Cropping the image

[Bill Burk]

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.

Steiglitz gave us the theory of Equivalents. This could be relevant to all us.

Absolutely crop if you are creating Equivalents.

I'd be horrified to learn that my preference to not crop led any photographer away from that path.

Refer to ROL's example again, Wildcat Falls. While I say I prefer the before... the after is more an Equivalent. Thus it has the potential to reach a higher level.

http://www.jnevins.com/whitereading.htm

 

[canuhead]

hey if Arnold Newman was not above cropping (and not just an edge here or there) , who am I to argue

 

[keithwms]

Do what you need to do to make the images that you want to make.

 

[Maris]

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?

An argument could be made that the "don't crop" camp have an agenda other than the pictorial content of their photographs. The classic example is Henri Cartier-Bresson who insisted that his images not be cropped for publication. It was all about control, H.C-B's rather than magazine editors, and insured that H.C-B would remain in charge of the cultivation of his own legend.

In truth the viewfinder of a Leica is not so precise that the edges are certain. Different focal length Leica lenses, particularly the wides, actually deliver different size images on film! Similarly 35mm SLR's (Nikon F, WL finder excepted) often show 90% or less of the image that will arrive on film. Different focal lengths offer no salvation. So it is odd that the "don't crop" people insist on keeping edge details they never saw as validation of their skills. And don't get me started on people who file out negative carriers and include "verification borders" real or faked to "guarantee" the integrity of their art.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I adopt the old maxim, "Fit the image to the format". Rangefinder viewfinders are by their nature imprecise: you will get more in that you cannot see (same, too, with MF viewfinders that do not show 100% of the view).
Cropping is an individual thing: you can be for it or against it (as the argument in this thread vascillates to and fro...). I suggest you concentrate on what is right for you, irrespective of populist opinion.

 

[slackercrurster]

95%+ of my street photos are cropped. I cannot always perfect the decisive moment within the camera. So I work to perfect it at home. A photog once said if the photo has to be cropped it wasn't meant to be taken. If you don't like to crop, don't. No photo police, we can do as we like.

 

[benjiboy]

Art Sinsabaugh shlepping a 12x20" camera:

http://www.iub.edu/~iuam/online_modules/sinsabaugh/b_main.html

Art Sinsabaugh's images, cropped from 12x20" negatives:

http://www.iub.edu/~iuam/online_modules/sinsabaugh/p_mw1-11.html

If you don't happen to have a 1 7/8 x 19 1/2" format camera so you can shoot full frame, ya do what ya gotta do....

My first reaction is I'm not surprised he died at age 57 schlepping a 12X20 camera about.
The 6X6 format was originally devised for cropping so the photographer could print the negatives in the portrait or landscape orientation on standard size oblong printing paper without tilting the camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is best to crop before taking the photograph, if unable to do that then remount the slide with masking or during printing in the darkroom. A properly cropped photographs is almost always an improvement over the original.

 

[cliveh]

If you go out and paint or draw a scene, do you then go home and cut the edge/s off the picture?

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you go out and paint or draw a scene, do you then go home and cut the edge/s off the picture?

Total Non Sequitur. If one draws or paints a scene then they composed it the way they want. See comments about composing before firing the shutter.

 

[Eric Rose]

To crop or not to crop. This has to be the dumbest debate ever.

 

[Sirius Glass]

To crop or not to crop. This has to be the dumbest debate ever.

It would be hard to find a competitor that could go lower.

 

[benjiboy]

If you go out and paint or draw a scene, do you then go home and cut the edge/s off the picture?

When people draw or paint a scene Clive they can omit from the actual scene anything they want and can add to the picture things that aren't actually there and make their own reality I have often wished that photographers could do that..

 

[MattKing]

To crop or not to crop. This has to be the dumbest debate ever.

True, but if the question is whether or not to attempt to compose and crop in camera when one can, the question makes more sense.

 

[Jim Jones]

Until cameras are made that always have the exact aspect ratio that I want in the finished print, I'll crop. However, in the days of projecting Kodachrome, I had to compose in the camera. Back then Kodachrome made that worthwhile.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I do slide shows of my vacations on a typical UHDTV 16:9 format. I used to shoot 4:3 then crop to 16:9 in post. But I found that sometimes the crop would not work. Heads or feet would be chopped off in the worst places. So now I set my camera to shoot 16:9 so I format in the camera. At first, I found the wide format annoying. But I;ve grown very accustomed to it and find that you can format in the camera to pretty much whatever format the camera is shooting. Your eye adjusts and it becomes natural. It works better than trying to find the right crop afterwards. I still will do some final adjustments on some of the shots in post. But for the most part, the crop is set when I take the picture.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Some samples of shooting 16:9 in the camera.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157694819890421

 

[Eric Rose]

I always compose in camera, unless I can't.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I want a filter that automatically crops and removes unwanted objects just as I press the shutter button.

 

[Arklatexian]

When people draw or paint a scene Clive they can omit from the actual scene anything they want and can add to the picture things that aren't actually there and make their own reality I have often wished that photographers could do that..

+1

 

[ced]

Total mayhem, do what ever pleases you. Crop, don't crop who cares?

 

[Berkeley Mike]

The world is not formatted. Different cameras are formatted differently. Restricting capture exactly to the format of the camera at hand is an arbitrary restriction of vision.

I would not exclude something from a capture if I wanted it and it did not fit the format at hand and more than I would exclude something I did not want in the capture if it meant I would lose important content. After capture one cannot include something that was not captured but one could exclude some not desired.

That said, there are images I "see" within a certain format out of habit.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The world is not formatted. Different cameras are formatted differently. Restricting capture exactly to the format of the camera at hand is an arbitrary restriction of vision.

I would not exclude something from a capture if I wanted it and it did not fit the format at hand and more than I would exclude something I did not want in the capture if it meant I would lose important content. After capture one cannot include something that was not captured but one could exclude some not desired.

That said, there are images I "see" within a certain format out of habit.

I understand your point. But we already are restricted in many ways. The lens, {wide-angle, normal, telephoto}, restricts what's captured. The final output also contains the format. For example, I shoot to display slide shows on a 16:9 HD TV. So setting my camera to that format helps me see in that format. Others may need a specific sized vertical for the cover of a specific magazine. While some people cut mats to fit their final crop, others use standard mats such as 8x10. So their formats are limited to these. Seeing in 8x10 would help framing the subject better.

Finally, excluding something in a scene after the shot was taken does not work often. For example, if you shoot 4:3 for a final crop of 16:9 to fit the TV, you may wind up cutting off feet or parts of heads while doing so. Formating 16:9 in the camera would avoid that predicament.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Including additional information that allows you to keep essential information takes care of that. Then you crop.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Including additional information that allows you to keep essential information takes care of that. Then you crop.

You're ,mistaken Mike. If you compose let's say in 4:3 and frame people so their legs and head are in the vertical, when you change the crop to 16:9. you lose some of the vertical which chops off the feet.If the viewfinder was set for 16:9, you'd see the crop and adjust the shot before you took it. Of course, you could step back 50 feet to make sure you have a lot to play with. But that's not how people normally shoot. One thing that does help a little is to shoot in RAW + jpeg. That way you see the 16:9 in the jpeg viewfinder. But when you get home you have the full 4:3 full image from the sensor in the RAW file. That allows some more play when making the 16:9 crop to change the position somewhat.