Good point, I have not found birds, cars, airplane or clouds in my darkroom either.
I must be weak.
But several posts back you were talking about viewing negatives and prints two or three times to decide upon the most impactful image. What does that have to do with birds and cars and airplanes or clouds or whatever else you're pointing at that you can't control? Which is it?
I'm afraid I can't clarify what I mean by being weak. You referred to those who don't crop as being weak in the last sentence of post #98. Perhaps you are the one who can clarify it. I'm not trying to pass judgment or minimize your way of working at all. If it works for you, great. But so far in this thread you've referred to those who avoid cropping as both stubborn and weak. I can only assume you are using both of those terms in their conventional senses, but if not, it's on you to elaborate, not me.I am not sure what you mean by being weak. Weak of mind? Of spirit? Of stomach?
I have essentially been putting forth what I deem reasonable situations when cropping may improve a photograph. Either by revisiting a print or negative to improve the original composition (which may have been fine to begin with), or to remove unwanted and unforeseen or unpreventable objects that are captured at the time of tripping the shutter. There can also be the situation where you don't have a long enough lens or cannot gain enough height to eliminate an immovable foreground object (a fence, a highway, a river, for example). Cropping becomes necessary unless one forgoes the photo altogether.
On another note, I prefer square compositions, but not all my cameras are square format. So I will find myself shooting 6x7 or even 35mm, knowing I will end up cropping to a square. I have also lately been experimenting with 6x17 format panoramas, but I don't have a 6x17 camera. So I shoot composing for those proportions, purposely cropping out 50% or so if the image. https://pdekoninck.com/Interior-Landscapes
YES YES YES!!!That proves that it's better to be a great artist than a craftsman.
...Besides, most viewfinders don't show 100% of the image area, nor do standard negative carriers or slide mounts. So unless it is a contact print, some cropping is already being done without the photographer's intervention.
OK. By weak I meant they are unwilling to recognize or even try to look hard or at a later date to see if there may be a better image captured by the negative than the one they originally composed in camera. And maybe compulsive is a better word than stubborn. Besides, most viewfinders don't show 100% of the image area, nor do standard negative carriers or slide mounts. So unless it is a contact print, some cropping is already being done without the photographer's intervention.
I would suggest that although not a general rule, that if you consistently crop, you are not using a camera with the ideal aspect ratio of your preference.
Not cropping is also for the skilled with a fine-tuned ability to see...or trying to get there. As I said, I do all the cropping work in the camera, why should I re-do a good job?Why not crop the image instead of rejecting it altogether? I do not take disposable images. If I did not see the instant a leaf/bird/car/cloud/airplane/person just nudged into the frame when the shutter opened but everything else is the way I want it, I am going to print the image with that cropped out, not just toss it away.
I agree. Less reliance on luck in the darkroom when you have to crop.No, smart photographers walk around the area while taking the photographs so they can see the subjects from various views and angles. In the process they will see beyond the initial composition because they are actively looking to improve their work. If that is done correctly, there should be no need to slice and dice in the darkroom. But then that is what is considered smart photographic practices. Hoping to do better in the darkroom after one quick look is just short selling oneself.
A lot of photographers say it's the final print that counts. I don't think that to be the case for many of us. The process of "capturing" a photo is a contemplative process. You can get out in nature and be one with it. That in itself is enjoyable and positive. I enjoy fishing. But I usually throw them all back. I really don;t care if I eat them. The fun is in the fishing. If you enjoy shooting and derive pleasure from that, do you really need to print all of them? Who were the pros who had thousand of unprocessed exposed film rolls when they died?When I come to that point and the full image is not good enough, I say to myself, "See better next time." I already have plenty negatives of 'impactful' full-negative images that I have not gotten around to printing yet...I can afford to be picky about adding new ones.
I would prefer to be considered patient and resourceful rather than stubborn, but there you have it...
I agree. Less reliance on luck in the darkroom when you have to crop.
There's also another factor for me. Cropping in the camera to get the best picture in camera, is all part of a contemplative process. Using a tripod, slowing down, using medium or large format equipment that are slower to set up, film selection, loading it and removing it, etc. leads me to that. When you rush to get the shot, you not only might miss the best composition, you miss the serenity and peacefulness of the whole process especially when you're outdoors in nature as when I am shooting landscapes.
Branches, Trinidad State Beach, CA, 4x10 carbon print
Having 100% was very important in the days when you shot chromes for slide projection. But if you crop, having a little more around the edges by looking through a finder that shows only 90-95%, might be an advantage. What do you think?Thanks for the elaboration. I would point something out in the following:
Most viewfinders show less than 100% of the image area, as you note. But then it's up to the photographer to crop out the excess--the cropping is not being done without the photographer's intervention. In fact, the opposite of cropping is happening in camera. But you make a valid point.
My solution for that? The Nikon F series of cameras (the "professional" versions, like the F, F2, and F3) show 100% of the image area in the finder. That's a big reason why I own 3 of them, and just had 2 of them serviced by Sover Wong last year. Additionally, waist-level finders will often get you to that 100% mark as well. And when shooting sheet film, the ground glass will show it all as well, barring any modifications.
Added bonus when using waist-level finders with a handheld camera: you get to compose the image with both eyes open, just like they are when you are viewing the final product.
Having 100% was very important in the days when you shot chromes for slide projection. But if you crop, having a little more around the edges by looking through a finder that shows only 90-95%, might be an advantage. What do you think?
Just an interesting aspect: if you cannot crop in-camera, then you need to crop in print. Few reasons:
- scene you are shooting doesn't work in the film format you are using
- you want certain aspect ratio to suit your paper, matte, frame etc better
If someone says don't shoot if the composition is wrong: nope. By cropping I might save the photograph. Why should camera/film aspect ratio dictate if I'm even going to expose a frame?
You reminded me of a gripe I have about standard formats of digital cameras. Many of them today have standard selections of 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 1:1. Why don't they also include 4:5 to make it easy to print on 4x5 or 8x10 paper? Also, 5:7 for 5x7 paper and other standard paper sizes? It's all in the camera's program, so it should be no big deal.Just an interesting aspect: if you cannot crop in-camera, then you need to crop in print. Few reasons:
- scene you are shooting doesn't work in the film format you are using
- you want certain aspect ratio to suit your paper, matte, frame etc better
If someone says don't shoot if the composition is wrong: nope. By cropping I might save the photograph. Why should camera/film aspect ratio dictate if I'm even going to expose a frame?
You reminded me of a gripe I have about standard formats of digital cameras. Many of them today have standard selections of 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 1:1. Why don't they also include 4:5 to make it easy to print on 4x5 or 8x10 paper? Also, 5:7 for 5x7 paper and other standard paper sizes? It's all in the camera's program, so it should be no big deal.
Which is why it is better to shoot digital. With digital, you can do anything you want with the image, and add black borders at the end, with edge markings for whatever film you would like to assign to your image. Not that I know anything about it. Really.My regular public service announcement: Save yourself! It’s too late for me.
When you print black borders you introduce flare. You cannot edge burn as recommended by Ansel Adams. You cannot “flash” (hit paper with light to blacken distractions) as recommended by Lootens.
If the plan is to crop, then sure, I agree that having that excess image area (that you can’t even see when taking the picture) could be advantageous. But then what’s the point in even composing an intentional picture? Taken to the extreme, one could simply set out for the day with the widest lens they can find, take the “spray and pray, run and gun” approach to taking pictures, and tell themselves they’ll just figure it out in the darkroom later. I think the kids these days call that “fixing it in post.”Having 100% was very important in the days when you shot chromes for slide projection. But if you crop, having a little more around the edges by looking through a finder that shows only 90-95%, might be an advantage. What do you think?
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?