Cropping in the darkroom

[markbarendt]

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

Can't change where HCB stood when that shot was taken so the distance, and therefore the perspective, can't be changed.

Whether he had a 35mm, 50mm, or a 90mm on the camera, there would be no change in perspective; just in the crop or angle-of-view the camera saw. In this type of case there is no difference visually in the print doing "the crop" at the camera or at the enlarger, except for differences in grain and resolution.

Now, if instead of cropping later, HCB had walked in closer to his subject before taking the shot then yes the perspective would have changed. That's not what happened though.

 

[markbarendt]

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.

When I take my RB on a walk I don't typically carry extra lenses so I pick the widest lens I think I'll need. If I spot a bird or person or ... that I want a shot of but that won't fill the frame, that's ok, I'll take the shot and crop. At least I have the shot.

 

[cliveh]

The "integrity" lost though, is purely artificial. It's an intellectual argument rather than a practical one.

I beg to differ. The integrity of a shot is (for me) my ultimate goal in picture making and in practice it is a very practical function of recording the image.

 

[markbarendt]

I beg to differ. The integrity of a shot is (for me) my ultimate goal in picture making and in practice it is a very practical function of recording the image.

For yourself to have defined standards that you stick to is super, your audience and clients get what they expect and that's a really good thing.

It is my understanding that HCB, in the grand majority of his work, stuck to that no-crop standard too.

It is an arbitrary standard though, not a rule of nature.

 

[FujiLove]

I guess we all wish we were able to create the perfect composition in camera, as impractical as that may be. So when we do crop, perhaps it's always a little unsatisfying, however much we tell ourselves it isn't? And maybe that's why we get a tiny bit defensive when someone points it out. I think that's the case for me anyway...but I'll still keep cropping...and dying a little inside.

Ha ha , not really!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am looking for the filter that just before the exposure is taken automatically improves the composition including moving the subject into a better position and adjusting the lighting conditions.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am looking for the filter that just before the exposure is taken automatically improves the composition including moving the subject into a better position and adjusting the lighting conditions.

You and me both but I'm sure it'll be a while

 

[FujiLove]

I am looking for the filter that just before the exposure is taken automatically improves the composition including moving the subject into a better position and adjusting the lighting conditions.

The closest I've seen to that recently are those d*****l cameras that shoot super HD video (or whatever it's called this week). I notice they are now being advertised in the context of being able to shoot video so you can rummage through all the frames to find a 'perfect' photograph. I can imagine photographers buying seven, fixing them to a hat pointing in all directions and simply walking about a bit. Very soon, Photoshop 2018 will be able to look through the video and automatically select the best photos.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Modern life is rubbish.

 

[M Carter]

The closest I've seen to that recently are those d*****l cameras that shoot super HD video (or whatever it's called this week). I notice they are now being advertised in the context of being able to shoot video so you can rummage through all the frames to find a 'perfect' photograph. I can imagine photographers buying seven, fixing them to a hat pointing in all directions and simply walking about a bit. Very soon, Photoshop 2018 will be able to look through the video and automatically select the best photos.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Modern life is rubbish.

Not so fast there… a frame grab from 4K video may be OK for facebook, but it generally won't hold up to scrutiny - it's still not much resolution and you won't get a very big print. And when you do, you'll find it's compressed to hell, and the motion blur will be a killer as well. But probably just fine for consumers and housewives.

Maybe in really knowledgeable hands, a frame from a Black Magic Ursa (4.6k) or Production Camera (4k) shooting ProRes or raw, at a faster-than-generally-used-for-video shutter speed could be useful… but… ehhhh…..

I have many musician friends and occasionally shoot their shows. The local "housewives with an art degree ten years ago" show up with a DSLR and kit lens on Auto, and then say "how do you get those cool photos? I paid $500 for this setup!!!"

"Well, you need to spend about $2k more on glass for it, and then learn what all the damn buttons do…"

 

[M Carter]

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

I didn't mean to sound non-calm! I'm pretty chill!!!

...and wasn't responding directly to you. Whenever this subject comes up, we get a few guys suggesting that to crop anywhere but in the viewfinder is, I dunno, the mark of an amateur or something.

An argument: I've never looked through my VF and seen a Bromoil print… so does Bromoil make me an amateur? (And jesus, look at those Gryspeerdt videos where he scratches and erases Bromoils, and chops in bits of other photos and uses skies from his library of favorites… and the final images are great). I suppose that's at the heart of this argument. And like most of this job/hobby/calling, there are few rights and wrongs if the final image is compelling. "Take the lens cap off" may be the most important rule.

 

[cliveh]

I didn't mean to sound non-calm! I'm pretty chill!!!

...and wasn't responding directly to you. Whenever this subject comes up, we get a few guys suggesting that to crop anywhere but in the viewfinder is, I dunno, the mark of an amateur or something.

An argument: I've never looked through my VF and seen a Bromoil print… so does Bromoil make me an amateur? (And jesus, look at those Gryspeerdt videos where he scratches and erases Bromoils, and chops in bits of other photos and uses skies from his library of favorites… and the final images are great). I suppose that's at the heart of this argument. And like most of this job/hobby/calling, there are few rights and wrongs if the final image is compelling. "Take the lens cap off" may be the most important rule.

I would suggest that in the world of art and aesthetics there are no right and wrongs, only difference. We all follow our own path and produce a diversity of imagery, cropped or not cropped; bromoil’s or whatever for what we feel is good. If it works for you then stick with it.

 

[markbarendt]

I would suggest that in the world of art and aesthetics there are no right and wrongs, only difference. We all follow our own path and produce a diversity of imagery, cropped or not cropped; bromoil’s or whatever for what we feel is good. If it works for you then stick with it.

I agree!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Sometimes the moment is fleeting and I don't have time to accurately place the camera or choose the correct lens. In that situation, I'll shoot wide, then crop with the enlarger.

 

[Dinesh]

I usually just stop what I am doing and go to the bathroom ..... oh wait, I read the title incorrectly.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I usually just stop what I am doing and go to the bathroom ..... oh wait, I read the title incorrectly.

Now that really moves me ... jest sayin'

 

[DREW WILEY]

To crop or not to crop???? Is this some religion forum? Who the heck makes up rules about that kind of thing?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not a religion, I just do not need to do it often.

 

[Nathan King]

I often do; however it's almost always very slight. Once I cropped away half of a 35mm negative because the rangefinder lens I was using did not focus closely enough. Grainy, but got the job done.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Some Nikons have a level and built in 8x10 crops. They are the better models.

 

[Kilgallb]

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

That is a great point. I always try to position myself and the camera at the point that gives the perspective I desire. Then I choose the focal length to get the parts of the scene I want. My 210 mm might cut off parts and the 90 mm might have too wide a field of view. So I choose 90 mm and crop in be dark room.

If I moved closer so the 90 mm fills the scene or farther away to accommodate the 210 mm it would ruin the perspective I desired.

Unless you have a zoom lens, you have to crop.

 

[ic-racer]

I'm interested in what the camera sees, so I print that.

 

[Jim Jones]

I'm interested in what the camera sees, so I print that.

I'm interested in what this photographer sees, so I crop to best present that.

 

[cliveh]

I'm interested in what this photographer sees, so I crop to best present that.

Then perhaps you should change your camera/subject position and let the camera see what you see?

 

[Mick Fagan]

Then perhaps you should change your camera/subject position and let the camera see what you see?

Within reason you have a point. However yesterday I could only include the whole building by using a 65mm lens. There was only one place I could take the picture from, I could not go back any further, if I went closer I could not get the whole building in.

Moving the building isn't going to cut it. Moving back to enable a different focal length of lens with greater coverage allowing rise isn't going to cut it, not enough room.

The solution was simple, take the picture with a slightly wider than optimum focal length lens, with unfortunately minimal coverage to allow movements, so I happened to get the roadway in part of the picture. Then in the darkroom, crop out that part of the negative with the unwanted road.

Using your solution of no cropping in the darkroom doesn't work and can never work in all situations, simple really.

Mick.

 

[markbarendt]

Within reason you have a point.

The only technical (real) reason I can see to crop with the camera lens rather than with the enlarger, is to minimize film grain and maximize the resolution, and that's not always the most important consideration. As you demonstrated Mick.

What I think Clive is trying to promote, is a higher, non-technical standard. In other words, he's promoting an opinion about how photography should be done. Clive isn't alone in his full frame preference: HCB held a very similar standard; Ansel promoted visualization, Weston contact printed full frame...

To be blunt though the "get-it-right-in-camera-by-god" standard is in most senses arbitrary and highly impractical if followed all the way out. In essence that logic suggests that if you want a square print you should use a camera that shoots square frames, if you want to print a panorama you need a 6x17 camera, and in your case Mick it begs the question of why you even left the house to go take a photo of that building without the "perfect" kit.