Cropping in the darkroom

[RobC]

If you ain't printing full frame then you are cropping in the darkroom. The vast majority of people don't print full frame so the norm is to crop on the easel. They may only crop a tad so frame edges don't show but that is still cropping.

edit:

When I compose on the easel I always crop for final aesthetic and balance. Sometimes I crop a large portion out or to put it another way, I select a portion of the negative to print. Sometimes by design from the taking stage and sometimes because I see a better crop than I saw at the taking stage. Why impose rules on yourself that are totally un-necessary and limit what you can photograph. I will try and use as much of the negative as the subject allows for at the taking stage but I will leave space around subject if I think it needs it or will allow a better crop in the darkroom.

 

[bvy]

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.

It's only impractical if it doesn't work for you. If I take photos with my 6x6 TLR, then I visualize square pictures as I know I'll be making square prints. If I don't have the "perfect kit" for a given scene, then I either improvise or come back another day. I'll crop to the extent that my image overflows my framing mask or easel guides enough that I get good hard edges, but not to the extent that I'm recomposing the scene. I compose once. But that's just me.

 

[markbarendt]

Just one correction - Ansel's visualization did not extend to full-framing.

I'll concede on the specific.

I dispute the notion what OP is trying to promote is a "higher", non-technical standard. I think it amounts to nothing more than a philosophy, no more or less valid, no higher or lower than any other system.

I have no objection to Clive applying any personal standard he pleases to his own work.

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?

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).

...

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?

Implying that all of us should avoid cropping after the camera as much as possible is IMO an arbitrary imposition of Clive's tool use standard into our artistic processes.

Before we accept Clive's premise or take his advice, I think we should ask "why should we care?" and "what will it cost me?"

If minimizing grain and maximizing print resolution are among the most important considerations for a given shot then sure Clive's advice is good.

If I need to buy more lenses or wait (possibly in vain) for a couple to kiss again (or for some other fleeting event to repeat) just to get a better camera position (that may not even exist) or to switch lenses or ... then Clive's standard may be too expensive to consider.

This is where I see Ansel's teaching intruding in a general sense, visualization works for fixed objects like El Capitan and it works in studio or semi-studio conditions as with Karsh's work.

Visualization and perfect framing become very fuzzy concepts though when our subjects are on the move, in the wild, or we have to hike a ways carrying 20 pounds of lenses plus a tripod for an RB or 4x5.

 

[MattKing]

I've been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that I would be more likely to agree with what Clive is saying if I turned it around a bit.

I never feel bad about making a cropping decision either in the darkroom or (gasp) at the computer. All sorts of factors result in the in camera result being slightly different than the ideal on-easel result (fixed lens, limited choice of shooting position, a subject that doesn't fit perfectly in the aspect ratio available, sober second thought ...) so why beat yourself up about composing being a two step process.

However, it is really, really satisfying to get the composition exactly right in the camera! So lets turn it around to say that it is highly desirable to be able to do all our cropping in camera.

I worked for a few years at a university newspaper. When you do that, you become attuned to the needs of the editors, given their style and layout preferences. I vividly recall one day when my editor was struggling with one of my prints, because she wanted to see if their were some alternate ways to crop it to fit within the page (most likely because it was a particularly crowded edition). She complained that so much of what I submitted was hard to edit, because it was exactly right for the places on the page that the paper commonly used for "art".

Here is a print scan of my most recent APUG Postcard Exchange entry (all of the recipients should have it now). Note the fact that it isn't cropped

 

[Anon Ymous]

I don't know if that has already been mentioned and I'm too lazy at the moment to check it out, but the viewfinder in most cameras doesn't have 100% coverage. In other words, it crops. So, IMHO, it gets quite pointless from the very beginning. For the record, I crop as much as I want and consider this "no crop" thing a self imposed obstacle to a better photograph. Perhaps dogma is an apt analogy.

 

[BobMarvin]

It [dogma] is indeed an apt analogy IMO. I'm always amazed at the quasi-religious fervor brought out by this topic.

Me, I often crop like mad, if only because I usually use my Rolleiflex and don't care for square prints. I have vertical and horizontal crop marks on a plastic sheet over my focussing screen, so I try to compose exactly and usually do so for a pre-determined vertical or horizontal, but I appreciate being able to change my mind in the darkroom and will often crop beyond that whenever I feel like. But then I'm an unbeliever, so I'm going to hell anyway

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It [dogma] is indeed an apt analogy IMO. I'm always amazed at the quasi-religious fervor brought out by this topic.

It is rather interesting, isn't it? As long as the resulting prints are interesting to look at, who gives a rip? (mostly).

Well, I can actually think of an argument for attempting to capture everything in the viewfinder, and it has to do with discipline. Imagine if you will an athlete that is training to become a force to be reckoned with in the sport of 100m and 200m sprints. Their training regimen is very focused, and to become an athlete at the highest level, there has to be close to 100% focus and concentration on staying within the realm of exercises, habits, diet, sleep, and behavior that helps achieve that goal.
It might be argued, then, that discipline like the example above could be good for any endeavor, in that it helps someone to become really good at framing everything they (want to) photograph in the viewfinder, and I believe there are ways around the viewfinder crop alluded to above, by keeping both eyes open.

Maybe the difference is, though, that when we photograph something, we get a second chance if we screw up. We CAN crop. A runner cannot go back in time and re-run the race if they didn't get the start just right, or if their rhythm was off in the first steps of hard acceleration. We have the film frame, and we can choose to do whatever we want with it. The funniest part of it all is that it is nobody's business even, what we do with our film frames. And if we don't tell anybody, I doubt they could even tell that somebody cropped. I once made square 8x8" prints from 35mm negatives and showed them to some of my photography friends, and they looked at them and thought my Hasselblad lenses sure are nice.

 

[markbarendt]

So lets turn it around to say that it is highly desirable to be able to do all our cropping in camera.

If it saves some work that's a great thing.

Cropping too tight though is a bit like a true underexposure, there isn't a fix for missing information. A little buffer area at the edges is akin to having a little extra exposure, it gives you options.

 

[RobC]

To imply (as OP did) that cropping in-camera elevates the art is nothing but (yet another) manifestation of his h4rd on for HCB, who was as full of BS as any other artist when it comes to dogma.

Don't mince you words, just come out and say what you really mean.

See following documentary (sales promotion really) from 53:00 to 55:30. He was honest enough to say it.

https://vimeo.com/9141202

 

[markbarendt]

I don't know if that has already been mentioned and I'm too lazy at the moment to check it out, but the viewfinder in most cameras doesn't have 100% coverage. In other words, it crops. So, IMHO, it gets quite pointless from the very beginning. For the record, I crop as much as I want and consider this "no crop" thing a self imposed obstacle to a better photograph. Perhaps dogma is an apt analogy.

You are right that many viewfinders see less than the whole frame. Typically though most "professional" cameras, like Nikon F's, Hasselblad's, RB's, RZ's and view cameras see full frame.

Self imposed obstacles aren't necessarily bad, as long as one understands the tradeoffs they are making. Limits can in many cases help each of us create photo's with the characteristics that we prefer. The elephants in the room with regard to self imposed obstacles here at APUG are the use of film and paper.

 

[Jim Jones]

Micrometric in-camera framing is a fetish. For a decade most of my photography was on Kodachrome in a Leica iiif. Wearing glasses complicated precise framing in the Leica's tiny viewfinder. External viewfinders were little better. Kodak's cardboard slide mounts intruded into the image the camera recorded. The slides were intended for full frame projection, and thus restricted to a 1:1.5 aspect ratio. Despite all of this, framing rarely seemed to be a problem. It's an unusual subject that demands really careful framing. We could prove this by posting an image with more coverage than needed, and let proponents of precise framing crop it to suit themselves. I would expect considerable difference in the results. To each their own.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I TRY not to crop after the fact. I TRY to get it right in camera as much as possible. And I'll freely admit I have the "black border fetish" to show off when I did get it exactly right in camera. But I've been learning to let go of that and be more fluid and open to off-aspect cropping. And I can get away with more of it if need be since I'm already shooting 120 film and have the square inches to work from. But it is just a nice feeling to look at an image and see that I took full advantage of what my camera provided, didn't waste space. That's an ideal world scenario, and we all know how well the ideal world works. So try to use the framing your camera provides. If it doesn't work, then crop as needed. The only time I'd care is if I were teaching and saw a student cropping EVERY image to a significant degree. Then I'd have a sit-down with them and discuss why they weren't getting in closer to their subject or paying attention to composition at the time of taking the photo.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I TRY not to crop after the fact. I TRY to get it right in camera as much as possible. ... But it is just a nice feeling to look at an image and see that I took full advantage of what my camera provided, didn't waste space. That's an ideal world scenario, and we all know how well the ideal world works. So try to use the framing your camera provides. If it doesn't work, then crop as needed. The only time I'd care is if I were teaching and saw a student cropping EVERY image to a significant degree. Then I'd have a sit-down with them and discuss why they weren't getting in closer to their subject or paying attention to composition at the time of taking the photo.

I agree 100%! However, "the way the ideal world works" is mostly "not." And, it's exactly my "paying attention to composition at the time of taking the photo" that dictates my camera position; getting closer would ruin the perspective and the composition. When I'm lucky enough that the framing I want is possible with a lens I have after having chosen my best position for the composition I want, and assuming that I wish to present the subject in exactly a 4:5 ratio (since I'm shooting 4x5 film), then I'm happy not to crop.

95% of the time, however, this is not the case; the image I want to print can only be achieved by cropping; so, I crop; unabashedly and often. The only time I bent my will to the dictates of a particular film format was when I was shooting 35mm transparency film. Thank God I stopped doing that years ago.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I can't recall the last time I cropped after taking the image other than to fit a given aspect ratio. That's been in excess of forty years.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I agree 100%! However, "the way the ideal world works" is mostly "not." And, it's exactly my "paying attention to composition at the time of taking the photo" that dictates my camera position; getting closer would ruin the perspective and the composition. When I'm lucky enough that the framing I want is possible with a lens I have after having chosen my best position for the composition I want, and assuming that I wish to present the subject in exactly a 4:5 ratio (since I'm shooting 4x5 film), then I'm happy not to crop.

95% of the time, however, this is not the case; the image I want to print can only be achieved by cropping; so, I crop; unabashedly and often. The only time I bent my will to the dictates of a particular film format was when I was shooting 35mm transparency film. Thank God I stopped doing that years ago.

Best,

Doremus

I shoot square 95% of the time. That makes it even harder. But with limiting myself to one camera, one lens (a Rolleiflex), I find I get used to perceiving in the square, so I do better at filling the frame. Of course there are times where what I want to photograph is absolutely horizontal or vertical and there will be dead space on either side of the frame (my shot of the CN Tower in Toronto getting struck by lightning, for example). But I think that with familiarity with your equipment comes familiarity with the format and you start to see images and seek out images that fit the format you're shooting. When there are times you know you want something other than what your camera provides (like wanting panoramics when your default camera shoots square), then it's time to break out another format and shoot that intstead. I find it hard to compose a panoramic, for example, if my viewfinder is NOT panoramic in nature. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I TRY not to crop after the fact. I TRY to get it right in camera as much as possible. And I'll freely admit I have the "black border fetish" to show off when I did get it exactly right in camera. But I've been learning to let go of that and be more fluid and open to off-aspect cropping. And I can get away with more of it if need be since I'm already shooting 120 film and have the square inches to work from. But it is just a nice feeling to look at an image and see that I took full advantage of what my camera provided, didn't waste space. That's an ideal world scenario, and we all know how well the ideal world works. So try to use the framing your camera provides. If it doesn't work, then crop as needed. The only time I'd care is if I were teaching and saw a student cropping EVERY image to a significant degree. Then I'd have a sit-down with them and discuss why they weren't getting in closer to their subject or paying attention to composition at the time of taking the photo.

I agree 100%! However, "the way the ideal world works" is mostly "not." And, it's exactly my "paying attention to composition at the time of taking the photo" that dictates my camera position; getting closer would ruin the perspective and the composition. When I'm lucky enough that the framing I want is possible with a lens I have after having chosen my best position for the composition I want, and assuming that I wish to present the subject in exactly a 4:5 ratio (since I'm shooting 4x5 film), then I'm happy not to crop.

95% of the time, however, this is not the case; the image I want to print can only be achieved by cropping; so, I crop; unabashedly and often. The only time I bent my will to the dictates of a particular film format was when I was shooting 35mm transparency film. Thank God I stopped doing that years ago.

Best,

Doremus

I shoot square 95% of the time. That makes it even harder. But with limiting myself to one camera, one lens (a Rolleiflex), I find I get used to perceiving in the square, so I do better at filling the frame. Of course there are times where what I want to photograph is absolutely horizontal or vertical and there will be dead space on either side of the frame (my shot of the CN Tower in Toronto getting struck by lightning, for example). But I think that with familiarity with your equipment comes familiarity with the format and you start to see images and seek out images that fit the format you're shooting. When there are times you know you want something other than what your camera provides (like wanting panoramics when your default camera shoots square), then it's time to break out another format and shoot that intstead. I find it hard to compose a panoramic, for example, if my viewfinder is NOT panoramic in nature. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

+1 +1 +1

 

[DREW WILEY]

Working with a large view camera is a joy when it comes to composing within the given boundaries of the film itself. Sometimes I just like to
look at things that way, without even exposing a sheet of film. But once I start printing, a bit of adjustment is inevitable as overlooked details
of nuances come into play. Then the final, official cropping is done with the print trimmer, when drymounting. Until then, the composition is
never truly complete.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... Then the final, official cropping is done with the print trimmer, when drymounting. Until then, the composition is
never truly complete.

Exactly what I do as well. The only way to get that power line to exit exactly at a corner, or to split that tree trunk exactly in half is to trim the print itself.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Bill Burk]

When I get the 3 1/2 inch f/18 lens, and when I shoot 8x10 with it, I will not get full coverage and it will be difficult to compose.

So there will be cropping in my future.

 

[cliveh]

Exactly what I do as well. The only way to get that power line to exit exactly at a corner, or to split that tree trunk exactly in half is to trim the print itself.

Best,

Doremus

SIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

SIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Care to elaborate?

 

[cliveh]

Care to elaborate?

Just ignore me, as I'm sure that way of cropping works just fine.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

This thread is becoming slightly humorous to me. I go to look at art as often as my schedule allows. I go to local galleries (last Friday I went to meet Elliot Erwitt at a show opening at the Weinstein gallery in Minneapolis) and saw a large amount of his prints. The week before that I pulled out a lot of the prints I have collected over the years and looked at them. Last month I went to the Minneapolis Institute of Arts and looked at their photography exhibit, featuring one photograph made every year in the museum's 100 year history, and they were all radically different. I was inspired by all of the photographs in one way or another, and whether they were cropped or not didn't even enter my mind once.

This is the kind of thing that gets argued to death, and it's like politics where people get so stuck in their own beliefs that they don't know what's important anymore. Artfully missing the big picture. To crop or not to crop - who gives a shit?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just pointing the lens a particular direction means you're already cropping the world.

 

[cliveh]

Just pointing the lens a particular direction means you're already cropping the world.

Correct, so why do it again?