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.
As I am almost completely in the dont 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?
My first reaction is I'm not surprised he died at age 57 schlepping a 12X20 camera about.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....
If you go out and paint or draw a scene, do you then go home and cut the edge/s off the picture?
To crop or not to crop. This has to be the dumbest debate ever.
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..If you go out and paint or draw a scene, do you then go home and cut the edge/s off the picture?
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.To crop or not to crop. This has to be the dumbest debate ever.
+1When 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..
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.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.
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.Including additional information that allows you to keep essential information takes care of that. Then you crop.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?