Do you crop your photos?

[cliveh]

Reasons why I crop in the darkroom:

* the film aspect ratio is wrong for what I envisioned when I composed the shot
* I only had a lens slightly wider than the image I envisioned when I composed and moving closer changed the composition or was impossible
* I am using a classic rangefinder with parallax or other framing issues and I left a bit of extra space to crop off the image I wanted
* I noticed an image inside the image I thought was worthy of printing on it's own. No problem with large format
* some unnoticed detail is able to be removed without affecting the integrity of the image. For example the bed of the camera when shooting in the dark with a slow wide angle lens.

The only one I don't like is salvaging an image from a mistake which only works sometimes and never feels right.

In reply to your points above:-

1) You are using the wrong format for the photography you wish to do.
2) You are using the wrong focal length lens.
3) Valid, but why use a rangefinder camera for close shots?
4) Then why didn't you move closer?
5) Valid.

The only one I don't like is salvaging an image from a mistake which only works sometimes and never feels right. You have answered your own question.

 

[faberryman]

Because I have yet to read/hear about anyone who ecourages the cropping of most images rather than those who seem to have strong opinions about cropping...

In the past couple of days L Gebhardt, Matt, RalphLambrecht, mshchem, Don_ih, and [trumpet fanfare] you have all unabashedly said they crop, and Vaughn and I, who don't crop, have said we don't object to other people cropping if that is what they want to do. Apologies if I left anyone out.

Try using an 8x10 view camera for an interior shot of a car in motion.

Have you tried to do that? If so, did you have excess image to crop? I am sure I could find some 4:5 aspect ratio compositions in the interior or out the windows of a car. I have a pretty versatile little 4x5 camera I could get in a car, but it would not be my first choice. Choose the right tool for the job.

 

[Pieter12]

In the past couple of days L Gebhardt, Matt, RalphLambrecht, mshchem, and Don_ih, and [trumpet blare] you have all unashamedly said you crop, and Vaughn and I, who don't crop, have said we don't object to other people cropping if that is what they want to do. Apologies if I left anyone out.



Have you tried to do that? If so, did you have excess image to crop? I am sure I could find some 4:5 aspect ratio compositions in the interior or out the windows of a car. I have a pretty versatile little 4x5 camera I could get in a car, but it would not be my first choice. Choose the right tool for the job.

No, I have not tried that. My response was to a post about choosing the camera that would give you image ratio wanted without cropping. A 4x5 would do the trick in this instance, but it would still be difficult to accomplish when there are dozens and dozens of other cameras and formats (6x4.5 or 6x7come close) that would do the job easier and most probably better, but you would need to crop the image.

That brings to mind a non sequitur: Josef Koudelka--who has stated the format of the camera influences him--was shooting a Fuji 617 panoramic camera and he approached Leica about taking a Leica S2 and making it monochrome, masking the sensor and adding lines to the viewfinder to 6x17 proportions. He was please with the results and stopped using the Fuji, which was bulky and the film expense (plus the lack of 220, necessitating frequent roll changes) and fewer labs was becoming a problem for him.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It occurs to me ... when you share this view, does that make one a sharecropper?

<Runs away laughing madly...>

I do not have my hair cropped.

 

[faberryman]

That brings to mind a non sequitur: Josef Koudelka--who has stated the format of the camera influences him--was shooting a Fuji 617 panoramic camera and he approached Leica about taking a Leica S2 and making it monochrome, masking the sensor and adding lines to the viewfinder to 6x17 proportions. He was please with the results and stopped using the Fuji, which was bulky and the film expense (plus the lack of 220, necessitating frequent roll changes) and fewer labs was becoming a problem for him.

I'd take one of those.

 

[L Gebhardt]

In reply to your points above:-

1) You are using the wrong format for the photography you wish to do.
2) You are using the wrong focal length lens.
3) Valid, but why use a rangefinder camera for close shots?
4) Then why didn't you move closer?
5) Valid.

The only one I don't like is salvaging an image from a mistake which only works sometimes and never feels right. You have answered your own question.

1) if I can successfully get 90% of my shots where I’m happy with the camera aspect ratio I think I’m doing fine.
2) they don’t make a zoom for large format and I only want a small lens set with me
3) the super issolette is only approximate at all distance. I also don’t fully trust my Mamiya 7, but it’s better
4) usually something is in the way

why do you think my art is invalid if I crop off something extraneous that I didn’t want that surrounds the image I intended to take? My lenses have a much wider round image area. Is it also wrong not to shoot a 20x24 and get it all on film? Even then I could have stepped back more to include more, or pointed it in a different direction.

I don’t get the dogmatic thinking I see in this thread.

 

[Pieter12]

Blame it on HCB and those who think art needs rules.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Blame it on HCB and those who think art needs rules.

HCB was trained in painting and was wedded to strong compositions long before he started taking photographs. He took his background in strong geometric compositions and applied it to his photographic compositions. Cropping his photographs in his mind would destroy the composition that he had made, hence his prohibition on cropping. He was strongly single minded about this.

 

[Pieter12]

HCB was trained in painting and was wedded to strong compositions long before he started taking photographs. He took his background in strong geometric compositions and applied it to his photographic compositions. Cropping his photographs in his mind would destroy the composition that he had made, hence his prohibition on cropping. He was strongly single minded about this.

So was I and I don’t get my undies in a wad over it. As a matter of fact I like breaking the conventional rules of composition. It takes more consideration and effort to distance yourself from your early training.

 

[Loose Gravel]

Of course. One more tool. Not every aspect ratio is made nor every focal length. Isn't this why negatives are so big. Crop crop.

 

[faberryman]

It takes more consideration and effort to distance yourself from your early training.

And if your early training was not to compose in the viewfinder, but to crop your negatives and compose on the easel, how would you distance yourself from that practice?

Why do you assume the early training of anyone here was to compose in the viewfinder? Maybe they arrived at their preferred method of working by more consideration and effort to distance themselves their early training?

 

[faberryman]

HCB was trained in painting and was wedded to strong compositions long before he started taking photographs. He took his background in strong geometric compositions and applied it to his photographic compositions. Cropping his photographs in his mind would destroy the composition that he had made, hence his prohibition on cropping. He was strongly single minded about this.

I wouldn't hold HCB up a a paragon of virtue in this regard. The prohibition against cropping was aimed at his publishers. His contact sheets reflect that he cropped at least some of his images.

 

[warden]

Wow this thread has legs.

 

[Vaughn]

The spark and my muse is the light reflecting off the landscape -- and it leads me to where the camera needs to be set-up and hints at a lens choice. I tend to build/create my images on the ground glass (4x5 to 11x14) of the camera...which is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get sort of thing. Perhaps it is just that under the darkcloth I find there is a lot of time to massage the image and work with the light. So my way of working has a built-in tendency (or bias) for me to create an image based on the format of the GG in front of my face.

My habit of printing full frame with no burning/dodging (contact printing in alt processes) enforces the attention I need to pay to the image on the GG. I do a lot of editing in the field by not taking the photo, rather than editing post-trip. Saves on film and development time, and hopefully increases the success rate (still waiting on that...the mark keeps moving on me).

That said, I do crop in-camera by using modified darkslides to fit two 4x10s or two 5.5x14 onto a single sheet of film (8x10 or 11x14 respectively). The below image is from a 4x5 neg. (~8x20 silver gelatin). I found it by going through my contact sheets back at the start of the 80s, looking for panoramic possibilities...so, I cropped the heck out it, and it got me considering the format and its possibilities four decades ago.

Prairie Creek, Fall 1980
Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park -- I was just up there today for a nice hike. Foggy damp weather -- best for the redwoods!

 

[Don_ih]

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.

"working method adopted by photographers for diverse reasons" is practically synonymous with "principle". It's very weird that you and Vaughn argue against that - what's wrong with saying you don't crop as "a matter of principle"? I don't care if that's your working method. All I was saying was it has nothing to do with anyone else. And you seemed to agree with that (you said "Crop or don't crop; do whatever you deem gives you the best results") but then went on to post:

"cropping (gerund or present participle):
1) a species of scavenger hunt conducted by some photographers in the darkroom to see if they can find anything remotely considered a good composition in a negative they previously made
2) origin of the phrase "fix it in post""

-- which is derisive and self-congratulatory.

Not cropping photos doesn't make anyone a hero. There's no reason anyone else should care.

 

[snusmumriken]

Blame it on HCB and those who think art needs rules.

I don’t believe he did think art needed rules. He didn’t want to do the darkroom or layout work. Composing the image was what he did, and he wanted to retain authorship of that image unaltered.

Not cropping photos doesn't make anyone a hero. There's no reason anyone else should care.

Not a hero, but a consistent ability to make exquisite compositions in the camera and not need to crop impresses me.

 

[cliveh]

1) if I can successfully get 90% of my shots where I’m happy with the camera aspect ratio I think I’m doing fine.
2) they don’t make a zoom for large format and I only want a small lens set with me
3) the super issolette is only approximate at all distance. I also don’t fully trust my Mamiya 7, but it’s better
4) usually something is in the way

why do you think my art is invalid if I crop off something extraneous that I didn’t want that surrounds the image I intended to take? My lenses have a much wider round image area. Is it also wrong not to shoot a 20x24 and get it all on film? Even then I could have stepped back more to include more, or pointed it in a different direction.

I don’t get the dogmatic thinking I see in this thread.

Of course I don't think your art is invalid and I didn't say that.

 

[Don_ih]

Not a hero, but a consistent ability to make exquisite compositions in the camera and not need to crop impresses me.

Yes, that is impressive. Yet the vast majority of photos you will ever see, you can have no idea whether or not it was cropped.

 

[Don_ih]

Incidentally, there is no "in-camera" cropping. That's called "composing". Cameras don't crop. You take a picture of something and then you can crop the picture. You don't crop the world with a camera.

 

[snusmumriken]

Yet the vast majority of photos you will ever see, you can have no idea whether or not it was cropped.

A non-standard aspect ratio is a bit of a give-away. And then grain size.

But I guess you are saying ‘Does it matter?’ Only if the photographer wishes to establish who was responsible for what.

You take a picture of something and then you can crop the picture. You don't crop the world with a camera.

Figuratively speaking, yes you do.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Incidentally, there is no "in-camera" cropping. That's called "composing". Cameras don't crop. You take a picture of something and then you can crop the picture. You don't crop the world with a camera.

Composing in the camera was a habit many older photographers like me acquired because we shot 35mm slides which were projected. That habit is still with me with large and medium format photography. However, I now will crop these pictures in editing if it makes a better final photo.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A non-standard aspect ratio is a bit of a give-away. And then grain size.

But I guess you are saying ‘Does it matter?’ Only if the photographer wishes to establish who was responsible for what.


Figuratively speaking, yes you do.

You can't tell if you crop with the same aspect ratio as the original.

 

[Don_ih]

Figuratively speaking, yes you do.

Speaking figuratively when trying to discuss something actual doesn't help anything.

A non-standard aspect ratio is a bit of a give-away. And then grain size.

And that's true, but is that what you're looking for when you look at someone else's photos? If I see a particularly grainy photo, purposely presented by someone (published, posted, hung on a wall), I assume that's the way he or she wanted it to look.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Of course I don't think your art is invalid and I didn't say that.

You did appear to imply it by indicating that only some reasons for cropping are valid.

 

[faberryman]

"working method adopted by photographers for diverse reasons" is practically synonymous with "principle". It's very weird that you and Vaughn argue against that - what's wrong with saying you don't crop as "a matter of principle"? I don't care if that's your working method. All I was saying was it has nothing to do with anyone else.

I think "working method" and "principle" have distinct connotations, but if it helps you think about working methods as principles, I will not further belabor the point.

And you seemed to agree with that (you said "Crop or don't crop; do whatever you deem gives you the best results") but then went on to post:

"cropping (gerund or present participle):
1) a species of scavenger hunt conducted by some photographers in the darkroom to see if they can find anything remotely considered a good composition in a negative they previously made
2) origin of the phrase "fix it in post""

-- which is derisive and self-congratulatory.

Whooosh.

Not cropping photos doesn't make anyone a hero. There's no reason anyone else should care.

And yet you do care. Passionately.

I am curious whether you have experience composing images with a view camera?