Cropping in the darkroom

For close up work I will sometimes be forced to leave excess image at the time of exposure, I will always crop to aspect ratio and get rid of extra background when preparing to print.

For medium and small format work I will always crop in camera , and will slightly crop to straighten horizon if required, but still keep aspect ratio.

So I am from the Minimal Crop camp.

Bob Carnie said:

For close up work I will sometimes be forced to leave excess image at the time of exposure, I will always crop to aspect ratio and get rid of extra background when preparing to print.

For medium and small format work I will always crop in camera , and will slightly crop to straighten horizon if required, but still keep aspect ratio.

So I am from the Minimal Crop camp.

Click to expand...

No, you are still a bit iffy and although a bit from the minimal crop camp you are not yet of the Zen camp. However, you are getting there. But why do you think a horizon should be straight? It may be vertical, if that is how you wish to express your interpretation of what you see.

cliveh said:

Correct, so why do it again?

Click to expand...

Well, for me, because I'm not shooting instant/direct to finished result media and because not every frame I shoot is going to be a keeper and because I don't want to waste time chasing the perfect framing and absolutely level camera or whatever else while my subjects and companions are moving on with life or twiddling their thumbs.

When I'm out shooting I'm just after the raw materials I need to work with later. I want to focus on the things that will make the biggest differences in the finished result and my life: great expressions, perfect timing, nice lighting, great backgrounds, great rapport, friendships, referrals, ...

Also, with negative film post processing is required if I want a positive print and I like doing the crop refinements later, in the darkroom, alone, with plenty of time. There is so little extra work required to crop in the darkroom that it seems silly to me to chase perfect framing in the field.

My question to you is, why not do it again?

markbarendt said:

My question to you is, why not do it again?

Click to expand...

Because the more you can achieve at the start, will require less adjustment towards the end result and have more integrity. Your question is a bit like the student who says they don't need to frame or light the model as they like, because they can fix it down the line with Photoshop.

I never failed to plan ahead nor shot so quickly that I didn't have time to change lenses and/or move to the right position. I just never needed to crop after shooting. But then, I never shot street scenes or worried about grabbing everything I saw. I guess I'll never understand shooting so rapidly that one hasn't the time to compose. I'm not criticizing those who do. I just never needed to for the kinds of photography I did. For the images "I" did, I considered the need for cropping sloppy shooting unless it was necessary for a different aspect ratio than the film format and even then I rarely cropped in the DR.

Because the more you can achieve at the start, will require less adjustment towards the end result and have more integrity.<snip>

Click to expand...

sorry, but 'integrity' ?

cliveh said:

Because the more you can achieve at the start, will require less adjustment towards the end result and have more integrity.

Click to expand...

The work, cropping, has to be done somewhere. Less work in one spot means more in another. You work hard to get the crop right in camera, I do that work by choice and design while printing.

As to integrity I need to ask, in relation to who's standard? I ask because most of us aren't shooting for news organizations. I'm not artistically beholden to f64's or HCB's rules. I do generally follow the rules of physics though.

cliveh said:

Your question is a bit like the student who says they don't need to frame or light the model as they like, because they can fix it down the line with Photoshop.

Click to expand...

A reasonable analogy, so what?

No, it's not PS that I'm suggesting here.

I have worked hard to find the limits of my materials and design a process that makes camera work easier for me and less of a hassle for the people around me. I purposefully and systematically have shifted work away from the camera so that I can pay attention more to lighting, posing, general composition, focus, and people rather than perfect framing and absolute accuracy of in camera exposure.

That choice to shift work away from the camera doesn't mean I don't have a goal or standards or that my photos lack integrity.

When I am shooting time is a precious and fluid commodity, my subjects aren't typically on my schedule, they are running on theirs. Unless I'm in a studio or shooting Mt. Hood my subjects aren't standing still and waiting patiently. Heck I even pick cameras for their social moxie; my RB is by far the best conversation starter, my Holga is looked upon as a joke and ignored which is really useful socially at times, the prints from either are no joke though.

It seems to me that there is a perception on the part of some in the "never crop" camp that cropping is somehow a sign of sloppiness or lack of artistic rigor. The "integrity" (artistic or otherwise) of cropped images has even been called into question.

While I'm sure there are some for whom cropping is a shortcut, there are many of us who crop regularly and who hold ourselves to the strictest personal standards. Cropping is, in these cases, an integral part of the way the photographer works, and based on a clear vision of the desired end result. I'll elaborate some of my reasons again, using a different approach.

Although I respect those who commit themselves to working in only one or two given aspect ratios, dictated by the film format(s) they use, and who try to compose each shot to its fullest within those constraints (usually these are photographers who use smaller formats), I work differently. The aspect ratios of my photographs are rarely the same; they are subject-driven and determined carefully and (hopefully) insightfully to best portray the subjects with the most possible impact and to communicate the emotions that I want. Personally, I would hate being constrained by a 4x5 aspect ratio (even though that's what I shoot) and even more so 5x7 or 24x35...

So, I crop to get the aspect ratio I desire; there is no other way to achieve this tailoring of aspect ratio to subject.

Perspective is determined by camera position. Finding the right spot to place my camera for a shot takes most of my creative time when making an image. However, after determining camera position and the framing I want (see above), I rarely have a lens that will let me take full advantage of the negative area; I need to use the next-shorter focal length I have with me from "ideal" (which may be a length that isn't even manufactured). Let me stress that moving closer is not an option in this case; it would change the perspective I have so carefully chosen to begin with. (An aside here: with 35mm cameras and zoom lenses, this is much less of an issue. One can frame to any focal length in the zoom range. For those of us who are constrained to use prime lenses and who, for whatever reason, don't always carry every commercially-available focal length with them at all times, shooting looser and cropping later is the only practical solution.)

So, I crop to keep the perspective I desire; there is no other way to achieve this with the lens selection I have with me.

Even though I crop regularly, I always have a clear idea of how I want to present the image I'm working on with regard to aspect ratio and perspective. That's enough artistic integrity for me I'm not about to compromise my intentions for a particular image to the aspect ratio of the film I happen to be working with or the lens selection I have. However, and especially when shooting under time constraints, in inclement weather or in low-light, the best laid plans of mice and men (me included) do oftimes go astray: Sometimes I can't achieve exactly what I want under the circumstances and, yes (horrors!) I will compromise by shooting loose and cropping-to-compose later. I have the luxury of a bit more film area than 35mm and MF, so this is a viable approach technically, even though it is often a bit of a "Hail Mary." That said, every now and then the "Hail Mary" works; if not, the negative goes into the reject pile with the hundreds of other (more carefully considered and executed) rejects.

So, I crop to compensate for compromising during difficult conditions when photographing; maybe I could have done better, but chose not to since it makes no appreciable difference on the final image. (There goes my integrity...)

Best,

Doremus

Doremus Scudder said:

It seems to me that there is a perception on the part of some in the "never crop" camp that cropping is somehow a sign of sloppiness or lack of artistic rigor. The "integrity" (artistic or otherwise) of cropped images has even been called into question.<major snip>

Click to expand...

^^ exactly (for Doremus' entire post)

Forgive the interjection of humor into the thread, but the title sounds like it should be a theme song if APUG were a hair metal band: Motley APÜG sings, "Croppin' in the Dark Room"!

^^^ Ha ha...

If when I posted my "sloppy" remark, people took it as though I was referring to others, I wasn't. I was referring to the types of images I shot and how I felt about what I did.

I picked up "One Mind's Eye" with photographs by Arnold Newman at a recent booksale...

http://www.amazon.com/One-Minds-Eye-Portraits-Photographs/dp/0879230940

All his photographs seem like they are cropped, and in many cases are collages which I think, by definition, are cropped.

His portrait photograph of Pablo Picasso for example, is cropped and rotated severely from the 4x5 original.

Dead Link Removed


Arnold Newman wrote that he often would shoot both black and white and color with the same setup... So I wasn't surprised to find this color picture of Picasso at La Californie showing him standing (in the black and white photo in the book, Picasso is sitting on a turned-backwards chair).

This reveals he didn't always crop severely, Newman would always use the camera to solve problems at hand.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/02/t-magazine/02lookout-picasso.html?_r=0

TheFlyingCamera said:

Forgive the interjection of humor into the thread, but the title sounds like it should be a theme song if APUG were a hair metal band: Motley APÜG sings, "Croppin' in the Dark Room"!

Click to expand...

Carries similar rebellious undertones too.

Just saw this from another thread here http://hyperallergic.com/256109/see-the-contact-sheets-from-13-legendary-photo-shoots/

Check out the crop penciled in by Erwitt of the Chihuahua and feet.

To me Erwitt's contact sheet provides a great example of working with what you have to do exactly what you want to do.

The owner of the dog looks to be participating by directing the dog and posing, Erwitt is doing whatever he has to, including heavy cropping, to get the shot he wants.

Michael R 1974 said:

Doremus, don't waste your time on this nonsense.

Click to expand...

Actually just killing time Michael... Nothing better to do at that moment; weather's too bad to photograph, I had a couple hours before work, etc.

Plus I kind of like concretizing my thoughts on this.

Best,

Doremus

Almost all my work is 35 mm, 2:3 proportion I think the digital Nikons can be set to that, or I crop 3 mm off the ends if customer wants an 8x10. For my use, I print full frame on 11x14 and get wide borders on the long end.

I crop in camera 99%

After all, photography is just cropping reality, somehow.

Lars

LarsAC said:

After all, photography is just cropping reality, somehow.

Lars

Click to expand...

It seems to me the no cropping rule puts the photographer in a straight jacket of a pre-determined format the manufacturers have made for commerccial reasons which limits the photographer's creativity and freedom just because a manufacturer choses an option which suites his business. Its the tail wagging the dog. Photographers should free to express their creativity without third party restrictions.

Tony

cliveh said:

Please don't miss-understand my original post, as I am not suggesting never crop, but rather if you have to do so it should be quite minimal, otherwise you have not given enough thought into how you framed the original image in the camera (given the format in question).

Click to expand...

Not necessarily at all. That's just your perception of motivation.

As this thread has illustrated, folks crop for all kinds of reasons and they are all personal preference, which means that your preferences for why and how to crop or not are not binding on others. When you use words like "should" you invoke some standard to adhere to when there is no standard of "cropping behavior." When you say someone has "not given enough thought..." you do the same. Unless there is some "cropping law giver" out there whom I'm not familiar with, then you are making your own personal preferences into a rule or law of cropping.

You may not "like" their reasons, but that's much different than saying that they are right or wrong in doing what they do.

It seems to me from reading this thread that you confuse something that's "correct" or "incorrect" with "my preference" vs "your preference"

rpavich said:

It seems to me from reading this thread that you confuse something that's "correct" or "incorrect" with "my preference" vs "your preference"

Click to expand...

A very large amount of discussion on almost any imaginable subject at APUG revolves round this misunderstanding.

For me, the only time that applies is when I shoot reversal/slides.
Even then, using mylar tape, I can crop the slide.

For negative film, invariably, I will want to do something different in the darkroom than what I had in mind when I shot the image. As was mentioned, many times I see other images inside the image that was taken, and to get those, I have to crop.

When I shoot certain types of photos, like action sports or active kids, I do NOT have time to do final cropping in the camera. I have to shoot to the best of my ability to just get the shot. Then do the cropping in the darkroom. Have you ever tried to follow a small kid around the house at a birthday party, or even shooting an 'in place' portrait. Small kids do NOT STAY STILL.

Something I learned the hard way, I need to give MORE space around the subject to be able to crop to a desired paper size. The problem is the HxW ratio of an 8x10 or 11x14 paper vs. a 24x36mm size of a 35mm or a 6x6 film image. Wanting to make an 8x10 print with ALL the image from a 6x6 negative, I will have an 8x8 image with a 1 inch white border on both ends of the long axis. IOW, moving in too tight with the camera, limits your ability to make prints in the darkroom. How many times have you wanted to print the entire long axis of a 35mm negative on 8x10 paper, using the entire paper, because it has to go into a commercial 8x10 frame? Ooops, the image is not wide enough for the paper, drat. What if the client wants both a 5x7 and an 8x10? The HxW ratios are not the same, you have to crop to fit.

As for selecting the camera format, I do not see that as a realistic option. I will take whatever camera I decide to use, whatever the reason. In the field, when I run into a different "format" scene of a different HxW ratio to my camera, I will not go home to get my other camera. I use what I have with me, and plan to make the desired image in the darkroom, by cropping. I am NOT going to carry ALL my cameras with me, as that is a dumb solution to the perceived problem, and I do not have 2 porters and a van to carry ALL my cameras and related gear. And as I get older, I am shifting to lighter gear, with the associated compromise of format and lenses.

I have also shot MANY square compositions with non-square format cameras. I have sometimes run into situations where I could not figure out how to shoot the shot so it was NOT a square. In fact, why force a square image to be a non-square? If the best composition is a square, shoot it as a square. I am also not going to switch cameras from a 35mm to a 6x6 during a shoot just because ONE image is a square format. I will shoot the image with a non-square 35mm camera and crop to a square in the darkroom.

As has been mentioned, image level. I use a P screen in my Nikon, to help with keeping the image level; a horizontal horizon, vertical buildings, etc. But I still end up with images that are NOT level, and for some reason that I do not understand, it has gotten significantly worse as I get older. So I have to leave extra room to crop to level the image in the darkroom. Rather frustrating.

Finally, there is the situation of a book/newspaper/magazine. The editor may give you a desired print size to fit into a spot on the layout, which may have no relation to the image on the negative, and you as the photographer, have to make the best effort to print the negative to the desired size. Example, make a 3x3 print of a flag pole. There is going to be a LOT of excess image on the sides of that flag pole to make that a square, and you NEED that space to accommodate the unpredictablity of the editors. I have had to go back to the editor many times and "try" to tell them I simply cannot make a print of that image ratio, as the image on the negative will not support it. Always with a print with grease pencil lines of the specified print ratio to show them. Yes I was caught short MANY times, and had to force fit an image into a desired print size, and the resulting print was NOT something that I was happy with. So I had learned to leave a LOT of extra space around the primary image, to accommodate the unpredictable size requests of the editors. If you are not in this environment, consider yourselves lucky.

Having said all this, I remember one clear reason for shooting tight, was grain. The larger you printed, the more visible the grain was. So to minimize the grain, where we knew the final image was going to be large, we tried to shoot tight with fine grain film. But sometimes it was after the fact and it was a miss; someone wants a 16x20 print of a cropped 35mm image shot with Tri-X and pushed. OUCH.

So one may have a goal or philosophy, but the real world sometimes gets in the way, and you have to accommodate it.
I call it making the best of a situation.

Crop - burn - dodge - tint - spotting.
These are the artistic decisions we use to create a photograph

Don't ever crop, burn, dodge, tint, or spot.
These would be the non-steps towards making a snapshot.