Cropping

[jettmn]

was wondering what everyone’s preferences were for cropping when making prints. I personally like make 6x9 prints on 8x10 paper with white borders so I’m pretty much able to get the full frame.

 

[koraks]

I generally prefer to use as much of the original frame as possible. This often means picking the right paper size (for me) to begin with, but also cropping a little. E.g. I often print 35mm onto 18x24cm paper with a 1cm border all around, which means I crop a little from the long side. 4x5 I prefer to print onto 8x10 paper to get most of the image as I recorded it. 6x6 I generally print in square format, either cutting a strip off the paper (this becomes a test strip) or by maintaining a 1cm border left, top and right of the image and having the remainder of the empty space at the bottom.

But I have deviated from the above very often depending on composition, desired output etc. I can't really say that there is one particular way in which I always do it. Why would I limit myself to one standard approach/size/ratio?

 

[ic-racer]

I crop out about 5mm to 10mm around the edges of the projected image. This ensures the easel blades make a sharp line. Also, many cameras don't show the far edges of the film image in the view finder, so nothing is lost.

 

[DWThomas]

I pretty much combine the first two responses, generally maintaining the aspect ratio of the film format I'm using. I assume a bit of mat window overlap around the edge when setting up the print size. Most of my printed film output is from 6x6, so I place about a 10.5 inch square print image on 11x14 paper, generally cutting 2.5 inches or so off the long dimension and using it for test strips.

When I occasionally contact print negatives from my 8x10 pinhole camera for exhibition, I have a masking arrangement I made that plants the whole image, including the rebates, in the middle of 11x14 paper (just to be a bit eccentric ).

So I pretty much standardize my printing -- but -- if some compositional issue suggests cropping, I do own a mat cutter!

 

[Neal]

For a finished print, crop to make the image you want to make. There is no virtue in printing something simply because it was recorded on film.

 

[koraks]

For a finished print, crop to make the image you want to make. There is no virtue in printing something simply because it was recorded on film.

Certainly. Unless it was captured on film because it was an integral part of the image. And that is how I at least try to frame. So 'simply because it was recorded' in itself is not a good argument to print something, but the question then becomes: why are some things recorded on film if they weren't supposed to be? I can see the sense of that in things like street photography, but then again, that's a particular avenue that I tend to stay away from (personal preference).

 

[MattKing]

Don't try to make a composition fit your camera's frame, unless you can comfortably do so.
If parts of a negative aren't useful, but the useful parts are what you want, crop to the useful parts.
Presentation choices also have a role in this. For my last group show, I chose square prints in square frames, even though two of the six negatives were actually 6x7.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

The world doesn't come neatly packaged in 4x5 or 6x9 or whatever aspect ratios. My subject determines the composition, including the placement of the print borders. I find my camera position first and then choose the lens that gets all of what I want in the frame without cropping out my pre-determined borders. Sure, I try to use as much film area as I can, but sometimes I'll have to crop quite a bit when printing in order to get what I want (say my 200mm lens was just a shade too long and the next shorter focal length I have is 135mm... I don't want to change my camera position since that will ruin the composition, so I bite the bullet and use the 135mm lens, wishing I'd packed the 180mm or the 150mm...).

My prints can be proportioned anywhere from square to long and skinny; it all depends on the composition of the individual image.

Best,

Doremus

 

[chip j]

was wondering what everyone’s preferences were for cropping when making prints. I personally like make 6x9 prints on 8x10 paper with white borders so I’m pretty much able to get the full frame.

+++!

 

[Vaughn]

For a finished print, crop to make the image you want to make. There is no virtue in printing something simply because it was recorded on film.

But it ain't a sin either...

When I was enlarging, I used the easel blades to determine the edges, losing the min. amount of image area as I could from the neg carrier and the easel blades. Mounting the print. I trimmed the minimum amount that I could from around the image area after I had attached the dry-mount tissue to the print...leaving me with about a 15x19 image area The window of the matboard mat was cut about just a touch bigger than 16x20.

 

[koraks]

But it ain't a sin either...

But you contact print a lot. That makes a difference I think when composing a shot. If you compose with the idea in mind to make contacts as final products, I think you're more likely to try and fit the world into the proportions of your camera back. At least, that's what I experience (and whether that's a good thing is an entirely different matter...)

 

[Vaughn]

But you contact print a lot. That makes a difference I think when composing a shot. If you compose with the idea in mind to make contacts as final products, I think you're more likely to try and fit the world into the proportions of your camera back. At least, that's what I experience (and whether that's a good thing is an entirely different matter...)

I agree.

I added some info to my post above. I worked a similar way when enlarging, but I am not trying to fit the world into any box...just some light.

 

[faberryman]

The world doesn't come neatly packaged in 4x5 or 6x9 or whatever aspect ratios.

Mine does. I compose to the aspect ratio of the camera - 3:2, 1:1, 4:5. I also shoot 7:17 from 3:2. It just takes a little pre-visualization.

 

[jim10219]

Coming from a painting background, I don't have any loyalty towards whatever aspect ratio the camera, film, or printing paper comes in. When I paint, I build the frame and stretch the canvas to the exact dimensions I want based on the results of my preliminary sketches. When I photograph, I frame the shots and prints how they will look best in the end, not how they will most maximize resolution, real estate, or savings.

 

[winger]

I crop to fit how I want it to look. My first print is usually done full frame (even with big white spaces when the format doesn't fit the paper) on 8x10 paper. Then I use blank paper or mat board to figure out how I might want to crop it in the final print (sometimes I don't crop at all). The film format might be a factor, but not always. Sometimes I print with a black line around the frame, more often not. It depends on the image. When I shoot, I try to zoom with my feet, but since I can't hover in mid-air over streams and such, I sometimes need to compose on the easel instead of in the viewfinder.

 

[Vaughn]

We all crop -- some just do it once with the camera and some do it twice...once with the camera and again when printing...and maybe a third time when mounting/framing. No big deal. Virtue is not the issue...personal vision is.

 

[MattKing]

Anyone remember cropping slides before projection ?

 

[DWThomas]

Anyone remember cropping slides before projection ?

Yeah -- aluminum foil and a remount -- maybe done three times in fifty years!

 

[Vaughn]

Anyone remember cropping slides before projection ?

SOP when submitting slides for any reason!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I crop before I press the shutter release so I greatly prefer to print the whole frame whenever possible.

 

[Vaughn]

+1!

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I crop before I press the shutter release so I greatly prefer to print the whole frame whenever possible.

Of course, fitting your entire desired image perfectly onto a sheet of film is ideal. It's just that, for me, that rarely happens.

I'll want a 3.5 x 5 aspect ratio, or a panorama, or even a square format, but I'm carrying 4x5 sheet film. The answer (since I can) is to simply crop to my desired aspect ratio when enlarging.

Or, I find the perfect camera position that juxtaposes all the elements in the scene in just the way I want them, but I don't have the 172.5mm lens that I would need to crop in camera and get the image borders perfect. So, I'll use my 150mm lens, or even my 135mm lens if I'm not carrying the 150, and crop to get the desired borders later in the darkroom.

I enlarge, so I'm not constrained to try to impose the aspect ratio of my film or the focal length of my lenses on my composition. I have free reign to let my inventiveness do what it wants with composition. I just need to make sure I get it all on film, erring on the side of a bit extra that I can crop out later. Sure, I try to use as much of the film area as I can, but don't hesitate to include more than I need in order to get the viewpoint or aspect ratio I want.

I guess one could take scissors to the negative and crop that way before contact printing. That seems awfully final, but if one wanted an 8 x 9 instead of 8 x 10 image...

Best,

Doremus

 

[jim10219]

Of course, fitting your entire desired image perfectly onto a sheet of film is ideal. It's just that, for me, that rarely happens.

I'll want a 3.5 x 5 aspect ratio, or a panorama, or even a square format, but I'm carrying 4x5 sheet film. The answer (since I can) is to simply crop to my desired aspect ratio when enlarging.

Or, I find the perfect camera position that juxtaposes all the elements in the scene in just the way I want them, but I don't have the 172.5mm lens that I would need to crop in camera and get the image borders perfect. So, I'll use my 150mm lens, or even my 135mm lens if I'm not carrying the 150, and crop to get the desired borders later in the darkroom.

I enlarge, so I'm not constrained to try to impose the aspect ratio of my film or the focal length of my lenses on my composition. I have free reign to let my inventiveness do what it wants with composition. I just need to make sure I get it all on film, erring on the side of a bit extra that I can crop out later. Sure, I try to use as much of the film area as I can, but don't hesitate to include more than I need in order to get the viewpoint or aspect ratio I want.

I guess one could take scissors to the negative and crop that way before contact printing. That seems awfully final, but if one wanted an 8 x 9 instead of 8 x 10 image...

Best,

Doremus

Exactly! If you have a 6x6 camera, and you happen across a scene that is best composed in a 1:2 format, do you just take a bad photo because that's the camera you have? Do you decide not to take the photo, because you can't fit the composition you want into the film's format? Or do you take a photo with the idea to crop it down later? That seems like a no-brainer to me.

How about if you're doing commercial work? If you shoot a magazine cover, do you buy an 8.5x11 (or 9x11.5 so you can have bleed) ratio negative camera? Do you call up the magazine and demand they print it at 8.5x8.5 to fit your image? Do you insist that if they want to use your photo, they put a white border on one or two edges to make it fit? I can tell you what I do, and if you don't do it the same way as me, you're not going to be hired again by that company.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Of course, fitting your entire desired image perfectly onto a sheet of film is ideal. It's just that, for me, that rarely happens.

I'll want a 3.5 x 5 aspect ratio, or a panorama, or even a square format, but I'm carrying 4x5 sheet film. The answer (since I can) is to simply crop to my desired aspect ratio when enlarging.

Or, I find the perfect camera position that juxtaposes all the elements in the scene in just the way I want them, but I don't have the 172.5mm lens that I would need to crop in camera and get the image borders perfect. So, I'll use my 150mm lens, or even my 135mm lens if I'm not carrying the 150, and crop to get the desired borders later in the darkroom.

I enlarge, so I'm not constrained to try to impose the aspect ratio of my film or the focal length of my lenses on my composition. I have free reign to let my inventiveness do what it wants with composition. I just need to make sure I get it all on film, erring on the side of a bit extra that I can crop out later. Sure, I try to use as much of the film area as I can, but don't hesitate to include more than I need in order to get the viewpoint or aspect ratio I want.

I guess one could take scissors to the negative and crop that way before contact printing. That seems awfully final, but if one wanted an 8 x 9 instead of 8 x 10 image...

Best,

Doremus

Exactly! If you have a 6x6 camera, and you happen across a scene that is best composed in a 1:2 format, do you just take a bad photo because that's the camera you have? Do you decide not to take the photo, because you can't fit the composition you want into the film's format? Or do you take a photo with the idea to crop it down later? That seems like a no-brainer to me.

How about if you're doing commercial work? If you shoot a magazine cover, do you buy an 8.5x11 (or 9x11.5 so you can have bleed) ratio negative camera? Do you call up the magazine and demand they print it at 8.5x8.5 to fit your image? Do you insist that if they want to use your photo, they put a white border on one or two edges to make it fit? I can tell you what I do, and if you don't do it the same way as me, you're not going to be hired again by that company.

I compose for the format of the camera I am using. It is not that hard. Try it.

 

[John51]

I'll give some attention to getting a full frame if I'm using a zoom. Otherwise, if what I want covers most of the frame, that'll do. I'm used to cropping at the printing stage.

As long the final print is good, why would the viewer care how it happened?