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.
Depending on the use and layout, a vertical and a horizontal may be needed. And I forgot to add that in today's world if you are shooting celebrities, they or their management/agent/PR rep will have final say over which photo to use, maybe even how to crop it. I am so glad I am out of that business now.And again, same thing. You shoot for the crop. I think the interesting part of this discussion is not that are you allowed crop but more, do you shoot for the aspect ratio or for the wanted layout. That is basically the same; you compose so that there isn't need for extra crop. You take account the bleed, the logo or anything when composing.
My understanding is that photographers would often submlt two pictures, one horizontal and the other in portrait format just in case it gets selected for the mag cover.Depending on the use and layout, a vertical and a horizontal may be needed. And I forgot to add that in today's world if you are shooting celebrities, they or their management/agent/PR rep will have final say over which photo to use, maybe even how to crop it. I am so glad I am out of that business now.
Hard to fathom 16 pages about crop or no crop. All kinds of theories. There is only one sure thing: one gets in the darkroom (or to monitor) checks out the whole frame and if original idea is clearly not the one anymore, here comes a crop. Trying to stick with "no crop at any cost" is not creating anything, there is a different word for it (take a pick), but it can be argued that that is the actual taboo.
Happens all the time -- suppose to happen....
But I am curious, given some responses, how much some appear to mull over the theory behind crop/no-crop, how many go out and take NO photograph in the end, due to whatever did not seem to fit whichever? ...?
With 35mm you are automatically screwed because either you print the whole frame and cut away paper or you have to crop because non of the standard size papers are the shape of the negative.
I don't feel screwed cutting off some paper when printing 35mm full fame. If you cut the paper before you print, you can use the excess for initial test strips. Anyway, depending on print size, it could be as little as an inch or so. Of course, I understand others may have different priorities, and make different decisions with respect to financial matters. Do you crop your Hasselblad negatives to fit standard paper sizes? Maybe Hasselblad has frames you can insert in the viewfinder to facilitate that. I am not really that up on Hasselblad accessories.With 35mm you are automatically screwed because either you print the whole frame and cut away paper or you have to crop because non of the standard size papers are the shape of the negative.
Showing the rebate is not really edgy. Photographers have been doing it for at least fifty or sixty years. It may even be old fashioned now. Anyway, you should be able to tell the difference between a print from film and a print from a digital camera. If you can't, I am not sure why you shoot film. If your friends can't tell the difference, maybe you need some new friends. They don't seem all that cool to me.But, but, how do you include the film rebate in your final image to show your other cool friends that you are edgy and shoot film?
My feeling is that if you want to watch a grail story, you are better off watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It is a lot more fun and more closely resembles this thread.My Dad knew someone who was taken to see the opera Parsifal. He wasn't really into Wagner, and as it seemed to drag on quite a bit and he had no idea what the plot was, he fell asleep. Whenever he woke up, the fellows on stage were still sitting round a table, bathed in green light, singing about something or other. I get that feeling about this thread.
Just think about all those opportunities for creativity you are passing up. I think that is the argument for cropping, but I may have missed something.What am I suppose to do? Take a bunch of random images and check out the proof sheets to see if there are any images there that I can crop down to?
Just think about all those opportunities for creativity you are passing up. I think that is the argument for cropping, but I may have missed something.
I don't think anyone is disputing that you sometimes win a prize when you go on a scavenger hunt. By the way, is that really the amount of grain you get when you enlarge 6x?I've done crazy cropping on my negatives, with approximately 6x. That is like finding new photograph inside photograph. For example: http://kuvau.tuu.fi/by-the-fence/
My feeling is that if you want to watch a grail story, you are better off watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It is a lot more fun and more closely resembles this thread.
That would have been fine during the first decade of my photographing as I was developing the way I see and work in photography. Now I use my creatively to see.Just think about all those opportunities for creativity you are passing up. I think that is the argument for cropping, but I may have missed something.
Technically cropping, but I would call that more like an exploration.I've done crazy cropping on my negatives, with approximately 6x. That is like finding new photograph inside photograph. For example: http://kuvau.tuu.fi/by-the-fence/
There probably are publications where the photographer will know ahead of time what the crop will be - LP record album covers come to mind - but in most cases you are at the mercy of the art director or other person who actually makes the decision.And again, same thing. You shoot for the crop. I think the interesting part of this discussion is not that are you allowed crop but more, do you shoot for the aspect ratio or for the wanted layout. That is basically the same; you compose so that there isn't need for extra crop. You take account the bleed, the logo or anything when composing.
My feeling is that if you want to watch a grail story, you are better off watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It is a lot more fun and more closely resembles this thread.
When I used to photograph for publication, I got to know the tendencies, but while that might have informed some of my decisions, I never felt particularly constrained by them.
And by the way, most of that was shot on 35mm, and I would hazard a guess that less than 5% of the images actually published were published in a 3:2 aspect ratio - everything ended up being cropped - sometimes by me, sometimes by my editors, sometimes by both.
So many great lines.What is your favorite color?
Happens all the time -- suppose to happen.
What am I suppose to do? Take a bunch of random images and check out the proof sheets to see if there are any images there that I can crop down to? Not the way I work, tho some do.
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?