

 

[Vaughn]

Cropping is cheating. yeah, some ladies feel attacked when I say that. And I don’t care.

To photograph and depend on cropping to find the best image is no different than the shotgun approach of some users of digital cameras -- it can be very effective.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Cropping is cheating.

yeah, some ladies feel attacked when I say that. And I don’t care.

I suppose that means the world of photography is a collective of cheats and wannabees.

 

[jim10219]

I consider not cropping to be amateurish. You should be carefully analyzing each step in the process from beginning to end and diligently working towards making the best final image possible. Everything must be considered and reconsidered. There's no detail too small. Every step from loading the film to drying the final print must be deliberate.

Composing a final image in camera and then calling it good is what my mom does when taking vacation or family photos. Sure, she spends some time making sure everything looks good in the viewfinder. But she's not making serious art. She's just trying to make a personal memory. To her, the photo isn't important. The memory of the event is what's important.

Cropping isn't cheating. It's hard work. Calling hard work cheating is what amateurs do to alleviate themselves of the threat of having to do hard work. Embrace the hard work. Embrace the idea of struggling at every step to make each photo the best it possibly can be. Don't cop out and get lazy and blame it on some made up sense of pride or purity. A mediocre photo that wasn't edited is still a mediocre photo. A great photo that was heavily edited is still a great photo. There's no shame in the crop, but there is shame in letting a great photo slip by because you were too lazy or proud to take it all the way.