Cropping and Street Photography

[Vaughn]

"Photographers were a lot tougher back in the old days."

So were the horses! When I go backpacking I have to ask myself, 5x7, or just 4x5? Or really wimp out and enjoy myself with the Rolleicord? With a porter or two, I could do 8x10...but they are expensive, even if they are ones own sons!

But with LF for street photography...with the 11x14 for example, I'd be setting up very conspicuously. It would almost be street theater. Again, a couple of assistants to hold and hand me gear as needed would be nice -- and safer.

Winogrand certainly had a presence on the street while he was photographing -- though one must factor in the presence of the movie camera in a doc. or two I saw. And we should factor in the still camera, also. Street photographers/cameras are not invisible (some more some less), they interact with who/what is being photographed on some level. "Candid" is a tricky term to apply. It is fun with a TLR, as few reconize it as a camera and one can photograph off to the left or right without being noticed...and the 'click' can't be heard over the city noise.

.

 

[radiant]

I need to confess, I made street photography sin yesterday. I cropped.

Have a good day everyone if you crop or not!

 

[NB23]

I need to confess, I made street photography sin yesterday. I cropped.

Have a good day everyone if you crop or not!

I’m not sure what exactly you’ve gained by cropping.

 

[DonJ]

I’m not sure what exactly you’ve gained by cropping.

I prefer the cropped composition, specifically the arc of the fence, placement of the runner in the frame, and removal of the distracting branches in upper right.

 

[removed account4]

What's absurd again about having to not pay a penny for shooting a thousand takes vs. paying what, close to a buck for each one?

IDK
while your calculations might be right for some folks, some have not chosen that lifestyle.
my 5x7 sheet film = 1¢/sheet, and chemistry = 1¢/process, paper negatives even less.

i think the point is to enjoy oneself -- if someone chooses to buy gear W/E, it's their happy place.

==

getting back to the OP
crop or don't crop sure s'allgood, unless you are making contact prints then it can be tricky

 

[radiant]

I prefer the cropped composition, specifically the arc of the fence, placement of the runner in the frame, and removal of the distracting branches in upper right.

Happy that someone else thinks the cropped is better; just these things I was after. Also (maybe contained in previous) I removed the gravel ground from front while maintaing the original ratio (1:1). Loosing part of the water is not bad; there is still water visible.

 

[NB23]

I prefer the cropped composition, specifically the arc of the fence, placement of the runner in the frame, and removal of the distracting branches in upper right.

I don’t agree. No more breathing space and it looks cropped.
The problem with the image is clearly at the shooting stage. Having composed by aiming more upwards would have solved everything. As it is now, nothing can save the cut off building at the top.

Clearly, salvaging a shot after the fact is never gonna replace what a careful composition can do.

 

[radiant]

The problem with the image is clearly at the shooting stage. Having composed by aiming more upwards would have solved everything. As it is now, nothing can save the cut off building at the top.

Thanks for the feedback! The building in back is quite tall and it couldn't fit the scene in that way at all so I decided to cut it hard. I couldn't say it is cropped just by looking at the end result. Maybe some day!

It is really good that we talk these things by examples and not just by telling our own preferences by words.

 

[radiant]

Ha! I had a wider version too!

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I don’t agree. No more breathing space and it looks cropped.
The problem with the image is clearly at the shooting stage. Having composed by aiming more upwards would have solved everything. As it is now, nothing can save the cut off building at the top.

Clearly, salvaging a shot after the fact is never gonna replace what a careful composition can do.

The problems lie in immediacy of street shooting, or wedding for that matter and similar kinds where things can happen without notice and to capture it, you have to got be quick, no time to fully compose. In slow mo shooting city- land-scapes, close ups etc. it is quite the opposite and time should be taken to use the frame to its fullest, perhaps leaving some margin for final image making.

Still cropping is part of the process, tailors keep adjusting a garment until it fits right (or advise liposuction, if nothing else works), cooks keep spicing things up until it tastes right.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

IDK
while your calculations might be right for some folks, some have not chosen that lifestyle.
my 5x7 sheet film = 1¢/sheet, and chemistry = 1¢/process, paper negatives even less.

i think the point is to enjoy oneself -- if someone chooses to buy gear W/E, it's their happy place.

==

getting back to the OP,
crop or don't crop sure s'allgood, unless you are making contact prints then it can be tricky

I don't know what you are referring to, 120 film is 6-8 bucks (or a lot more for some emulsions), for 12 shots it is already 50 cents plus a piece, 15 takes down a bit, 8 back up to a buck.

But let's not deviate form what OP was asking about.

 

[Vaughn]

The problems lie in immediacy of street shooting, or wedding for that matter and similar kinds where things can happen without notice and to capture it, you have to got be quick, no time to fully compose. In slow mo shooting city- land-scapes, close ups etc. it is quite the opposite and time should be taken to use the frame to its fullest, perhaps leaving some margin for final image making.

Still cropping is part of the process, tailors keep adjusting a garment until it fits right (or advise liposuction, if nothing else works), cooks keep spicing things up until it tastes right.

I will disagree slightly and say it is not the type of photography one does that is the difference, but the photographer themselves. People work differently with different purposes and goals. Cropping does not solve any visual issues for me and my work, therefore I do not do it. For others it does. Photography for me is a matter of Seeing -- thus even with street photography, framing the image in-camera is very important to me, so I do it. Other photographers have other equally valid ways of approaching photography.

 

[Vaughn]

Ha! I had a wider version too!

For me, your original crop destroyed the sense of space and created a rather flat uninteresting image. This image is better than the crop and about equal to the first uncropped image.

 

[logan2z]

But let's not deviate form what OP was asking about.

That train left the station a long time ago

 

[Deleted member 88956]

That train left the station a long time ago

It's been rerouted due to rail work and it's steaming to where it had been going

 

[removed account4]

I don't know what you are referring to, 120 film is 6-8 bucks (or a lot more for some emulsions), for 12 shots it is already 50 cents plus a piece, 15 takes down a bit, 8 back up to a buck.

But let's not deviate form what OP was asking about.

you were going on previously about how expensive film is vs how inexpensive digital is ..
i was telling you that for me at least --- sheet film i shoot is a cent ( 1¢ ) / sheet or less and processing is about a cent / sheet ( 1¢ )
roll film, i don't spend nearly what you claim it costs. 6-8 bucks ? no where near that much is what i pay and have paid for IDK 15 years?
and processing is again about a cent / roll ( 1¢ ) ..
so as i said maybe your claims are true for you and for some people, maybe you and others spend that much on your film and processing
but some folks pay a lot less than that for both their materials and processing. generally speaking it's easy to make broad generalizations ...
you and others deviated from logan2z's original post a couple of pages ago --- but unless you didn't read my reply to it in the post you replied to
i'll repeat it a little differently - crop don't crop doesn't matter, just do whatever you are going to do with gusto ...

 

[logan2z]

thus even with street photography, framing the image in-camera is very important to me, so I do it.

The difference that I've been trying to point out (unsuccessfully ) is that once you take the time to stop and accurately frame what I've been referring to in this thread as a 'street photograph', you've probably already missed the moment you were trying to capture - and by 'moment' I mean the relative positions of people, their facial expressions, a gesture, etc. If by 'street photograph' you are referring to an urban landscape comprised of mostly static objects, then I agree that there's no excuse for not accurately framing/composing.

 

[CMoore]

The difference that I've been trying to point out (unsuccessfully ) is that once you take the time to stop and accurately frame what I've been referring to in this thread as a 'street photograph', you've probably already missed the moment you were trying to capture - and by 'moment' I mean the relative positions of people, their facial expressions, a gesture, etc. If by 'street photograph' you are referring to an urban landscape comprised of mostly static objects, then I agree that there's no excuse for not accurately framing/composing.

You are wasting your keyboard.
People will look at a picture taken at Dachau and say Lee Miller F'd it up.....she chopped off part of a guys ear. She should have simply turned her body a few inches.
But she did not, so the photo should be tossed into the trash.

Nit-Picking, Sewing Circle, Pearl Clutching...... you get the gist.
Good Luck

 

[Deleted member 88956]

You are wasting your keyboard.
People will look at a picture taken at Dachau and say Lee Miller F'd it up.....she chopped off part of a guys ear. She should have simply turned her body a few inches.
But she did not, so the photo should be tossed into the trash.

Nit-Picking, Sewing Circle, Pearl Clutching...... you get the gist.
Good Luck

Or be either an appeaser to viewers' general average, procrastinate to no end, or stand your ground and make a point what you presented (cropped or not) was indeed intended.

 

[warden]

There is an excellent new episode out of The Modern Art Notes podcast which focuses on the upcoming Dorthea Lange show at MoMA. There is an interesting discussion of multiple cropped versions of some of her negatives.

I'll leave it to the experts to decide if any of her work was "street". ;-)

https://manpodcast.com/portfolio/no-429-dorothea-lange-soul-of-a-nation/

 

[Sirius Glass]

I need to confess, I made street photography sin yesterday. I cropped.

Have a good day everyone if you crop or not!

I’m not sure what exactly you’ve gained by cropping.

I don’t agree. No more breathing space and it looks cropped.
The problem with the image is clearly at the shooting stage. Having composed by aiming more upwards would have solved everything. As it is now, nothing can save the cut off building at the top.

Clearly, salvaging a shot after the fact is never gonna replace what a careful composition can do.

For me, your original crop destroyed the sense of space and created a rather flat uninteresting image. This image is better than the crop and about equal to the first uncropped image.

The uncropped version is much better. It give the curved railing space to gain momentum before the eye gets to the jogger.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...
But let's not deviate form what OP was asking about.

That train left the station a long time ago

It's been rerouted due to rail work and it's steaming to where it had been going

Yes, the train left the station and sailed down the track only to sink in the bay.

 

[cliveh]

There are some very interesting opinions on this subject and I don’t really understand what street photography is. I would like to think of it more in terms of environmental photography. There is nothing wrong with cropping, but if you are of the Bresson school, I would suggest it is more a case of framing and then timing. To quote HCB “If you find an interesting composition and wait long enough, it will become more interesting.” Also a cropped image shows the same perspective as a wider shot from the same subject to camera distance and so when you crop, you show a narrow viewpoint from the scene in general (not that there is anything wrong with that, although as some have said “why not get closer in the first place” and have others have said “you may miss a decisive moment.”

This brings me to another point that could be worthy of its own thread. If you take a modern digital camera and record video and then select a single frame from a sequence, is this the same as pressing the shutter at a given moment to arrest that decisive moment. I would say not, but the laws of physics may say otherwise.

 

[Vaughn]

The difference that I've been trying to point out (unsuccessfully ) is that once you take the time to stop and accurately frame what I've been referring to in this thread as a 'street photograph', you've probably already missed the moment you were trying to capture...

With experience and determination, I believe a person can do both at the same time -- capture the moment perfectly, have it well composed, and full-frame. Its is all a matter if the photographer wants to work that way or not...it is a matter of learning how to anticipate the action and being aware of ones surroundings. Is it easy, no. Will one miss some images, yes, but that happens anyway no matter what ones method is. Does it mean one never crops, no.

 

[Vaughn]

The uncropped version is much better. It give the curved railing space to gain momentum before the eye gets to the jogger.

Exactly -- that was one of the main problems I had with the cropped image...it became just (or could not be anything more than) a 2D image on the screen.