Cropping the image

[Berkeley Mike]

I see where we are stumbling. Who said I had to frame with a mechanically predetermined ratio of a particular camera when I produce a final image?

 

[removed account4]

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.

but you said crop so it can't even be cropped in a camera ... all lytro all the time

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

i can think of a few .. like whether or not to use fixer, or all the moronic digital v analog wars .. its all idiocy
cause none of it matters

 

[jvo]

I crop, therefore I am.... to paraphrase r.d.

 

[Vaughn]

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..

Definitely arbitary, but not a restriction of vision to the many of us who choose not to crop. A lack of imagination would cause a restriction of vision...

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Right...if you restrict yourself to a pre-formatted view of the world.

 

[Vaughn]

I work with several formats. Rollei square, 4x5, 5x7, 4x10, 8x10, 5x14, 11x14. Quite a choice, even if not cropping. What percentage of images does one 'lose' by restricting oneself to not cropping? Zero percent. The number of possible images in infinite, or close enough relative to our ability to understand such a number. Choose B&W over color and you lose half (for purposes of this example) the images possible to make. How many possible images are left -- an infinite amount.

The idea that one gains more possible images by cropping is not true...it just feels like it. The number is always infinte. Experience and imagination are some of the tools to use to help one see more possible images, not whether or not one crops.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

That begs the multi-infinities point of view, including infinites outside of formats available. No problem but hardly clarifying to the discussion.

If what I see is square and I have a 35mm camera in hand, do I just refuse to shoot? That is just silly. Vaughn, you can be very specific in your format approach, working within your gear selection. Good enough, but the formatting is a consequence of any number of assumptions; these are neither truths nor absolutes but conventions between film carriers/holders/cameras and available film. Over time one learns to see within those formats, as I suggested earlier in this thread. However, there is no rule saying that we must see within these parameters.

 

[Vaughn]

If what I see is square and I have a 35mm camera in hand, do I just refuse to shoot? That is just silly. Vaughn,...

Why is it silly not to shoot? My goodness...I decide not to shoot far more images than I do shoot. One choses one image over another for many many reasons. And one reason could easily be that a square image in a portfolio of rectangular images would often be jarring to the whole. Another would be if one's portfolio of images all are shown with the film's rebate as an essential part of the image -- cropping would be a discord in the portfolio.

There is no rule about having to see and record images full-frame. And as far as I have read, no one seems to be asking for any. Mathamatically however, neither cropping or not cropping increases or decreases the total amount of image possibilities; cropping/not cropping neither stifles or inhances one's creative ability or level of creative activity. It is just a way one wants to work.

 

[MattKing]

Sometimes, cropping is the obvious choice:

 

[Vaughn]

And sometimes not Yosemite Valley Floor, two 4x10 Pt/pd prints:

 

[jim10219]

I always shoot wider than I intend to print and then crop in the darkroom/computer. I try not to crop too much, but too many times I’ve stared at a print and though, if I had only backed up a few steps I could have captured more of something that at the time I thought was a minor distraction, but now think it adds to the composition or context.

Though to be fair, I don’t shoot a lot of 135 film these days, so resolution isn’t usually an issue for me. To me, 35mm is more for fun than serious work.

 

[Vaughn]

That's a good way to work. Dang standard 4x5 negative holders crop a little anyway. Using an Omega D5-XL, I'd have to sometimes resort to trimming the neg a little if one of the long sides had to be printed right to the edge of the image area.

The edges ( and corners) often define the middle of the image...cropping is a fine way to fine-tune the edges. When there is enough light (I photographed under the redwoods today), view cameras are fine tools to study the image's edges. And I find that 8x10 is a great size for this. I learn how to photograph with a Rolleiflex...mostly on a tripod. This is also a relaxing way to study ones composition, on its GG.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I find that if I shoot wide and hope to find a decent crop at home, I miss the best composition. I may assume it's there because I shot "everything". But it isn't. The problem is angle and direction and where things fit are what define a good composition. Maybe the situation called for you to move one foot to the right to get it. It's too late to do that at home. No amount of cropping will correct that error. However, if you shoot to crop in the camera, you pay more attention to angles, directions, and where things are fitting in relationship to each other. The final will be better. If you shoot to capture everything or wide and crop at home, you find the the printing crop just doesn't work well in many cases.

 

[Jim Jones]

When I am capturing a subject on film, I can't anticipate all the possible applications for that photograph in the future, Therefore, I allow a little room to crop. To paraphrase jvo, "I am, therefore I crop."

 

[MattKing]

Essentially, Alan is shooting for a modern version of "slide" shows. And it seems that he wants to avoid having the image size on the screen changing from image to image. So for his purposes, cropping needs to be done in camera.
I'm currently preparing for a group show, and using a printing choice that shows square images where the edge of the negative holder opening is shown in the print. As a result, everything from a 6x6 negative is printed full frame, and everything from a 6x7 negative is printed full frame with respect to the short dimension. So for this show, I needed to crop in the camera.
It is the presentation method that determines whether or not one must crop in camera.
Here is one print that didn't make it into the show - from a 6x7 negative this time:

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well if you are not able to move or crop in camera as you want. Then it is a limit if circumstances that you can fix in the copy. Nothing wrong with that, you fix other limits, such as burning/dodging/contrast/tonings etc.

Cropping in the darkroom is perfectly fine. Don't be hard on yourself.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

of course;crop- whenever it helps the image;I have even cropped while mounting; you are the artist; you are in control of it!

 

[trendland]

As I have noticed another post on the gallery suggesting I should crop - kids – Rome, I thought it worthy of a new post. When framing with a rangefinder, perhaps you see something below the brightline finders you wish to exclude, in preference to excluding part of the image at the top. In this case, if what appears at the top is not helping the content or composition, then perhaps the solution (as suggested) is to crop at the printing stage. However, (I feel) this destroys your moment of realisation within the frame finders. Do some understand what I am trying to say?

Yes I can understand what you feel. But let me short state : I am against cropping in general. It is the all time debate of squere formats (6 x 6). I remember also Hasselblad stated (within marketing campaign) : If you make a picture as Portrait/Landdcape is a decision you will find later.
Oh that is real nice : decision is not made because it can be made later.
So it is with cropping. Any kind of cropping you have to regard of conception wich has to be done while shooting.
If you are not able to make that simple decision : You are no photographer - nethertheless you travel
with a couple of Hassis hanging at you - around the world.

with regards

PS : Exeption is like you described : There is something shown on the negative wich should have been outside the original framing.

 

[jim10219]

I find that if I shoot wide and hope to find a decent crop at home, I miss the best composition. I may assume it's there because I shot "everything". But it isn't. The problem is angle and direction and where things fit are what define a good composition. Maybe the situation called for you to move one foot to the right to get it. It's too late to do that at home. No amount of cropping will correct that error. However, if you shoot to crop in the camera, you pay more attention to angles, directions, and where things are fitting in relationship to each other. The final will be better. If you shoot to capture everything or wide and crop at home, you find the the printing crop just doesn't work well in many cases.

I think you misunderstood me. You don't want to just blindly shoot wide and then try to fix it at home. You still set up your shot like you always do and get the shot the way you want it. The only difference is you back up or zoom out a tad to give you some extra room. You certainly don't want to change the angle or direction. And you're not wanting to crop a large portion of the photo out (in most cases). You're just giving yourself a little extra breathing room. It's not a fix for bad composition in the field. It's an insurance policy against missed opportunities.

Now sometimes I'll see something in a print that makes me crop an image pretty hard. You don't rely on those, but they can be happy accidents. It's fun when you find a better picture within an already good picture that you didn't even notice existed. It's important to keep your mind open at all times. Often times I'll go shooting with an ideal shot already in mind. But I'll often take other shots on the way, just in case I find something even better.

 

[trendland]

of course;crop- whenever it helps the image;I have even cropped while mounting; you are the artist; you are in control of it!

I am on the opposite side to you Ralph. Yes an artist is allowed to EVERYTHING at EVERYTIME.
He may show his photography as a kind of Installation.
And this instalation may show photographs wich are aktually burning. (When the fire is finished the photographs are burned the instalation can not be repeated.
(Sometimes a good idea to special photo artists.....)

Well - as we may define us as photographers (we might see ourselfes also as artists) we should be able to decide what a photograpical situation is worthfull enough to be shot , and how this is to be done within a short moment. That is also a kind of professional workflow photograpers without that professional background do in practice. Let this name : experience !

with regards

PS : My approach (you may name this "hate") in concern of that what I mentioned came from a lot of situations I remember from the very past. I remember a lot of discussions about how to shot and what to intend and possible framing a.s.o. But I also remember such guys who felt as real artist and named their unsharp insufficient focussing as " intended " and feel great and highliest competent.
But the reality I realized later was : They were incompetend and used that "artist" behavior as a stealth had to fly under the radar of beeing unmasked as lousers.

It is not going against you Ralph but I remember my "Pappenheimer" well...

 

[trendland]

I work with several formats. Rollei square, 4x5, 5x7, 4x10, 8x10, 5x14, 11x14. Quite a choice, even if not cropping. What percentage of images does one 'lose' by restricting oneself to not cropping? Zero percent. The number of possible images in infinite, or close enough relative to our ability to understand such a number. Choose B&W over color and you lose half (for purposes of this example) the images possible to make. How many possible images are left -- an infinite amount.

The idea that one gains more possible images by cropping is not true...it just feels like it. The number is always infinte. Experience and imagination are some of the tools to use to help one see more possible images, not whether or not one crops.

Ok I see Vaughn .....why not crop this and that single photograph if it is an exeption. But I can't remember I did it in the past. And there I thought about the picture wasn't a picture (cropped or not cropped)
So cropping is correct framing during shooting am I right?

with regards

PS : The much worst discussions are a amatheuric photo sides were each second reply is a recomandation to crop in this way or crop that.......?
Imagine Vaught I repeat one of your photographs and would give advices : Vaughn you should crop the wall on the right sight a bit because that would better your picture!
You perhaps know what I mean - this wall was perhaps intended????

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think you misunderstood me. You don't want to just blindly shoot wide and then try to fix it at home. You still set up your shot like you always do and get the shot the way you want it. The only difference is you back up or zoom out a tad to give you some extra room. You certainly don't want to change the angle or direction. And you're not wanting to crop a large portion of the photo out (in most cases). You're just giving yourself a little extra breathing room. It's not a fix for bad composition in the field. It's an insurance policy against missed opportunities.

Now sometimes I'll see something in a print that makes me crop an image pretty hard. You don't rely on those, but they can be happy accidents. It's fun when you find a better picture within an already good picture that you didn't even notice existed. It's important to keep your mind open at all times. Often times I'll go shooting with an ideal shot already in mind. But I'll often take other shots on the way, just in case I find something even better.

Jim, Yes that I can agree with. You're composing the elements in the camera and leaving some room around the sides. That's why I think about how I intend to use the photo in the end. If I'm shooting a vacation slide show to be shown on 16:9 TV, I'll set the camera for 16:9. If I think I'll print, put on the internet, etc. than I'll set 4:3 which is the full size sensor in my camera, and compose to 4:3. I don;t leave some room on the edges. That's old habits from my 35mm slide shooting days.

 

[trendland]

No Jim sorry to state but what you described isn't my way also. It is like the workflow of so many today
who shot digital without care about anything (for example exposure ?????)
Because it can by done via post production.
A photograph isn't be able to be done via post production because the general Definition of a photograph is that is a creation during the moment of it is shot. What did Ansel Adams and H.C. Bresson teached us?

So a photograph isn't coming from post but from post is coming a lot of things!

with regards

 

[Berkeley Mike]

No Jim sorry to state but what you described isn't my way also. It is like the workflow of so many today
who shot digital without care about anything (for example exposure ?????)
Because it can by done via post production.
A photograph isn't be able to be done via post production because the general Definition of a photograph is that is a creation during the moment of it is shot. What did Ansel Adams and H.C. Bresson teached us?

So a photograph isn't coming from post but from post is coming a lot of things!

with regards[/QUOTE

.

This is the worst and most oft-repeated, misinformation about digital capture hands down. It absolutely fails to understand the process. We are constantly fighting for the very best capture possible because you cannot make good images with junk.

I've been a pro since 1979, working within the limits of film and doing as much as one can in-capture. I made the shift to digital thoroughly by 1999. Along with my professional work I also teach Introduction to Digital Photography amongst other advanced pro classes.

In my classes I do not allow the term "post" or "post processing" as I find them derogatory; see above. In discussion this very day I told the class that we refer to our work after capture as development; bringing out the qualities inherent in our capture. Use of the word "post" will result in immediate death by being beaten with tripods

 

[Bill Burk]

Use of the word "post" will result in immediate death by being beaten with tripods

Thank goodness you teach the proper use of tripods.

 

[Pieter12]

No Jim sorry to state but what you described isn't my way also. It is like the workflow of so many today
who shot digital without care about anything (for example exposure ?????)
Because it can by done via post production.
A photograph isn't be able to be done via post production because the general Definition of a photograph is that is a creation during the moment of it is shot. What did Ansel Adams and H.C. Bresson teached us?

So a photograph isn't coming from post but from post is coming a lot of things!

with regards

Printing a negative is post-production.