Cropping the image

[L Gebhardt]

Don't get me wrong guys, as I am not saying that I think not to crop is sacrosanct and indeed my gallery post “Finders, keepers” is obviously cropped from the original 3:2 aspect ratio. However, I sometimes think that leaving in the odd dross at the edges, reminds us of the real way we see, with peripheral vision.

If the dross on the edge doesn't contribute to the image, it needs to be cropped out in my mind. And by defining it as dross, you are saying it is unimportant. I would say you are being lazy in making the viewer pick out the scene in the image that you saw when you took the shot. My first thought when I see an image like that is: "he should have cropped that down; it could have been a strong image" Frequently I am saying that about my own images months in the future when I notice the dross that I wasn't focused on when i was printing.

I usually print a full frame version though so I can live with it for a bit before I decide on the final cropping. Make some cropping squares (L shaped pieces of paper) and try out many crops. I think each image will have a strongest crop, and it usually isn't what the camera dictated.

 

[cliveh]

Well, keep begging! The print is the thing.

Maybe you ought to seriously crop the absurd amount of academic questions you pose on these forums.

If you think this, why did you respond to the OP?

 

[BradleyK]

On the basis of economics, careful framing instead of cropping gets you to use more of the silver you have paid money for and as there is less enlargement there is greater image quality

Personally, I loathe cropping my work and it makes me realise I was inattentive when making the picture - This is my personal opinion and applies to my work, so I am not telling you you should be ashamed of cropping, even 'though you should be

+1. While there are sometimes extenuating circumstances, cropping, in my books, is an excuse for sloppy work!

 

[cjbecker]

I never crop personal works. I crop for clients that want an 8x10 out of a 6x6 neg. I try to convince them to just get a 8x8 instead though.

 

[eddie]

Occasionally, I'll be out with the 4x5, but come across an image that should be square, so I'll crop in the darkroom. My basic rule is to try to use one entire dimension (i.e. the full 4 inch, or 5 inch length) of the negative. I want to utilize as much real estate available on the negative, but the final image is what's important. For those that don't crop, I'd ask how many shots you've passed up because you don't have the lens/format/point of view required for a particular image?

 

[perkeleellinen]

I don't crop and I think one of the main reasons is that I hate lifting up my enlarger head. I have everything set up to make 5"x7" prints, that uniformity is important to me.

I have this project where after taking a nice photo I take two steps back and photograph the scene with my camera & tripod in the foreground - I do this with a little P&S. In a sense that's the opposite of cropping.

Two other thoughts on this: I like that my framing can add something to photos insofar that it tells a story of what was happening at the margins: things half in and half out of frame adds something that I like.

Lastly, I love how grain on 800 speed film looks at 5"x7", once enlarged beyond that the grain looks different.

eddie asks how many shots have been passed up on account of the wrong lens/point of view etc and my answer is many as I rarely go out with more than one lens.

 

[Bill Burk]

Don't get me wrong guys, as I am not saying that I think not to crop is sacrosanct and indeed my gallery post “Finders, keepers” is obviously cropped from the original 3:2 aspect ratio. However, I sometimes think that leaving in the odd dross at the edges, reminds us of the real way we see, with peripheral vision.

Making prints that convey your vision is sacrosanct. I am 100% happy with a print that is almost perfect.

In the midst of a print session, I am often reminded of the legend of the Cheyenne "spirit bead". I think the story goes that an otherwise perfect beadwork design/pattern is deliberately broken up by a bead of the wrong color, giving the spirits a door to enter and exit freely.

Your print offered here for discussion fits into that situation. I feel it loses something when you crop off the top. You say it reminds you of the way you see. That is what I feel. Cropped... the image becomes a beautiful print. The geometry improves. But the photograph loses a dimension of depth. You leave foreground and middle ground but take out the background.

ROL, I highly regard your vision, and consider you among my influences because you give these examples up for discussion.

In your cropping article you give four examples that I will say give..
-A significant improvement at no cost to the original frame
-A transformation from straight to abstract
-A modest improvement at the cost of some periphery
-A repurposing and finding of a picture within a picture.

I believe your Wildcat Falls is similar to cliveh's example. The improvement by cropping is subtle and not absolutely necessary. I actually like the original composition better. The rest of your examples I agree cropping is necessary for the vision.

Only you have the right to decide, as the artist, which presentation you want to make.

 

[fotch]

Cropping, what radio stations I listen to, who I vote for, is my business, no one else.

 

[Vaughn]

...For those that don't crop, I'd ask how many shots you've passed up because you don't have the lens/format/point of view required for a particular image?

An infinite number and a non-significant number at the same time.

An infinite number because there are an infinite number of possible images around us to photograph and to "miss".

And non-significant in that even eliminating whole catagories of images by choice of format, lens, film type, etc, one still has an infinite possible number of images available.

I have had to pass up so many images due to weather, wind, no loaded holders with unexposed film, "wrong" lens, etc, that it no longer matters. That I have seen those images is what matters. Anything I can capture on film and print and can share with others is just a bonus that photography brings me.

Embrace the inifinte!

Vaughn

 

[cliveh]

For beginner photographers, shooting and printing full-frame is a good exercise for training one's eye...for quickly learning to see as the camera/lens sees. For the same reason, using only one prime lens is also a good exercise for beginners. Both help them to be aware of what is happening in the corners and sides of the image -- those are important as they define what is happening in the center.

And I would also suggest for those who are not beginners.

 

[blansky]

People who don't crop are very rigid, self possessed, and uncompromising individuals.

These are people that normal people probably want to stay away from.

In fact I know of some people who say they crop, but when they sneak into their darkroom in the middle of the night will always print full frame.

So rigid.

 

[Vaughn]

Is there no hope for us??!!!!

 

[cjbecker]

Is there no hope for us??!!!!

Im screwed.

 

[Vaughn]

I think my soul will also have to pay for my first college photo class -- where I always cropped my Rolleiflex negatives to fit the 11x14 or 8x10 paper I had bought. It was not until my second class that realized that I could actually print full-frame, and as a bonus I'd get some extra border to handle the print with.

Of course, this not explain why during my third photo class I was printing a series using about half of a 4x5 negative to make 7x19 prints.

Vaughn

Thinking back to those student days, the decision to print at 7x19 was also influenced by the idea that I would be cutting my paper-costs in half -- two pieces from 16x20 photo paper! The money I earned during the summer had to last into Spring!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I thing of the anti-cropping ethos as a product of the growth of 35mm photography, where you really have to get as much as you can from that tiny frame. So HCB tended not to crop, but Weegee generally tried to be six or ten feet from the subject, both for quick focusing and for exposure accuracy with flashbulbs, so of course he cropped, but still had plenty of resolution for newsprint.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

On the basis of economics, careful framing instead of cropping gets you to use more of the silver you have paid money for and as there is less enlargement there is greater image quality

Personally, I loathe cropping my work and it makes me realise I was inattentive when making the picture - This is my personal opinion and applies to my work, so I am not telling you you should be ashamed of cropping, even 'though you should be

+1

 

[moose10101]

Ahh but you are missing the point, Matt. One should ALWAYS carry a 6 x 4.5 camera for those 4:3 aspect ratio compositions, an 8 x 6 for those pesky 7:5 compositions; a 4 x 5 (of course); and a 35mm (preferably a rangefinder) for images that do not bend to any visualisation other then 3:2.

Do this, and every composition you see will be a square.

I'll crop whenever I feel it will improve the print, and I won't feel bad, lazy, or sloppy when I do.

 

[Klainmeister]

I have always try to go full frame when possible, but sometimes my subjects are literally on cliff edges and the angles difficult, meaning that I can get close to what I want framed with my camera, but oftentimes a crop helps create what I envisioned.

I also like to print full frame, hang it on the wall, and play with different matting options to see possible crops. Sometimes you see an image when you take it and you think that's it, but the image is almost infinite in how you present it, so eliminate the possible crop? I have an image that I loved forever, then one day, decided to crop just to see how it looked/felt. Viola! It hit the spot better than the full frame....

Is that so blasphemous?

 

[keithwms]

It is interesting to note how Kertesz tightly cropped the photo of his wife. There are at least two versions, one with little or no crop, and one tightly cropped, which he produced later in life:

http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/kertesz-161.jpg?w=655&h=913

I'd say go with what you feel... and let your opinion change.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

In the end it's an individual decision. I don't look at a photograph by Dorothea Lange and wonder whether it was cropped or not. My only concern is whether the photograph works or not.
Either it works. Or it doesn't.

I mainly work with two aspect ratios. Square, and 3:4. But sometimes I feel a panoramic image works better, so that's what the print ends up being.
Sometimes I crop rectangular frames square, and vice versa. But those are aspect ratios that I find appealing for most pictures, and it's how it ends up being printed for the most part.

I also have a problem with my eyes that I can't see a perfectly aligned vertical or horizontal. This means that I almost always get a horizon crooked for example, which means I HAVE to crop basically ever single frame. In the darkroom I need to move the rulers of my easel around so that I can insure a well aligned print. In a way I admire those that are able to compose a perfect full frame in camera, because it's something I will never be able to do, especially while hand holding the camera, which is what I do 90% of the time.

In the end, it's all just an exercise of carrying forward the picture. That's all it is to me, and I do whatever it takes to do that so that my aesthetics are satisfied. HOW I do it, is strictly method, and photography would be insanely boring if we all did everything the same way. Crop if you want to, or shoot full frame. Just do it well.

 

[Bill Burk]

I just realized why I joined the "don't crop" camp. And I haven't seen where we talked about it in this sense...

Shooting primarily 35mm and printing primarily on 11x14 (or projecting slides) in the early days...

I often had negatives and slides that were edge-to-edge amazing. And I didn't want to lose any of it.

For these shots the full frame print has additional impact. So I cut away the negative carrier to show it all.

Then I worked towards an attractive wide border on the sides to balance out the necessary wide border on top and bottom.

And that just became my standard.

 

[Dan Dozer]

Edward Weston didn't crop. However, I'm not embarassed to say that I don't think I'll ever be even close to as good as he was. I've found that limiting myself to the same proportions as the sheet of film doesn't always produce the look and feel that I'm trying to portray. I initially print my images to the size of the print paper, but the first thing I do when they are dry is to get two 90 degree sections of matt board to see what the proportions of final image work best for me. If it means cropping, so be it. For what it's worth, I've had several images, that have problems as full prints, but when cropped, turned out to be extremely good (at least I think so).

On a side note, as I'm writing this, I'm looking at the Ansel Adams calendar on my wall which has images in it of all different proportions. I wonder if the proportions in the calendar were those cropped/envisioned by Adams, or if they were done that way by the publishing company. Never the less, the images in it still look magnificent.

 

[cliveh]

As I am almost completely in the “don’t crop” camp, but only use a standard lens with a 35mm camera. Does not cropping, perhaps have more validity with a standard lens on any format than say a telephoto or wide angle?

 

[Moopheus]

Edward Weston didn't crop.

On the other hand, Stieglitz usually did, choosing deliberately to get more on the film than he needed, so he could compose in the darkroom. Of course, what worked for those guys is irrelevant to the way I choose to work.

 

[Peter de Groot]

Since everything is a tool that you can use I will use them if I deem then necessary. I do try sometimes to restrict myself using only a standard lens or to not crop or whatever. Bu I also indulge in the versatility of a zoom lens or to use tele lens (which basically is cropping before you take the photo). It all comes down to the finished product. Not the way how to get there for the viewer. How you want to get to the finished product is your choice and for you the best choice.

That's my 2 cents.