Cropping your photo seems to be an old taboo that's left over from the pre-photography art world, where it's considered less than good form to improve your finished painting's composition by cutting it down to size. Same w/ a watercolor and drawing, not necessarily w/ a print.
I wonder why that should be w/ analog photography? Even though we can crop the image in the enlarger, or do it by matting the print or cutting the paper down, it somehow feels wrong to me. Which is not smart, since at least half of my work could surely do w/ some compositional tightening up.
And what if I want a square print? The photographer's solution is truly wacky: since almost no one here would cut down a 35mm print to a square, including me, then we think it's time to go buy a completely different type of camera (plus lenses), probably a different enlarger w/ different neg carriers and lenses, and buy a different type of film that fits none of the other cameras! All just to go from rectangle to square. We don't have to, but we just do.
Even though we can crop the image in the enlarger, or do it by matting the print or cutting the paper down, it somehow feels wrong to me. Which is not smart, since at least half of my work could surely do w/ some compositional tightening up.
Sure, cropping is a tool in the process of creating a photo, just as selecting a specific focal length during while taking the photo or using a filter are tools as well. I certainly have had at least one teacher in the past who insisted that all our assignments be printed with filed negative carriers and the film's borders exposed, to show 'we knew how to frame in the camera'. While a decent idea in theory, that's not always an option, due to a variety of reasons. I moved past printing all my photos like that as soon as the class was done.
@wiltw hey, a good reason to shoot 6x7! Didn't Mamiya advertise their cameras as 'ideal format' for that reason? (I still crop 6x7 sometimes...)
If I could paint I wouldn't need to crop.In general, never. Does a painter make a painting and then cut a bit off the end?
In general, never. Does a painter make a painting and then cut a bit off the end?
You can have wider borders on the top and/or bottom, it's not a sin. Or would cut the paper down to match your preferences.Consider that if you take the 135 format neg, and then print the following, you HAVE TO crop the original image, simply to fit the print size!
...only the first print in the list exactly fits the 135 neg! Nothing is 'wrong' unless you think that it is only acceptable to print 4x6" and 8x12" and 16x24", and other sizes are just plain 'wrong' for the format.
- 4x6
- 5x7
- 8x10
- 11x14
- 14x17
+1Yes if I want to. Why not? It's my photo after all.
You can have wider borders on the top and/or bottom, it's not a sin. Or would cut the paper down to match your preferences.
Painters have been known to cut down canvases to change the composition or even to fit in specific space.Better question to ask is if a painter has a 2x3 shaped piece of canvas but a 4x5 frame does he worry about what's outside that frame? Heck no. He "crops" -- cuts and stretches that canvas to the size he wants and works there.
Likewise, since he's making the image from whole cloth, not on the fly, he can virtually position himself in any perspective he chooses. Photographers might not be so lucky, especially in street, sports, news, or action photography, where you have to work quickly, or where your movement is restricted. f/8 and be there man. A painter "crops" in his minds eye, which is where the image was formed, then paints (prints) that composition on the canvas.
I seldom crop a completed print. But I'll crop negatives in a heartbeat if it makes sense. People shots get cropped all the time, especially if I use 35mm and want to print 5x7 or 8x10s. I love to give 5x7 prints to people I photograph, they appreciate it way more than a cellphone snap.
Same ratio as 6x4.5. And it fits perfectly as a 7.5" x 9.375" print on an 8" x 10" paper. Or a 4.5" x 6.25" print on 5" x 7" paper.But there's no reasonable sized print that matches the 3/4 ratio.
And the extra blank area on the paper lets one safely handle it during processing. That's the down-side of using the same proportion negs as the paper. Leaving only a half inch border around a 16x20 prints means carefully edge handling.My first medium format was 6x8. That doesn't fit anything. Even my scanner masks: 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 -- Doh! But there's no reasonable sized print that matches the 3/4 ratio. At first I cropped some, but then I got it in me to embrace the oddness.
Now when I print landscapes I do it with the original ratio and leave the white strips on the ends as a badge of honor. I had frame destination custom cut mats to match when I mount them and it all works great.
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?