Cropping - good or evil?

Cheryl Jacobs · Feb 9, 2004

i dont think we are talking about the elitism here. we are talking about the practice. i dont say that if u crop sometimes u dont know to compose, yes, sometimes it is very important to make a good crop even if it problematic. but imagine that there is a photographer that just take pictures and then in the darkroom creates them from the biggining. can we say about such photographer that he knows what he is doing in terms of proffessionalism and understanding and implamentation of the understanding. of course there are cases that u say on the street, just push the shutter, no time to go, to move etc. i was working on some "social portraits" not long time ago. u walk in those poor neibourhoods and u see things that can amaze u. mother hits her children, housband screams on her wife etc.. no time for "perfect composition" just scale the focus, approximate the exposure if needed and push the shutter. yes, in the darkroom u may crop it. but then i started to realize once again the importance of full frame. the plus point of those photos is that even th cropping is excusable when u capture such shocking moments.

Gotta say, I don't understand why the shocking moments are OK to crop, but not candid portraits. I don't sit a kid down on a stool in a studio and place his hands just so, etc. I photograph kids candidly in their own environment, and they are allowed to just carry on pretty much as usual -- playing, running, jumping on the bed, whatever. I do this almost entirely with 6x6 format, handheld, and manual focus. That in itself is rather challenging. But I will tell you that it is simply impossible and entirely impractical to wait for those shots you can successfully shoot full-frame. Can you imagine the moments you would miss? It would make for very disappointed clients and a very frustrated photographer....

victor · Feb 9, 2004

cheryl, first of all i love your photos. second, yes i think that u can make without cropping. when i say cropping by the way, i dont mean to make 66 rectangular. i dont even mean to steal one mm from here or there. im talking about changing the picture. let us say.. if u make on your 66camera and say 60mm lense a picture and then crop it to look like the frame u would get from the 80mm or 120. by the way, im totally manual too.

read my comments if u want in the "etics/philosophy" - "zen", i hope i guide u correctly. i have some attitude that i express there, and if be helpfull to u than great.

Cheryl Jacobs · Feb 9, 2004

second, yes i think that u can make without cropping. when i say cropping by the way, i dont mean to make 66 rectangular.

Not to be argumentative....

No, some of the images I've made I simply could not have made without significant cropping -- yes, the sort that changes the image. I could not have done it any more than you could have photographed your "shocking" moments without cropping. The moment suddenly unfolds; if you recompose, even if to only step forward or backward and refocus, the moment is gone.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment.

victor · Feb 9, 2004

well my dear, in that case im with u. the principle here is very simple... if u can do it than no excuses. and one must be very aware of what is going on. if u cannot - simply no way to make what u want and the moment is great etc, than crop of course. cheryl, i dont want u to have the impression that im talking here about deterministic perfection. it happens that i crop too though i dont like it. the point is not to get used to it. generaly, if u feel that u want to be concentrated on something then be closer any way or use longer lense if u dont want to make the place too crouded or u accept the percpective change of the long lense (by the way, when u crop that what happens exactly, but with reduced film area)

Cheryl Jacobs · Feb 9, 2004

Here's what I mean. This was a very, very fleeting moment. Only time to react, and I somehow managed to focus. No chance whatsoever of moving closer and getting the shot. This is a fairly significant crop.

victor · Feb 9, 2004

im with u here as well. the image is very veyr good. u are a really gifted photographer, have seen some other photos of yours. u know what it means to be good... = to make life sometimes hard in order to be better. a simple logic -if u are good that usually means that u can be even better. so why not.
let me make it harder for a moment ant tell in aproximation what was the situation of this pic... the camera, the lense, your destance from the girl etc...

Cheryl Jacobs · Feb 9, 2004

Victor, sorry -- I can't even begin to remember the details of this shot. I can only tell you that it is a significant crop of a 6x6 neg, and that's about it.

victor · Feb 9, 2004

ok,
by the way cheryl, what paper do u use. cause from the images on your net it seems that they are balanced to one paper?

Cheryl Jacobs · Feb 9, 2004

I changed back and forth a bit, depending on the image and what is available at the time. Some or Ilford Warmtone (which I'm not crazy about.) Some are Bergger, some are Ilford Gallerie, a few are Forte. I always use Ultrablack developer, which helps the prints stay a bit more uniform than they might otherwise.

victor · Feb 9, 2004

oh, tell me about forte, the warmtones one. i use the ilford warmtone when i want warmtone cause this is the only one in israel. how is the forte.
i love very much the ilford mgw in bromophen, but it is good to know how it is (the forte) compared to ilf

noblebeast · Feb 10, 2004

Given the highly spirited debate that is going on in another forum topic concerning cropping, and taking that into consideration along with the discussion here, I think we are overlooking a perfect opportunity to invent some new "photography terminology."

For example: if someone frames the image carefully in the viewfinder, this would be "Pre-cropping."

If one reframes the image in the darkroom, this would be "Post-cropping."

If the photographer changes the image by a different focal length lens, the lens could become a "crop circle." (Okay, a bit of a stretch - it's late)

And while some photographers may not give a crop, still others think their crops don't stink.

Who else will help me add to this glossary of terms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Without a sense of humor, it's just not funny" - Wavy Gravy :upsidedo:

Aggie · Feb 10, 2004

Ole · Feb 10, 2004

noblebeast said:
If the photographer changes the image by a different focal length lens, the lens could become a "crop circle." (Okay, a bit of a stretch - it's late)

Nope - a crop circle is what happens when the lens doesn't have enough coverage for the film format. Like using a 105mm Xenar on 5x7" film - instant in-camera "crop circle"!

victor · Feb 10, 2004

ay ole, u r rite.

but noblebeast,
what u say actually is that, ole for example can take his technika, with say 55mm apo grandagon (i think it can cover the 57", ole) and say this: well in the darkroom i will decide what cropp = make it like 45" (and then he will have etreme wide) or i can decide to crop it like 69cm (here it is wide) or 66 (which is moderate) andf finally he can choose a film area which is similar to 35mm format and say that it is a normal perspective.
well cool, but there are two points...
-why to spent 57" negative for a tiny area.
and if that the case, that u come up and print smaller, why just dont take a smaller camera. it will be much eassier to use, it will give u more frames, so that u can try to photograph it again from a different approach.
-and the second thing is this...

add to it another point.. i choosed to photograph with 55mm because i wanted wide with all its characteristics (field of view, optical geometrical character etc). a slight cropp of a few milimeters is not the point, but a cropp... if i need cropping that means that i should use longer lense, or go closer. in this example we silmulate situation of the view camera use... i have enough time to think what i want and how i want to make it.
i am mad about my 55mm grandagon (use it on 69 view camera), the quality is top line. but i take now my film from my view camera (which was exposed while the camera on tripod of course etc) crop it like 35mm, then i take same picture on 35mm body with the normal lense(50mm) even without the tripod. guees which one is better quality - the outcome of 35mm camera. why... well, it is all about metematical numbers which express the performance of the lense. the small format lenses disigned to perform on a small area, and to give the highset possible performance there. that is why the same rodenstok make digital lenses, cause for digital backs the different distribution of the light energy is needed. or, when i use 69cm format which is twice smaller than 9/12cm and much smaller than 57".i need better and sharper lenses (not digital) to compete with the quality of bigger format.

dr bob · Feb 10, 2004

Most of my negatives are either 6x6, 6x7 mm, or 4x5. Unfortunately my world does not fit any of these formats and I find I must crop in the cameras, on the easel, and on the mat sorry.

I have only sold one square formatted print ever. If the owner will permit, I might try and put a copy in my gallery. I do not mind saying that no matter how hard I try nor how much time I take in the exposure process. it seems that there is always room for improvement while printing.

When a member of a camera club, I witnessed several products of photographers who were very proud of their non-cropped images. Many were really bad. Cropping is certainly not a panacea, but it can be a very helpful tool if carefully controlled.

(After thought: Personally, the final product is the important element, not the experience of climbing rocks, wading ponds, or freezing while organizing equipment, dropping my meter, or leveling a tripod {while models laugh their *** off at my clumbsiness})

victor · Feb 10, 2004

dr bob...
i dont photograph rocks and stones etc. actually most of my photos are dynamic situations. people, nude, etc. i do still too and street as well. when i say to try the full format i dont mean to walk around the model a hour or so just to find the print that will not be cropped. the thing is to analyze why u tend to crop and then, with expiereance, u will be able to push your self using the given film area. actually i can say that it becomes very intuitive. with such studies one first finds the frame and then puts the camera in the place and then tuning it a bit. i feel very dynamic even with the view camera, not to mention the 35mm.
by the way, changing the format (example, making 69cm as 67cm or 45" to panoramic 612) is not cropping if u do it simetrically.
u crop if u have no choice, but with it it is very important to use fully the given format.

BobF · Feb 10, 2004

victor said:
by the way, changing the format (example, making 69cm as 67cm or 45" to panoramic 612) is not cropping if u do it simetrically.

So if I crop to 35mm from 4x5 but do it symmetrically it's not cropping? But if I chop off the left 1/4" it is cropping? :wacko:

Cropping is cropping and cropping is ok by me but if someone wishes to place arbitrary restrictions on his work then go for it. It's your work and you can define it however you want.

If I am a lesser photographer because I crop, then so be it. It's my work. I have placed arbitrary restrictions on what I do also as I don't use digital and I have heard that some might find that weird.

Bob

victor · Feb 10, 2004

bob...
i said cutting symetrically. for example ... 9x12cm format to make it like 6x12. that means that u cut 1.5cm from each side (top and dawn).

Annemarieke · Feb 10, 2004

BobF, I entirely agree with you. Whatever you chop off your image, it _is_ cropping_ symmetrical or not. An image can improve dramatically if you do crop, but cropping doesn't work for all images. There is nothing wrong with cropping.

Just look at Cheryl's master pieces. That's proof enough for me.
Anne Marieke

Poco · Feb 10, 2004

So, if I have a square final image in mind, I'm not allowed to use a 4x5 or other rectangular format to shoot it? Or is it the intention that's important: that I'm allowed to crop after exposure so long as I know ahead of the exposure that I will do so?

noblebeast · Feb 10, 2004

Am I the only one feeling incredulous that this discussion merits this many posts?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is serious, but Art is Fun"
- John Irving, from "The Hotel New Hampshire"

BobF · Feb 10, 2004

noblebeast said:
Am I the only one feeling incredulous that this discussion merits this many posts?

It does get silly doesn't it?

Cheryl Jacobs · Feb 10, 2004

It does get silly doesn't it?

Yes, so long as we all agree that cropping is OK.

RAP · Feb 10, 2004

I crop, unless the government grants me a subsidy not to. :whistle:

Seriously, I do feel as if I failed if I have to crop. But it can be a good learning tool. Crop, rethink the image, and if at all possible, go back and do it again and again until you get it right. Subject matter close to home can be done over and over, which is why I encourage students to have a set route so you can revisit year round. Landscape painters will carry several canvases out into the field and go to location after location so to get as many moods and lighting situtations into their works.

With 8x10 and larger, you certainly tend to be much more methodical, careful in your shooting. Especially when you have to process such large negatives. I sometime shoot 4x5's like 35mm, shooting several sheets, until I am satisfied. Which images, I'll never tell, and no one has to know either.

But then again, with portraits you cannot always do it. Arnold Newman's head shot of Picasso was from a croped 4x5 negative. Though you would never know it by just looking at the print hanging on the wall. Kertez shooting mostly 35mm from the hip, how many negatives did he crop? It all depends on what you trying to accomplish. BUt once you hang it on the wall, that should be the end of it.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 10, 2004

Did Holbein crop?:

What about Whistler? Did he crop?:

Maybe Gauguin cropped--that slacker vegging out in Tahiti:

Dead Link Removed

Vermeer looks like he was using a long lens, or maybe he just cropped to get that compression of space. No way did he get that close to this lady. After all the picture is about the size of a postcard. He definitely cropped it down from a bigger picture, I'd say:

Cropping - good or evil?

Do you crop your prints?

Yes

No, I print full frame

No, I print full frame with negative borders

Cheryl Jacobs

victor

Cheryl Jacobs

victor

Cheryl Jacobs

victor

Cheryl Jacobs

victor

Cheryl Jacobs

victor

noblebeast

Aggie

Ole

Moderator

victor

dr bob

victor

BobF

victor

Annemarieke

Poco

noblebeast

BobF

Cheryl Jacobs

RAP

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Cropping - good or evil?

Do you crop your prints?

Yes

No, I print full frame

No, I print full frame with negative borders

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency