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?
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 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...
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.
I do not pass on a subject if it does not fit; I change the composition so that it fits almost all the time.
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?:
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:
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"?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.
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.(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."
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"?
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.
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.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.
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?
Not to criticize it, but that's kind of the definition of principle. Different strokes, ya know.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...
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!
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.Not to criticize it, but that's kind of the definition of principle. Different strokes, ya know.
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 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.
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?