Do you crop your photos?

Don_ih said:

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.

Click to expand...

We do exactly that...

Composing photographically is cropping the world with a camera. I just do it all of my cropping in-camera instead of also using an enlarger/easel or a window-mat. As that English fellow wrote -- all the world is a stage...or an image to be cropped.

Alan Edward Klein said:

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

Click to expand...

Alan Edward Klein said:

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

Click to expand...

Vaughn said:

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!

Click to expand...

very nice

Don_ih said:

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.

Click to expand...

it’s a distinction without a difference. Whether you record the light on the film and leave it out of the print (or mask it off before projecting) or compose it out with the camera it’s the same end result.

I have been in San Francisco for a week, and saw the Ansel Adams exhibit of 100 of his prints both on the first day of my visit and the last day of my visit. Some of the prints were contact prints and some were enlargements. Unfortunately, I did not have my tape measurre with me so I could not calculate the aspect ratios of the prints to determine if he composed on the ground glass or on the easel. Of course, as someone noted above, for his enlargements, he could have cropped to the same aspect ratio as the ground glass, and we would never know. I may go over to the library when I get back home and measure up some of AA's photographs to satisfy my curiosity.

I also saw an exhibit of Robert Misrach's photographs down at the Fraenkel Gallery. His working method is using an 8x10 view camera and printing full frame. The aspect ratio of his prints was a smidge off because he prints a sliver of the film rebate on one side bearing the Kodak emulsion number. I haven't seen all of his photographs, but of the ones I have seen, they are all in landscape orientation, which may indicate another of his working methods. Misrach's photographs at the Frankel Gallery were printed 62-3/4 x 82-3/4 and were so stunning as to be awe-inspiring.* Four of Misrach's photographs also appeared in the AA exhibit but in a much smaller print size, and were only okay. The ones in the AA exhibit were printed in 2016 if I recall correctly, and the ones in the Fraenkel Gallery were printed in 2023. The large ones were luminous and leapt off the wall. The small ones sat on the wall starving for better illumination.

I offer these examples solely as observations. I do not mean to say that composing on the ground glass is the "correct" way, or that my photographs are better than yours because my working method is to compose in the viewfinder and on the ground glass. I am just telling you what I saw. I also saw photographs of several photographers at the the SFMOMA and the Robert Koch Gallery, some of which were cropped and some of which were full frame (or cropped to the same aspect ratio as the camera used). You don't want to make a hasty generalization about a photographer's working methods based on just one of his photographs.

*While I do not know for certain, I think for the large prints at the Fraenkel Gallery, Misrach's 8x10 negatives were copied using a Phase One XF camera and IQ4 150MP color back rather than scanned. The level of detail was astounding. Misrach's prints both at the AA exhibit and at the Fraenkel Gallery were pigment prints. Once you have seen them, you will retire "stinkjet" from your vocabulary forever.

Vaughn said:

Composing photographically is cropping the world with a camera.

Click to expand...

The world exists in three dimensions. What you get on a negative is a projection of light. When you compose, you set the view of the camera such that the projection is how you want it - you are doing nothing to the world. You are making a negative - not cropping the world. When you enlarge or after you enlarge, you can crop.

Look at it any way you want!

L Gebhardt said:

it’s a distinction without a difference. Whether you record the light on the film and leave it out of the print (or mask it off before projecting) or compose it out with the camera it’s the same end result.

Click to expand...

Try cropping out something that was not recorded by the negative. However, you can always back the camera up to get more of a view or move it one way or another to get something in view. Seems a significant distinction.
What's committed to the negative is final. What's committed to the print depends on the negative and can change.

I'm only concerned here that people talk about the actual topic. The question of cropping has to do with going from negative-to-print. The whole "I crop in camera" thing is a distraction and yet another sanctimonious statement.

faberryman said:

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?

Click to expand...

Why do you assume I am talking about anyone else than myself?

Pieter12 said:

Why do you assume I am talking about anyone else than myself?

Click to expand...

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Please elaborate on your statement so I can better understand your point.

Pieter12 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Is composing in the viewfinder and on the ground glass a conventional rule of composition, or is composing on the easel a conventional rule of composition? Perhaps both are? Perhaps neither are? How does your composing on the easel constitute taking more consideration and effort to distance yourself from your early training? I can see how it is a general rule that applies to a lot of things in life, but not how it relates to composing in the viewfinder or on the ground glass or composing on the easel.

L Gebhardt said:

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.

Click to expand...

Art is a constructive process. You make pictures, you do not take them. If your making requires a frame crop, there's absolutely nothing that should stop you.

This "whole frame or die" religion is an art school affectation that is utterly meaningless among working artists.

faberryman said:

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Please elaborate on your statement so I can better understand your point.



Is composing in the viewfinder and on the ground glass a conventional rule of composition, or is composing on the easel a conventional rule of composition? Perhaps both are? Perhaps neither are? How does your composing on the easel constitute taking more consideration and effort to distance yourself from your early training?

Click to expand...

None of the above. Composition takes place in the brain.

L Gebhardt said:

very nice

Click to expand...

Thank you. I was still very much a beginner with the view camera back then, some 43 years ago. I was not aware yet of reciprocity failure, so the shadows are a bit thin on the negative. I first printed it full frame and included it in my final portfolio for the class. Rediscovering the image a couple years later, and having improved my printing skills as well as, it was a pleasure to work with the image anew. The image above is a scan of a 4"x10" silver gelatin enlargement which received minimum burning/dodging. The 8x20 print received a lot more burning to emphsize the horizontal banding of the light and to draw one's eyes back deep into the image.

Composition takes place in the brain.

Click to expand...

I like that, makes sense, the brain makes all the decisions. -- the GG is then the tool I use to create the composition. The tool shapes the artist as well as shaping the art.

faberryman said:

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Please elaborate on your statement so I can better understand your point.



Is composing in the viewfinder and on the ground glass a conventional rule of composition, or is composing on the easel a conventional rule of composition? Perhaps both are? Perhaps neither are? How does your composing on the easel constitute taking more consideration and effort to distance yourself from your early training?

Click to expand...

Pieter12 said:

None of the above. Composition takes place in the brain.

Click to expand...

Composing in the viewfinder is an outgrowth of taking slides; one does not want to have remount slides to individually crop every photograph. Once the good practice has been established, one continues using it and saves work cropping.

chuckroast said:

This "whole frame or die" religion is an art school affectation that is utterly meaningless among working artists.

Click to expand...

I did not attend art school. I am not familiar with the "frame or die" religion taught or adopted by students as an affection. I am not even sure what it means. Could you give a little background?

Pieter12 said:

None of the above. Composition takes place in the brain.

Click to expand...

I wish you had said that five days ago. Then we wouldn't have needed to have this conversation about working methods. Instead, we could have discussed the construct of human consciousness. That's always lively.

Unfortunately, decomposition also takes place in the brain.

Don_ih said:

Unfortunately, decomposition also takes place in the brain.

Click to expand...

Actually after life.

faberryman said:

I wish you had said that five days ago. Then we wouldn't have needed to have this conversation about working methods. Instead, we could have discussed the construct of human consciousness. That's always lively.

Click to expand...

As if we had something else to do.

Fo

Don_ih said:

Unfortunately, decomposition also takes place in the brain.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, there is the process of neurogenesis which causes new neurons to be created naturally, through drug therapy, and/or through medical procedures, including deep brain stimulation, so we can all get back to composition wherever we may wish to practice it. Of course, some people may be a little squeamish about the later alternative as it involves drilling holes in your skull, inserting electrodes into your brain just so, and the neurosurgeon flipping the switch while laughing maniacally. But hey, if your photography is important to you, you gotta do what you gotta do.

And now back to the issue of cropping, to wit:

Are photographers who make contact prints intellectually stunted? To grow intellectually, should they crop? If they do crop, should they crop the negative or the contact print? Do any issues of authenticity arise.

Sirius Glass said:

Actually after life.

Click to expand...

Figuratively, before that.

Don_ih said:

Unfortunately, decomposition also takes place in the brain.

Click to expand...

Sirius Glass said:

Actually after life.

Click to expand...

Don_ih said:

Figuratively, before that.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of brain dead people wondering around in public. We do not have to worry about Zombies and the Living Dead.

• Today at 12:16 PM

Alan Edward Klein said:

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

Click to expand...

Alan Edward Klein said:

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

Click to expand...

Sirius Gllass: Aspect ratio is the correct terminology for the relationship between the width and height of the image and is expressed with a colon such as 4:3 or 16:9 or 1:1 . Camera format refers to camera sensor such as Full Format although it can refer to shape as well.

Alan Edward Klein said:

• Today at 12:16 PM

Sirius Glass: Aspect ratio is the correct terminology for the relationship between the width and height of the image and is expressed with a colon such as 4:3 or 16:9 or 1:1 . Camera format refers to camera sensor such as Full Format although it can refer to shape as well.

Click to expand...

Some of us are film photographers and do not have use for 4:3 or 16:9 or 1:1 except when mixing chemicals.

faberryman said:

I did not attend art school. I am not familiar with the "frame or die" religion taught or adopted by students as an affection. I am not even sure what it means. Could you give a little background?

Click to expand...

There is a school of "thought" - often exibited by art professors and their hangers on - that you must frame perfectly and print to the edge of that said frame. It no doubt was originally intended to help students develop a disciplined approach to composition and image layout, but it's sometimes taken with a literal zeal that isn't warranted ... to the point of becoming a artsy affectation.

I've even seen people printing to show the unexposed edges of a frame for as an artistic decision. I mean, nothing says I'm an artist like seeing "Kodak Tri-X'" on the edge of a sprocket hole on the final print...