Do you crop your photos?

[radiant]

I could think.of nothing more boring than churning out straight grade 2 prints year in year out

At that point I didn't realize photography was about equipment and not about the reaction of common people to my prints

The 135 format has been a problem for me for years and it because exacerbated when I built my darkroom. Thus my constant chanting about "Square being the perfect format." I also like the 4"x5" format, again because it is not that stretched out 135mm format that makes me crop and reduce the usable negative area.

Sometimes I feel like it is more easier to crop from square because of the equal playground in both directions. We have discussed this before here but the aspect ratio of 6x7 is just so off. It is like a square in disquise. Or maybe it is just the midf**k of RB67s cropping lines..

 

[Sirius Glass]

At that point I didn't realize photography was about equipment and not about the reaction of common people to my prints



Sometimes I feel like it is more easier to crop from square because of the equal playground in both directions. We have discussed this before here but the aspect ratio of 6x7 is just so off. It is like a square in disquise. Or maybe it is just the midf**k of RB67s cropping lines..

Square is the perfect format because:

• Square works so well on its own
  
• Square can be easily cropped leaving a large area for the negative to work with

135mm format is lame because:

• 135 is too long and one has to lop off a large wasted portion of the negative to get a useful image
• 135 is already small and when cropped it leaves very little negative to work with
  
• 135 is just plain butt ugly

6x7 is a good format, but the cameras get a little bulky and when I want to go bulky I go to 4"x5"

 

[warden]

We have discussed this before here but the aspect ratio of 6x7 is just so off. It is like a square in disquise. .

Aw man, I thought we were friends!

I like 6x7, but do need to crop it to square from time to time. It's a fun challenge for me though, and having fun is why I do it.

 

[radiant]

Aw man, I thought we were friends!
I like 6x7, but do need to crop it to square from time to time. It's a fun challenge for me though, and having fun is why I do it.

Well done composing those two. I started to feel a bit anxious already when my eyes analyzed the aspect ratio. Now looking at those photos it is easy to still claim that that format works only for certain scenes and 6x7 is probably very often cropped to other aspect ratios. However that might be the stength, plenty of space to crop and zoom.

 

[warden]

Well done composing those two. I started to feel a bit anxious already when my eyes analyzed the aspect ratio. Now looking at those photos it is easy to still claim that that format works only for certain scenes and 6x7 is probably very often cropped to other aspect ratios. However that might be the stength, plenty of space to crop and zoom.

Thanks, and I think your opinion is fair btw. I can happily shoot with a square format camera all day without once thinking, gee I wish I had a 6x7 with me. There just isn't enough extra to make it noticeably different enough for those thoughts to crop up. But like any format, when I'm using 6x7 I'm trying to see the scenery that way, which I imagine a lot of us do.

I like the weird formats and would love to have a panoramic camera one day, despite the awful forced compositions those formats seem to encourage. I want to try!

 

[radiant]

I like the weird formats and would love to have a panoramic camera one day, despite the awful forced compositions those formats seem to encourage. I want to try!

That is why I built myself 6x17 camera. When I realized how bizarre it is, I couldn't resist. Without any decent viewfinder on it, the composition is a bit tricky to manage. And because I don't own 5x7 enlarger, all prints are done contact. So.. no cheat.. sorry, cropping available

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Obviously there are always exceptions to the rule - but forcing yourself to use the full frame helps you see better and makes you a better photographer. If you can't properly interpret the scene when taking the photo and rely on cropping then you need more practice. You should never rely on post prod. As for breaking the rules, only start breaking them once you understand them.

Mastering technique is not pretentious. It's part of the photographic process - just like proper focusing and exposure.

If you're constantly cropping then why not take it to the next level and just shoot video and pick out the best stills?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks, and I think your opinion is fair btw. I can happily shoot with a square format camera all day without once thinking, gee I wish I had a 6x7 with me. There just isn't enough extra to make it noticeably different enough for those thoughts to crop up. But like any format, when I'm using 6x7 I'm trying to see the scenery that way, which I imagine a lot of us do.

I like the weird formats and would love to have a panoramic camera one day, despite the awful forced compositions those formats seem to encourage. I want to try!

Gee, I just never think about 6x7 when I am shooting square. When one is using the perfect format, there is no need to think about alternatives.

 

[warden]

That is why I built myself 6x17 camera. When I realized how bizarre it is, I couldn't resist. Without any decent viewfinder on it, the composition is a bit tricky to manage. And because I don't own 5x7 enlarger, all prints are done contact. So.. no cheat.. sorry, cropping available

6x17 now we're talking. That's properly wide!

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Gee, I just never think about 6x7 when I am shooting square. When one is using the perfect format, there is no need to think about alternatives.

Square is a great format and should never be cropped. But it's not the only format. 612 and 617 are mind blowing formats as well.

 

[Pieter12]

Using film and a darkroom means one does not need to apologize for using image editing software.

So I can use image-editing software now with your permission?

 

[Pieter12]

That is why I built myself 6x17 camera. When I realized how bizarre it is, I couldn't resist. Without any decent viewfinder on it, the composition is a bit tricky to manage. And because I don't own 5x7 enlarger, all prints are done contact. So.. no cheat.. sorry, cropping available

You can crop contact prints. Easily done with either a mask or an Xacto knife.

 

[VinceInMT]

Don’t most cameras crop? After all, isn’t the lens producing a round image? Maybe round is the perfect format.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That is why I built myself 6x17 camera. When I realized how bizarre it is, I couldn't resist. Without any decent viewfinder on it, the composition is a bit tricky to manage. And because I don't own 5x7 enlarger, all prints are done contact. So.. no cheat.. sorry, cropping available

You can crop contact prints. Easily done with either a mask or an Xacto knife.

Roller paper cutters like this https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/757429-REG/Carl_CUI72220_DC_220_15_Heavy_Duty_Rotary.html /?cnxclid=16429742416830828694310090301008005 will do a good job too.

 

[cliveh]

I'm sad that cliveh learns nothing from his time in the darkroom. I get lots of joy from the discoveries I make there.

Matt, I have learned a lot from working in the darkroom and the main thing I have learnt is that to provide consistency of vision you need to simplify your process between camera and process. Otherwise, camera format, aspect ratio, lens, film developer, print developer, printing paper, contrast grade, dodging and shading to name but a few, multiply the variables of your out come by a zillion times.

 

[cowanw]

You can crop contact prints. Easily done with either a mask or an Xacto knife.

I believe a lot of ex-spouses use scissors to crop their wedding photos.

 

[MattKing]

You wont learn to see in the darkroom.

Matt, I have learned a lot from working in the darkroom and the main thing I have learnt is that to provide consistency of vision you need to simplify your process between camera and process. Otherwise, camera format, aspect ratio, lens, film developer, print developer, printing paper, contrast grade, dodging and shading to name but a few, multiply the variables of your out come by a zillion times.

clive:
I respect your desire to achieve consistency of vision.
But I don't think that consistency of vision is all that important for most people.
I think there are millions of people out there who get to expand their vision greatly, because they are constantly learning. And I find the darkroom to be a great place to learn - both how and what one sees, and a bunch of other things as well.
If your original post had been about the darkroom not being a place to narrow and focus their vision, we might still be in disagreement, but I think the argument might make more sense.

 

[Pieter12]

Part of my vision is what might happen in the darkroom. When I trip the shutter, it is only a step in the process.

 

[wiltw]

I believe a lot of ex-spouses use scissors to crop their wedding photos.

Somebody should have told that to Lorena Bobbitt.

 

[radiant]

You can crop contact prints. Easily done with either a mask or an Xacto knife.

The question is if I want to reduce the size of already-so-small print. And loose those lovely borders... No.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I don't like cropping at all, it makes me feel restless and uneasy, as I did something wrong, I can't help it...
At art school, we ware told to not to "reframe", as it was called then, and print with the black negative border.

But, once in the trade, others took that liberty, they cropped my photo's: the publishers, editors, graphic designers, they all did it. And I understand it as I mostly shot 6x6 (Hasselblad) and that doesn't fit the (vertical-) full page book format, and I accepted it and took this in consideration when composing my photos. On certain occasions, I made a format mask out of coloured plastic (a damaged Wratten CC filter) as an overlay on the ground glass of my camera...

 

[radiant]

On certain occasions, I made a format mask out of coloured plastic (a damaged Wratten CC filter) as an overlay on the ground glass of my camera...

This.

If you constantly need to post-crop your photos, it means your original form factor isn't compatible what you prefer. For example darkroom paper might dictate your aspect ratio and your camera produces different ratio. Fix that. The sooner in the process you get things right, the more easier it is to accomplish your targets.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

This.

If you constantly need to post-crop your photos, it means your original form factor isn't compatible what you prefer. For example darkroom paper might dictate your aspect ratio and your camera produces different ratio. Fix that. The sooner in the process you get things right, the more easier it is to accomplish your targets.

Dear Radiant,
I can't blame you for not really knowing the rules of the trade: in publishing, between 80 to 90% was schot on colour slide film (the so called EKTA'S). Slides tend to represent exactly the camera format.
Those who cropped my work were very much pleased with the extra 'space' they got to cut in. Reframing (cropping) 6x6 to A4 isn't always a child's play...
You have to consider that, what over here we used to call "le dynamique du panoramoque" or "bladspiegel", what I try to translate into 'the dynamics of the spread', is what dictates the way images are cropped.
The spread (= two pages next to each other) consisted of the title, the text, the images, illustrations, highlighting elements and the captions. All of them had to be in balance.
So, yes, cropping had to be done, and not by the photographer but by the production chain of publication.
And a 6x6 frame with lots of useful 'information' was a godsent for them, and I had to 'fill' that square with the idea that it could be cropped, not a child's play neither...

But, about darkroom (photographic B&W) paper, a Rotatrim is the answer ...
About targets, what I see in the viewfinder is what I 'see' (feel?), compose and want to accomplish. And the black border is my frame.

 

[radiant]

I can't blame you for not really knowing the rules of the trade: in publishing, between 80 to 90% was schot on colour slide film (the so called EKTA'S). Slides tend to represent exactly the camera format.

Actually I'm excatly talking about this. If you need to shoot to certain aspect ratio, then do it. Use the correct equipment for this. Use a mask on your camera or whatever takes you there. If you are pro you will visualize the magazine cover or spread during composition.

 

[Pieter12]

Actually I'm excatly talking about this. If you need to shoot to certain aspect ratio, then do it. Use the correct equipment for this. Use a mask on your camera or whatever takes you there. If you are pro you will visualize the magazine cover or spread during composition.

As a former art director, I have to tell you that no matter how the photo is composed, the art director/designer/photo editor will most likely crop it. For most assignments, an art director is present to approve of the shot anyway and will let the photographer know to allow for bleed or where copy might be placed. In today's digital world, there may be a file of the layout to superimpose on the image as it is made. There are practical factors, such as bleed amount, the masthead or logo, cover blurbs, bar codes for a cover, Interior spreads need to account for creep, bleed, copy placement. And of course the art director's taste. All or none of these factors may come into play and change at the last moment. Fashion (not catalog) work is possibly an exception because usually there is minimal or no copy at all, just a logo and maybe a tagline. Once the photo is in the hands of the client, unless you are a 4-star celebrity, you most likely won't have any say in the final product--probably won't even see it until it hits the street.