Cropping the square negative

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I dont understand how anyone can have a rule or why they would try to consciously compose to a format, as this is a comprimise from the outset. For me ... (snip)

Some people organize their composition by using a basic frame of reference: the shape of the picture. Other people look at their subject and realize that it would need such and such format to look good. With your camera you are most of the time limited to using only one format at the time (square or rectangle). So starting from the given shape of your camera is a way to save time on re-framing the shot in the darkroom. If you want to make an 20x24 out of a 6x6, you will need to do a little bit more enlargement than if you did it from a 6x7, and that could make a difference on your finished product. It's actually not a compromise: you're trying to maximise the potential of your tools.

Your not understanding it has no bearing on whether it is or not a good methodology.

 

[chuck94022]

I tend to shoot the image as framed in the viewfinder of the camera I choose. If 6x6, I tend to frame an image that looks good in the viewfinder.

Sometimes I break out of that mode and intentionally shoot an image that I know I'll crop differently, but that's more rare, and usually because I don't have the lens handy to properly frame the shot, and it is fleeting. So in that case, I might still crop to a square, or not, just depends on what I see in the resulting image.

But usually, when I'm looking through a square viewfinder, the image just intuitively gets selected and shot based on that frame, and tends to stay that way in the print.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

.....starting from the given shape of your camera is a way to save time on re-framing the shot in the darkroom. If you want to make an 20x24 out of a 6x6, you will need to do a little bit more enlargement than if you did it from a 6x7, and that could make a difference on your finished product. It's actually not a compromise: you're trying to maximise the potential of your tools.

Your not understanding it has no bearing on whether it is or not a good methodology.

Er, yeah thanks for the last statement.

I guess it comes down to priorities. I would feel that the proportions of a print are more important than enlargement size. I would therefore rather crop a 6x6 to a rectangular print (if that is the proportions I thought it needed) than to accept it as a sqaure (and therefore not crop the neg in the darkroom). I agree that the 'frame' can help compose, but it hinders as much as it assists. The world around us is not presented in 1:1 or 1.25:1 ratios. The photographer gets to choose the way final images are presented and does not have to accept the proportions of a viewfinder. The right shape is right shape. If that is square fine, if rectangular fine regardless of the viewfinder shape you started with. Not allowing oneself this flexiblity surely is a compromise on the aesthetic qualities of the image unless size is more important - personally it never is for me. I would rather have a well balanced 12x16 than a 16x16 thats less good, if the aesthetics were stronger in the rectangular format. I would consider the keeping 4 unwanted inches pointless.

You say, "[cropping a 6x6 to rectangular] If you want to make an 20x24 out of a 6x6, you will need to do a little bit more enlargement than if you did it from a 6x7, and that could make a difference on your finished product. It's actually not a compromise: you're trying to maximise the potential of your tools." You are compromising if you think the image looks right as a rectangle but wont crop it because you dont want to waste 'neg area' thus sticking to a square!

Are aesthetics not more important than sheer size? Either way it is a compromise, but I take photos to produce things I hope are aesthetically pleasing rather than just 'BIG'

 

[gnashings]

I always crop my 6x6 to a rectangle, mainly because I am cheap - I mean, on a 8x10 sheet of paper, I paid for that 2x8 rectangle I am not using!!!

Seriously though, being able to compose a picture exactly the way it should look on a negative is quite a skill, one that I am striving for, but am a long way from achieving. Also, the type of shooting I usually do forces me to frame as best I can and hope that "my picture" is in there somewhere (and this may be an excuse for lack of above mentioned skill...).

I don't think (and this is my very humble opinion) that cropping is a bad thing, thoguh. Sometimes, unless you are shooting from a tripod, looking at a posed or better yet, immobile subject, you just don't have the time to take all possibilities into account, and you do the best you can. In the dark room, with the image "captive" on your negative, you have a lot more time to examine every angle, all possibilities, etc. - so you crop.

Yesterday, I realized that I have been conditioned to "fill the paper I have". I had a shot of a Hawker SeaFury (fighter plane - late 1940's), taken head on from ground level. This was a carrier based plane, and had folding wings. Its wings were folded up when displayed. I found the shape of it fascinating, so I took a shot that I carefully composed, and succeeded in getting onto the negative exactly the way I saw it in the (square) viewfinder.
Well, I think that poor easel of mine was ready to call Dr kavorkian - I turned it this way and that, adjusted it, zoomed in, out, etc. - until I realized...hey, I actually got this right! I am not sure where that conditoning comes from - I wold really like to think that my opening statement was purely humorous.. but perhaps it rings more true than I thought! Or is it schooled into me? Now I have a beautiful silhouette of a Hawker SeaFury with wings folded, only the huge spinner and prop showing detail and lovely, wet-looking highlights... printed on a perfect square! I am proud of that white strip on the bottom - it is a testimony to the shackles I threw off!

But in the end, if I was to show any of you a picture, square or rectangular or circular - whatever the shape, that you absolutely loved, you thought it was God's gift to photography, would you change your opinion if I told you afterwards it was cropped?

 

[modafoto]

Let the 2x8 stay white and leave a huge signature there

 

[FrankB]

The world around us is not presented in 1:1 or 1.25:1 ratios. The photographer gets to choose the way final images are presented and does not have to accept the proportions of a viewfinder. The right shape is right shape. If that is square fine, if rectangular fine regardless of the viewfinder shape you started with.

That would be my view (if I'd been able to state it that clearly! Thanks, Tom!).

I always crop my 6x6 to a rectangle, mainly because I am cheap - I mean, on a 8x10 sheet of paper, I paid for that 2x8 rectangle I am not using!!!

Yes, I'm cheap enough to have that problem too! However, I find that if I cut that section off before exposure and processing it makes a pretty decent size and shape for a test strip.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I guess it comes down to priorities. I would feel that the proportions of a print are more important than enlargement size. I would therefore rather crop a 6x6 to a rectangular print (if that is the proportions I thought it needed) than to accept it as a sqaure (and therefore not crop the neg in the darkroom). I agree that the 'frame' can help compose, but it hinders as much as it assists.

My point was that the hindrance/help is relative to the photographer, not an absolute given. I like to use my camera's frame to compose because it gives me clear borders around my subject.

The world around us is not presented in 1:1 or 1.25:1 ratios. The photographer gets to choose the way final images are presented and does not have to accept the proportions of a viewfinder. The right shape is right shape. If that is square fine, if rectangular fine regardless of the viewfinder shape you started with. Not allowing oneself this flexiblity surely is a compromise on the aesthetic qualities of the image unless size is more important - personally it never is for me. I would rather have a well balanced 12x16 than a 16x16 thats less good, if the aesthetics were stronger in the rectangular format. I would consider the keeping 4 unwanted inches pointless.

You say, "[cropping a 6x6 to rectangular] If you want to make an 20x24 out of a 6x6, you will need to do a little bit more enlargement than if you did it from a 6x7, and that could make a difference on your finished product. It's actually not a compromise: you're trying to maximise the potential of your tools." You are compromising if you think the image looks right as a rectangle but wont crop it because you dont want to waste 'neg area' thus sticking to a square!

Are aesthetics not more important than sheer size? Either way it is a compromise, but I take photos to produce things I hope are aesthetically pleasing rather than just 'BIG'

If you only have a 6x6 camera with you and you see a brilliant rectangle area, then go ahead and crop; but if you have the luxury of having a backup 6x7 with you, then you should rather use it because you will lessen the technical impact of enlargement. I'm just suggesting caution in the process of cropping/not cropping. I'm also pointing to the fact that it is worthwhile to be attuned to the specific impact of your tools upon your work, and not try to overcome them all the time.

When you have in mind a square or a rectangle picture, you should have the ability to choose material that will gets in your way as less as possible.
I am not saying that you should fundamentally strive for print quality above artistic qualities, but that if you know how to use wisely your technical possibilities, then you've enhanced the potential and quality of your impact.

The composition of an image is not made in a fixed order: you may start with subject matter, choice of a frame shape, exposure, and printing, but you may as well start with frame shape (because you only have one camera with you), THEN subject matter, etc. In the latter case, you have two ways to go: either crop because you don't feel the frame shape you have is adequate, or not crop and explore instead what the specific frame shape you have with you can do.

The question of what approach should be preferred is a moot one; when you conceptualize things like "form" and "content" you will realize that the influence goes both ways. Sometimes your form will dictate your content, sometimes your content will dictate your form. Obviously they will lead you to compromises, but a life without compromises just doesn't exist.

 

[B-3]

I like squares too (though not always), but framing and matting them, as they are not considered a "standard" size, is quite a bit more of a hassle - so much so that I think twice about making a square image.

Main reason is matting and standard sizes. tim

 

[gnashings]

I should pre cut a box of paper to squares, and have a nice boxof test strips left over - that was a good idea! Except now I need a good paper cutter...

 

[Charles Webb]

I have enjoyed this thread very much, it includes a lot of good input.

Personally, the subject itself dictates to me how I want it to appear in the final finished print. I have long disliked the square format, but certainly wouldn't hesitate to use it if I felt that it would enhance or best display a
specific subject. My final choice of format based on the subject is made long before I make the initial exposure. My darkroom cropping is normally just inside the unexposed areas created by the film holder or camera back. I have never had anything to prove to anyone by making a print that includes the (to me) unsightly full frame sheet borders and code notches. That may be pure to some, but it's mud fence ugly to me.

A tough assignment to me is to be required to do a detailed photograph of a radio tower or other vertical subject in a horizontal format. I also find it very difficult to photograph an entire freight train using a vertical format. ;-)

My Idea is to choose what ever format is necessary to present the best possible finished image, regardless of the subject matter.