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...
Most of the time, I take a photograph because the scene appeals to me in some way. Subject, texures. lighting, context...so many reasons. Sometimes I am waiting for a key or even secondary element to move into where I want it in the frame. When I look through the viewfinder, I will isolate or exclude to record what drew me to the scene. If it is intended to be part of a series, I will have in mind what the rest of the images look like. Unless I am in the studio, all that happens in a short period of time. People move, cars come and go, light changes, clouds change shape. Also, I like the square format, but not all my cameras are square format. So I will often shoot intending to crop off parts of the side of the images. Once an image is processed, I have the luxury of being able to linger over it longer and determine if it needs any fine tuning or if there is some distraction inadvertently included in the frame. Cropping, dodging and burning are post-exposure tools that I am quite willing to take advantage of to improve the final print. Shooting in black and white, what ends up printed is not what I saw in the viewfinder anyway. I usually end up cropping anyway because including the rebate is limiting. I have occasionally, but rarely, severely cropped an image because the scene was only there for an instant and I could not move to eliminate distractions from what drew me to it. But I took the photo anyway.
View attachment 343233
Some sense, some bollocks.Does that make sense, or am I talking bollocks?
Cropping won't help the composition if you stood in the wrong spot.
The primary subject is minimized in the original, there is a distracting third person off to the left and a bit of food container trash in the foreground, all taking away from the intended objective. And I was where I was, but would have preferred to be a dozen or so feet closer.Actually, I prefer the original. The cropped version is trying to say you were not where you were.
Some of us are film photographers and do not have use for 4:3 or 16:9 or 1:1 except when mixing chemicals.
Igor Stravinsky by Arnold Newman.
View attachment 343250
No 1:1? Sure, no 4:3 and 16:9. Those are just TV aspect ratios, old and new, but no 1:1? Are you going to abandon your A12 backs for A16s?
4:3 would also match the aspect ratio of 645—which, wouldn’t you know it, is kind of a film format.
... Are you going to abandon your A12 backs for A16s?
4:3 would also match the aspect ratio of 645—which, wouldn’t you know it, is kind of a film format.
...
1) frame and then crop,
2) frame and then don't crop, or
3) frame leaving available the option of cropping,
just be sure to do so with purpose and intention, and ignore anyone who tells you that what suits you is somehow wrong for you.
FWIW, I've spent a fair amount of my photographic life using cameras whose aspect ratios didn't match the known or expected aspect ratios of the final presentation. It wasn't a sin, and its never made me feel unworthy.
….It wasn't a sin, and its never made me feel unworthy.
Excellent....just be sure to do so with purpose and intention...
Sure it can. And sometimes you can’t get to the right spot in time to get the right moment.
...
I prefer the uncropped version, and not because it is uncropped. In the cropped version, you can see that the woman is taking a photo of her friends with her phone, which renders it rather prosaic. Unless your intention was that the photograph be prosaic. The uncropped version on the other hand, print it big. I mean look at that sky.
Igor Stravinsky by Arnold Newman.
View attachment 343250
Igor Stravinsky by Arnold Newman.
View attachment 343250
I prefer the cropped version of Stravinski, though not necessarily this cropped version now that I see the options. I would want to take a look at including the third triangle comprised of his right arm and hand. The white/grey of his right cuff/hand mirror the white/grey of the background.
I prefer the cropped version of Stravinski, though not necessarily this cropped version now that I see the options. I would want to take a look at including the third triangle comprised of his right arm and hand. The white/grey of his right cuff/hand mirror the white/grey of the background.
I'm sure Igor wouldn't mind.
Of course, many times cropping will help. But there are certain cases where it just won't work. If you stood in a spot where a telephone pole is going through the subject's head, cropping later won't help you. Only moving at the time you shoot the picture so the objects don't line up would compose it correctly. If the angle of the shot is off, cropping won't help. If a photographer is going to depend on cropping later and not take the time to compose the shot when shooting, his best shots may be lost.
All cropping does is select a portion of a flat picture already captured. It cannot line up the objects in the picture.
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?