Cropping in the darkroom

[NedL]

...
If it turns out to be worth it, I will have to crop.
...

There might be a good MSA for it right now too

 

[Bill Burk]

Good idea NedL! I'll keep going back. At the rate that whale's going... It'll be flying within a week.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I have no problem with cropping in the darkroom. To me it is the final point of composition. I'm speaking of landscape photography. Studio or portrait or catalog photography is a different matter but in the field I feel the point of view is the first consideration and it is not always possible to move in our out to get the four sides as you would like them. So cropping is the most natural thing to do.

 

[David Brown]

If you need to crop, don't you need more practice in camera framing?

No.

 

[Peltigera]

If you need to crop, don't you need more practice in camera framing? Or do you need to use a different format ratio suited to what you are trying to achieve?

So which camera offers me Golden Ratio negatives? Cropping is essential if you want aesthetically pleasing prints.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

 

[FujiLove]

Another reason I crop is that after inspecting the negative I realise something was happening in the periphery that I didn't notice in the viewfinder (tourist staring dead-eyed at your Rollei, dog cocking it's leg against a bin...). It may have been because it was a quickly taken shot with no time to check everything, or because the viewfinder simply doesn't cover 100% of the negative. It's about 90% on my Pentax 6x7. So it's crop it or waste what could be a great print. Why not? Outside of HCB's portfolio, I'll bet 99% of all the great prints you have seen were cropped, straightened or otherwise manipulated in some way.

 

[coigach]

...Outside of HCB's portfolio, I'll bet 99% of all the great prints you have seen were cropped, straightened or otherwise manipulated in some way.

Suspect you've hit the nail on the head there. If memory serves, Clive, the original poster is a big HCB fan.

PS - I've always enjoyed your work Clive, but have just revisited your APUG gallery, and I'm enjoying your pictures all over again.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Oops, I don't have a 233mm lens with me, just a 210; guess I'll have to crop.

Oh, I don't really want 4:5 ratio, but 3.65933:5; guess I'll have to crop.

Wouldn't this look great in panorama format. Too bad I don't own a pano camera. It would probably be to heavy to haul along anyway; guess I'll have to crop.

That alligator-infested swamp doesn't look like a place I want to set up to take a photo; looks like I'll have to set up farther away and crop.

Wow, look how much better this photo will be if I remove this part of it! Why didn't I see that when I was shooting? Guess I'll have to crop.

Hey, look at this! I've got an image that is perfect from edge-to-edge on 4x5 sheet film. Too bad my negative carrier cuts of a bit of the image. Guess I'll have to file... Should have framed a bit more loosely and cropped...

Good thing I'm shooting sheet film.

Doremus

 

[FujiLove]

PS - I've always enjoyed your work Clive, but have just revisited your APUG gallery, and I'm enjoying your pictures all over again.

The 'Light from a glass jar' gallery is superb. I think I've just been inspired

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If you need to crop, don't you need more practice in camera framing? Or do you need to use a different format ratio suited to what you are trying to achieve?

cropping is part of image composition and there is no reason composition can't happen in the darkroom too.

 

[Jim Jones]

I have maybe 25,000 Kodachrome slides filed away that were intended to be projected onto a screen, and therefore were cropped in the camera. Now it's so much better to be able to crop in the darkroom.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Another reason I crop is that after inspecting the negative I realise something was happening in the periphery that I didn't notice in the viewfinder (tourist staring dead-eyed at your Rollei, dog cocking it's leg against a bin...). It may have been because it was a quickly taken shot with no time to check everything, or because the viewfinder simply doesn't cover 100% of the negative. It's about 90% on my Pentax 6x7. So it's crop it or waste what could be a great print. Why not? Outside of HCB's portfolio, I'll bet 99% of all the great prints you have seen were cropped, straightened or otherwise manipulated in some way.

... tree branch growing out of someone's ear, or a tree or telephone pole rising out of a head ...

 

[DWThomas]

Well I normally compose to use the full frame of whatever format I'm shooting, and for the most part I print the image that way. But in my admittedly infrequent printing 1) I never let the paper dictate the format, and 2) if I see another picture within the picture I may well crop and bring it out (liberate it!) And FujiLove's point about missing something in the periphery and excising it in the darkroom is also important. For me this is a hobby -- I do what I want!!

Unless one prints the entire negative, including rebates (which I have done when contact printing some 8x10 pinhole shots), what viewer can be sure whether the image on the wall was cropped or not?! And do they really care?

"Whatever"
:munch:

 

[FujiLove]

... tree branch growing out of someone's ear, or a tree or telephone pole rising out of a head ...

Yeah, it's almost always the pole out of the head for me. Unfortunately, tough to crop that out, much to the annoyance of my better half.

 

[Sirius Glass]

All the more reason to shoot MF with a camera that has a large clear and bright viewfinders so that one can avoid those things before the photograph is taken.

 

[markbarendt]

All the more reason to shoot MF with a camera that has a large clear and bright viewfinders so that one can avoid those things before the photograph is taken.

Oh yeah, what he said.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm too tired to read and absorb this whole thread. I've always cropped the best I can to fit the format for the final print. If/when I can ever start shooting again then I'll do the same. I'm limiting myself to 4x5 with either sheet film or a 6x12cm RFH because I'm not sure I can handle an 8x10 of any kind anymore. Either way, cropping could be 4:5 or 2:3 or 1:2. For 4:5, the choice is obvious but for 2:3 I'll crop 4x5 to that ratio. If I want 1:2 then I'll shoot roll film.

 

[cliveh]

Some posts have mentioned HCB and I think it is quite ironic that probably his most iconic image, that of the puddle jumper is cropped, but if you listen to him describing how he made this image to a BBC reporter in London at the time of one of his exhibitions he expresses this lost integrity through body language and exclamation.

 

[DannL.]

My favorite tool for cropping is the paper cutter. When used, the crop is final . . . at least for that print. There is something exciting about the process, as the large heavy razor sharp blade slices every single paper fiber it meets. There is no mercy when the edge meets paper. The permanent elimination of the unwanted and undesirable elements of the print. Truly exhilarating.

 

[markbarendt]

Some posts have mentioned HCB and I think it is quite ironic that probably his most iconic image, that of the puddle jumper is cropped, but if you listen to him describing how he made this image to a BBC reporter in London at the time of one of his exhibitions he expresses this lost integrity through body language and exclamation.

The "integrity" lost though, is purely artificial. It's an intellectual argument rather than a practical one. The picture is great regardless of how he got there.

If HCB had used a longer lens to crop the content instead (resulting in the same scene being printed) would that somehow have fixed the integrity issue?

IMO, cropping with the camera lens is fully equivalent to cropping with the enlarger. With regard to grain and resolution that's another thing, a small thing.

 

[cliveh]

The "integrity" lost though, is purely artificial. It's an intellectual argument rather than a practical one. The picture is great regardless of how he got there.

If HCB had used a longer lens to crop the content instead (resulting in the same scene being printed) would that somehow have fixed the integrity issue?

IMO, cropping with the camera lens is fully equivalent to cropping with the enlarger. With regard to grain and resolution that's another thing, a small thing.

No, because that would require a different distance and change perspective.

 

[M Carter]

So if cropping at the enlarger is somehow a "lesser" version of your art - then isn't split-grade printing? Dodging and burning? Toning?

Taking a photo is an art, as is deciding on the development that gives you the neg that's your interpretation, as is the whole printing process. Why toss out one more tool?

I've had shots cropped in-camera just fine, but then I've played with further cropping and found a powerful change in how the image feels to me. I've taken shots I loved and noticed later a power line cutting one corner (especially with camera without 100% VF coverage). Sometimes the time you have to get the shot doesn't allow a chin-rubbing moment of reflection and analysis - you can do that all day in the darkroom.

The moment you snap the photo you've made a creative decision. The idea that you can re-interpret that decision with layers of new decisions is a lovely thing to my mind.

It's all cute and curmudgeonly to suggest that someone who crops while printing is somehow lazy, has lesser talent, whatever - but it's also kind of insulting and myopic and suggests a very limited view of a limitless craft.

 

[cliveh]

So if cropping at the enlarger is somehow a "lesser" version of your art - then isn't split-grade printing? Dodging and burning? Toning?

Taking a photo is an art, as is deciding on the development that gives you the neg that's your interpretation, as is the whole printing process. Why toss out one more tool?

I've had shots cropped in-camera just fine, but then I've played with further cropping and found a powerful change in how the image feels to me. I've taken shots I loved and noticed later a power line cutting one corner (especially with camera without 100% VF coverage). Sometimes the time you have to get the shot doesn't allow a chin-rubbing moment of reflection and analysis - you can do that all day in the darkroom.

The moment you snap the photo you've made a creative decision. The idea that you can re-interpret that decision with layers of new decisions is a lovely thing to my mind.

It's all cute and curmudgeonly to suggest that someone who crops while printing is somehow lazy, has lesser talent, whatever - but it's also kind of insulting and myopic and suggests a very limited view of a limitless craft.

Wow, calm down, I'm not suggesting any of that, but just expressing a personal preference.

 

[OptiKen]

What's wrong with cropping?
My camera crops every shot I take or else they would all be round circles.
Sometimes things get in the way of 'getting close' to fill the frame.
A street - a river - a canyon - mud - the sky - etc.
If all of my photos were shot in 35mm with a 50 mm lens and printed exactly as they are on the negative, it would be a very boring portfolio indeed.
To say nothing of action shots that may not give you enough time to frame them.
I like to think that I create photographs more than just take them.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Good grief... in-camera cropping is something we all do. The idea is to crop (compose) as best we can when we take the shot. If we didn't compose before taking the shot then we might as well wildly shoot 16x20 film with ultra-wide lenses and crop 135 format images from somewhere in those negatives. The point is to squeeze as much quality as we can from our format(s) of choice.