Do you crop your photos?

[Vaughn]

There are instances when one cannot compose properly in the viewfinder. Such as not having a long enough lens or an immovable obstacle such as a wall or a river in the foreground with no way to elevate the camera to eliminate it. Would you rather forego a good, cropped photo on principal?

Why consider it a matter of principle? For some photographers if it is not full frame, it is just not an image they are interested in. Not a bad image. Not a good image. They may not be interested in what others call a "good cropped photo". Of course one would forego something one is not interested in...film is too expensive to waste on what others consider good photos. But always exceptions...

 

[L Gebhardt]

If you go out and produce a painting of a landscape scene like Claude Monet, do you then go back to the studio, get out a pair of scissors and cut 3" off the side and bottom of your painting? Of course not, a photographer should compose in the given format of their choice.

why would I want to constrain myself to only images that work with camera I have with me at the moment?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why consider it a matter of principle? For some photographers if it is not full frame, it is just not an image they are interested in. Not a bad image. Not a good image. They may not be interested in what others call a "good cropped photo". Of course one would forego something one is not interested in...film is too expensive to waste on what others consider good photos. But always exceptions...

I do not pass on a subject if it does not fit; I change the composition so that it fits almost all the time.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

no reason not to crop if it improves the composition. I usually crop under the enlarger.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Do I crop? Sure, why not? Who is going to stop me?

But I don't do it often. After shooting slides for 40 years, I try to get the composition right in the camera -- not for philosophical reasons, but due to a habit that was formed by necessity. Now that I can scan my slides, I do occasionally crop the scans if I think it improves the composition.

My digital camera happens to have the same 2:3 aspect as 135 film, so most of the time my digital photos "look right" to me in the same way that my slides do. But once in a while, a subject just looks better if framed 5:7 or 4:5, so why not?

 

[MattKing]

I do not pass on a subject if it does not fit; I change the composition so that it fits almost all the time.

What would you have done with this?:

It truly isn't worth much interest if it isn't cropped to this aspect ratio.
And how about this pinhole image, which is essentially full frame from a 6x12 negative. Would you tell someone that it would be a waste of time to take the shot, because all they had with them was a 6x6 camera, or would you suggest that they turn it into something square?

Perhaps its a matter of some of us being more likely to be able to see the strengths of images that rely on unusual aspect ratios.
But I, for one, wouldn't tell others to ignore images that work just because they aren't suited to the full frame offered by their cameras.

 

[Vaughn]

I do not pass on a subject if it does not fit; I change the composition so that it fits almost all the time.

Exactly.

I hope this full frame(s) platinum/palladium print is not too boring!

 

[mshchem]

Absolutely I crop. Most of the time I'm shooting medium format, and between 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 I mostly shoot 6x9. I usually am tighter with a SLR. I am less likely to crop when shooting my Hasselblad, square is beautiful. I don't like weird rules about composition of the final print.

 

[Mike Lopez]

What would you have done with this?:
View attachment 343074
It truly isn't worth much interest if it isn't cropped to this aspect ratio.
And how about this pinhole image, which is essentially full frame from a 6x12 negative. Would you tell someone that it would be a waste of time to take the shot, because all they had with them was a 6x6 camera, or would you suggest that they turn it into something square?
View attachment 343075

Perhaps its a matter of some of us being more likely to be able to see the strengths of images that rely on unusual aspect ratios.
But I, for one, wouldn't tell others to ignore images that work just because they aren't suited to the full frame offered by their cameras.

I could (and would, if I were in the situation you describe) turn that into a square with a composition that interests me a bit more:

It’s just a screenshot of your picture cropped to a “squarish” aspect ratio—it might look rectangular on some screens.

 

[koraks]

(Mike, what I'm about to say isn't aimed at you personally. Please bear that in mind.)

I could (and would, if I were in the situation you describe) turn that into a square with a composition that interests me a bit more:

Or, indeed:

Or perhaps, better yet:

Which is to say, of course, that these exercises of "well, in that place, I would have cropped that away, and that, and..." are in most instances totally senseless in my view. The photographer was there. Ex post, we can only crop away things that weren't recorded in the first place. The photo has already been taken; want to do it differently, make a new one.

Want to suggest a small strip to be cropped off somewhere because you feel it makes the composition a little stronger? Sure. But I just don't get the "Nice shot, but let me show you how you were looking wrong to begin with."

Whether someone crops or not is up to them. And all the rest of us can take it or leave it for what it is.

 

[MattKing]

The alternate crops shown above may appeal more to some - they don't to me - but that would not be a particular problem.
What is a problem is the idea that somehow those choices are less worthy because they didn't happen to fill the frame of the camera that happens to be at hand.

 

[Don_ih]

Why consider it a matter of principle? For some photographers if it is not full frame, it is just not an image they are interested in.

The bolded bit counts as a "principle". How can you judge the merit of a photo based on whether or not it was printed from the entire negative except "by principle"?

...

The whole thing is silly. Of course everyone wants their entire frame to be great or good or at least printworthy. Sometimes, though, some people think their image will be improved by cropping. Arguing against it because it's not something you do? Does that make any sense?

It's absolutely fine to say "I never crop" but it has nothing to do with what anyone else does.

 

[Mike Lopez]

(Mike, what I'm about to say isn't aimed at you personally. Please bear that in mind.)



Or, indeed:

View attachment 343082

Or perhaps, better yet:
View attachment 343084



Want to suggest a small strip to be cropped off somewhere because you feel it makes the composition a little stronger? Sure. But I just don't get the "Nice shot, but let me show you how you were looking wrong to begin with."

I don't take this comment personally, so don't worry about that. But Matt specifically asked about how one might approach the scene with a 6x6 camera. I treated his question as a thought exercise and put up what I might have seen were I present at the time of this picture.

For the record, I don't crop, and I never chime in with cropped versions of pictures that people post in earnest. As noted above, I treated Matt's post/picture as a challenge.

 

[koraks]

Yes Mike, you're right in that Mike solicited responses along those lines, so your comment certainly wasn't that odd.

 

[faberryman]

The bolded bit counts as a "principle". How can you judge the merit of a photo based on whether or not it was printed from the entire negative except "by principle"?

As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, cropping or no cropping are working methods adopted by photographers for diverse reasons. They are not principles. You judge the resulting image by aesthetic criteria, unless you are judging it technically, in which case, you judge it by technical criteria.

My working method is to compose an image in the viewfinder, whatever the aspect ratio may be, and print full frame. The only exception I can recall was a few years ago I composed a series of panoramic landscapes using a wide angle lens in a 2:5 aspect ratio (7x17) in a viewfinder with a 2:3 aspect ratio. I mentally cropped the images before ever pressing the shutter release. If I had had a 7x17 camera, I would have preferred to use it.

Crop or don't crop; do whatever you deem gives you the best results.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I suggested to call the gallery to find out whether the pictures were cropped or that they were actually printed full size but would leave a white border on one side to fit the dimension of the paper. You don't need to actually buy the picture to get that information. Just ask the gallery.

This picture from the gallery at least shows one of the full pictures (center one) actually printed full size but would leave a white border on the sides to fit the dimension of the paper. The left one looks even more unusual.

Robert LeBlanc - Gloryland - Exhibitions - Fahey Klein Gallery

Robert LeBlanc “Gloryland” January 24, 2023 through January 28, 2023 Exhibition Reception: Friday, January 27th Book Signing: Friday, January 27th The Fahey/Klein Gallery is pleased to present "Robert LeBlanc: Gloryland," an exhibition showcasing LeBlanc's documentary work on a uniquely...

www.faheykleingallery.com

 

[Vaughn]

The bolded bit counts as a "principle". How can you judge the merit of a photo based on whether or not it was printed from the entire negative except "by principle"?

...

The whole thing is silly. Of course everyone wants their entire frame to be great or good or at least printworthy. Sometimes, though, some people think their image will be improved by cropping. Arguing against it because it's not something you do? Does that make any sense?

It's absolutely fine to say "I never crop" but it has nothing to do with what anyone else does.

No sense what so ever, which is why I never argue against cropping...and do not expect others to avoid cropping based on what I say. I am always amazed that when someone says they do not crop in their way of working, for some odd reason, the 'croppers' all of a sudden come out of the woodwork needing to justify their cropping.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

On vacation, I switch my digital camera from 4:3 to 16:9 for stills to match the normal 16:9 video clips. That way, when I make slide and video shows for presenting on TVs or monitors, the whole screen contains the stills as well as the videos. There are no black bars on the sides. Trying to crop 4:3 shots to 16:9 when editing doesn't work very well. It's often hard to get a composition that works, where you haven't chopped people's legs off for example. You have to shoot the format in the camera. I found it took me about 30 minutes the first time shooting at 16:9 to adapt to composing in that format. It's just as easy as switching from 3:2 to 6:7, or 1:1, or 4:3. Your brain will adapt and compose accordingly.
16:9 samples from my Southwest road trip: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157694819890421/with/41915176612/

 

[faberryman]

What would you have done with this?: It truly isn't worth much interest if it isn't cropped to this aspect ratio...

I don't know what I would have done. I wasn't there. I didn't see the entire view in front of me. If you want to know how I would crop your image, I would have to see the whole negative. Cropping your crop would not be very instructive.

And how about this pinhole image, which is essentially full frame from a 6x12 negative. Would you tell someone that it would be a waste of time to take the shot, because all they had with them was a 6x6 camera, or would you suggest that they turn it into something square?

Again, I don't know what I would have done. I wasn't there. I didn't see the entire view in front of me.

The first image is the less successful of the two. It looks cropped. It looks like it needs room to breath. The second image is very successful. And I don't say that simply because it was printed essentially full frame. It doesn't matter how you achieved it.

 

[Pieter12]

Why consider it a matter of principle? For some photographers if it is not full frame, it is just not an image they are interested in. Not a bad image. Not a good image. They may not be interested in what others call a "good cropped photo". Of course one would forego something one is not interested in...film is too expensive to waste on what others consider good photos. But always exceptions...

Not to criticize it, but that's kind of the definition of principle. Different strokes, ya know.

 

[Mike Lopez]

No sense what so ever, which is why I never argue against cropping...and do not expect others to avoid cropping based on what I say. I am always amazed that when someone says they do not crop in their way of working, for some odd reason, the 'croppers' all of a sudden come out of the woodwork needing to justify their cropping.

Not only that, but there are instances in this very thread of "croppers" labeling "non-croppers" as weak and lazy. Silly.

And I'm always amazed when a thread like this can lie dormant for a year and a half and come back to life later with the same energy/debate/posturing that took place previously. I wonder if Ansel Adams would have used Photoshop. Please, discuss!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Not only that, but there are instances in this very thread of "croppers" labeling "non-croppers" as weak and lazy. Silly.

And I'm always amazed when a thread like this can lie dormant for a year and a half and come back to life later with the same energy/debate/posturing that took place previously. I wonder if Ansel Adams would have used Photoshop. Please, discuss!

Ansel would have taken to PS like a duck to water and thrown away his enlarger.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Not to criticize it, but that's kind of the definition of principle. Different strokes, ya know.

Exactly right. I'll be curious to see how @Don_ih replies to the first paragraph of post #465, should he choose to do so.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What would you have done with this?:
View attachment 343074
It truly isn't worth much interest if it isn't cropped to this aspect ratio.
And how about this pinhole image, which is essentially full frame from a 6x12 negative. Would you tell someone that it would be a waste of time to take the shot, because all they had with them was a 6x6 camera, or would you suggest that they turn it into something square?
View attachment 343075

Perhaps its a matter of some of us being more likely to be able to see the strengths of images that rely on unusual aspect ratios.
But I, for one, wouldn't tell others to ignore images that work just because they aren't suited to the full frame offered by their cameras.

I would have used the Nikon 15mm AIS lens with a 110° wide field of view and cropped or used the WideLux with a 140° wide field of view without cropping. Use the right tools for the job and cropping can be used much less.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't know what I would have done. I wasn't there. If you want to know how I would crop your image, I would have to see the whole negative. Cropping your crop would not be very instructive.



Again, I don't know what I would have done. I wasn't there. If you want to know how I would crop your image, I would have to see the whole negative. Cropping your crop would not be very instructive.

The best response. One might have found something else more engaging.