Do you crop your photos?

[faberryman]

You cropper guys are a bunch of quitters. You need to learn to crop with mats. It is never too late to improve the composition of a photograph, particularly when you just can't bring yourself to go back in the darkroom to reprint it, probably because the photograph is not all that great to begin with. I always keep a selection of mats with the openings here, there and everywhere for just such occasions.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You cropper guys are a bunch of quitters. You need to learn to crop with mats. It is never too late to improve the composition of a photograph, particularly when you just can bring yourself to go back in the darkroom to reprint it, probably because the photograph is not all that great to begin with. I always keep a selection of mats with the openings here, there and everywhere for just such occasions.

I do that too if and only if I cannot crop with the lens.

 

[Auer]

Its never too late to give up on a rigid mindset and use whatever is available to get the end result one wants.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Its never too late to give up on a rigid mindset and use whatever is available to get the end result one wants.

I never had a rigid mindset. I have smart processes and time proven methods based on collecting others ideas and experiences.

 

[AgX]

I shot slides for three decades and I did not like remounting slides in glass [I did not know about those two options] so I learned to crop in the lens rather than go through the pain of remounting slides.

But by your approach you are still bound to the aspect ratio the slide mount offers, in your case even the same as that of the camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

But by your approach you are still bound to the aspect ratio the slide mount offers, in your case even the same as that of the camera.

No,not if the composition did not match the format. Still I would crop to eliminate extraneous objects and maximize the slide size.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I shot slides for three decades and I did not like remounting slides in glass [I did not know about those two options] so I learned to crop in the lens rather than go through the pain of remounting slides.

Cropping in lens usually gives me a photo I want, and slides are really good at teaching that, but square is great on its own. It can really tidy up compositions, bring emphasis, make stronger.
I cannot state that I'm a genius whose work is set in stone after the shutter has been fired - there might be and often is a room for improvement, even a different interpretation might occur that's more interesting than the one that was intended. Tidying up/cropping usually helps - where it's applicable.

I started with glass mounts then ditched them due to oxidation (if that's the correct term/process) of the glass surface and the AN pattern being visible in projecion - like a swarm of tiny maggots.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Cropping in lens usually gives me a photo I want, and slides are really good at teaching that, but square is great on its own. It can really tidy up compositions, bring emphasis, make stronger.
I cannot state that I'm a genius whose work is set in stone after the shutter has been fired - there might be and often is a room for improvement, even a different interpretation might occur that's more interesting than the one that was intended. Tidying up/cropping usually helps - where it's applicable.

I started with glass mounts then ditched them due to oxidation (if that's the correct term/process) of the glass surface and the AN pattern being visible in projecion - like a swarm of tiny maggots.

I find to me that the 35mm format is a bit too long and that it forces me to constantly crop in the darkroom. That happens much less often with the square format. Always remember that "Square is the perfect format" and "Ask the man that owns one."

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I find to me that the 35mm format is a bit too long and that it forces me to constantly crop in the darkroom. That happens much less often with the square format. Always remember that "Square is the perfect format" and "Ask the man that owns one."

I often shoot 16:9 stills to match my TV and monitor and video clips. I also shoot 6x7 medium format and 4x5 large format as well as 3:2. I found that format really doesn't matter after you work with it for an hour or so. Your brain will adjust appropriately to the format in the screen. Rules of thirds, negative space, leading lines, balance, leaving or entering the frame, etc. work in all formats. Your eye adjusts. Of course, if you're shooting portraits only of one person, 16:9 might not work the way you want. But for general photography, you can find what does work.

 

[Vaughn]

You cropper guys are a bunch of quitters. You need to learn to crop with mats. It is never too late to improve the composition of a photograph, particularly when you just can't bring yourself to go back in the darkroom to reprint it, probably because the photograph is not all that great to begin with. I always keep a selection of mats with the openings here, there and everywhere for just such occasions.

When I was making 16x20 silver gelatin prints I was mounting them with a window an inch bigger than the image -- no mat is going to crop my images! Well, usually -- it was not a hard and fast rule, but I prefer to keep work shown together somewhat presented alike.. But I like the look of the clean edge photopaper dry-mounted to board -- the entire print seen.

-- and as a bonus, the slightly larger than 16x20 matboard cut out for the window could be used to mat smaller work. When one it trying to save money and make the board go further, that is a big advantage when matting 24x28.

 

[Brian B Bednarek]

When I was in college in the late 70s, filed neg carriers and full frame was the current religion. We were told we had to compose in the viewfinder and always get it right!!! Like the religion I was raised in there was no room for deviation ... as I got older I stopped practicing both religions and am much happier!!! I do try to fill the frame and get what I want, but if I need to tweak it for clarity, I am good with that!!! Freedom is power!!!

 

[faberryman]

No,not if the composition did not match the format. Still I would crop to eliminate extraneous objects and maximize the slide size.

I shot slides for many years. That's how I learned to compose in the viewfinder. If I made a photograph where the composition wasn't so great, I threw it away. Throw away a couple of thousand slides and it will gradually dawn on you to be more careful framing in the viewfinder. I guess you can crop slides. I have enough trouble cutting an opening in a 16x20 mat. There is no way I could cut a mat for a slide. I do remember you could order slide mounts with goofy openings like stars and hearts from the Spiratone catalog. They were really professional. You'd be watching a slide presentation and, when one of those popped up, you gave the guy sitting next to you an elbow in the ribs and remarked that the photographer must have really screwed that one up. Spiratone had those starburst filters on the facing page. And who could forget those right angle mirror thingies you screwed on the front of your lens so you could shoot around the corner of a building without being seen. And you thought sharpness was bourgeois. Anyway, you wouldn't believe some of the stuff Spiratone had in its catalog. It was a big day when it came in the mail. Sometimes you had to call in sick the next day if you didn't get all the way through it.

 

[Vaughn]

Actually to mask slides, tape was used -- not cut-outs. Masking slides was the normal thing to do when photographing artist work when the art was not the same proportion as the slide.

I use to volunteer and take slides of art student work towards the end of the year when they needed slides to enter for scholarships, awards, shows, portfolios, etc. Ektachrome 64T and a two 750W Tota Lights. Pretty rudementry. I'd have the students sequence their work large-to-small. They'd hand me a roll of film, I'd use it up on their work, centering the pieces so the images on the screen would not jump all over in a slide presentation, and framing so two sides would not have to be taped, yet not be overly cropped by the slide mount.

The students took the film in for processing and all, so I did not have to mess with taping and re-mounting. I just got to see a lot of student work under consistent lighting. Highly textured oil paintings were always interesting to reproduce. I took some slides of faculty work a few times, also, which was cool.

 

[faberryman]

Actually to mask slides, tape was used -- not cut-outs. Masking slides was the normal thing to do when photographing artist work when the art was not the same proportion as the slide.

Clearly there are a couple of situations where cropping a slide is appropriate.

 

[cliveh]

You wont learn to see in the darkroom.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You wont learn to see in the darkroom.

Nor can you change the point of view nor step back.

 

[MattKing]

You wont learn to see in the darkroom.

Sure you do.
It is an iterative process that provides its own feedback loop.
You compose a photograph in your camera.
You make a print in the darkroom and find yourself having to crop more than you would prefer.
You learn that way about how better to frame the image in camera.
It works the other way too.
You compose a photograph in camera.
You make a print in the darkroom and find yourself wishing your negative had just a bit more available "space" on one or more edges.
You learn that way as well about how better to frame the image in camera.
Each iterative step improves your ability to visualize.
The advantage of leaving too much on the negative is that you can recover from the problem.

 

[cliveh]

Sure you do.
It is an iterative process that provides its own feedback loop.
You compose a photograph in your camera.
You make a print in the darkroom and find yourself having to crop more than you would prefer.
You learn that way about how better to frame the image in camera.
It works the other way too.
You compose a photograph in camera.
You make a print in the darkroom and find yourself wishing your negative had just a bit more available "space" on one or more edges.
You learn that way as well about how better to frame the image in camera.
Each iterative step improves your ability to visualize.
The advantage of leaving too much on the negative is that you can recover from the problem.

I beg to differ. In the darkroom you print your vision from the camera. Any manipulation of contrast or cropping is a failure of your original capture of the image. If you feel a need to manipulate the image, you may as well study Adobe photoshop.

 

[faberryman]

I beg to differ. In the darkroom you print your vision from the camera. Any manipulation of contrast or cropping is a failure of your original capture of the image. If you feel a need to manipulate the image, you may as well study Adobe photoshop.

Do you object to using variable contrast paper and filters? Do you object to using graded papers? Do you object to using different manufacturers' papers which while marked No. 2 differ somewhat in their contrast? Do you object to using a diffusion head in lieu of a condenser head? Do you object to using different developers? Do you object to flashing? Do you object using masks? The list goes on and on. Can you clarify exactly where you draw the line before you have to commit the mortal sin of scanning your negatives?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Sure you do.
It is an iterative process that provides its own feedback loop.
You compose a photograph in your camera.
You make a print in the darkroom and find yourself having to crop more than you would prefer.
You learn that way about how better to frame the image in camera.
It works the other way too.
You compose a photograph in camera.
You make a print in the darkroom and find yourself wishing your negative had just a bit more available "space" on one or more edges.
You learn that way as well about how better to frame the image in camera.
Each iterative step improves your ability to visualize.
The advantage of leaving too much on the negative is that you can recover from the problem.

This sums up the learning process just about perfectly.

And the learning process is continuous.

 

[cliveh]

Do you object to using graded papers? Do you object to using different manufacturers' papers which while marked No. 2 differ somewhat in their contrast. Do you object to using a diffusion head in lieu of a condenser head. Do you object to using different kinds of developers? The list goes on and on.

When printing 35mm negatives, I use multi-grade paper with no contrast control and a condenser head with same developer. I have simplified my darkroom work to just print what I saw in the viewfinder.

 

[faberryman]

When printing 35mm negatives, I use multi-grade paper with no contrast control and a condenser head with same developer. I have simplified my darkroom work to just print what I saw in the viewfinder.

How have you calibrated your viewfinder to be the same contrast as your prints? And exposure. How do you determine your exposure to be the same brightness as the image in your viewfinder for each print?

 

[cliveh]

How have you calibrated your viewfinder to be the same contrast as your prints? And exposure. How do you determine your exposure to be the same brightness as the image in your viewfinder for each print?

Experience.

 

[Bill Burk]

Do you object to using variable contrast paper and filters? Do you object to using graded papers? Do you object to using different manufacturers' papers which while marked No. 2 differ somewhat in their contrast? Do you object to using a diffusion head in lieu of a condenser head? Do you object to using different developers? Do you object to flashing? Do you object using masks? The list goes on and on. Can you clarify exactly where you draw the line before you have to commit the mortal sin of scanning your negatives?

Though directed at cliveh, I think about these things too.

If the original is a transparency (e.g., Panatomic-X developed in a reversal kit), or color neg/slide. Then I am not interested at this time in printing in the darkroom. If brush and scribe retouching is impossible due to horrendous processing (air bells or low levels). I have a few rolls of those but I switched to steel tanks and agitate fiercely now. Steel tanks vs. Paterson probably made the most difference. For those I am sorry brother faberryman, I have sinned.

Negatives in the darkroom go through rigid steps to print. I eschew all light sources but the Aristo grid with Zone VI stabilizer keeping light level consistent. I truly believe Horowitz and Picker came through on that gizmo. Gelatin ND 0.60 filter is a consistent drop-in right on top of the enlarging lens. I know it’s poor form but I do it anyway.

All my normal negatives will print on Grade 2 or 3 Galerie with about 1/3 stop burn or dodge. I feel as if I haven’t given a print the proper treatment unless I burn or dodge something. My outliers will print on Ilford MG IV with under lens (I think they are Beseler brand acetate) polycontrast (or Wratten gelatin blue or green) filters.

Every print gets a test strip, only rarely will I print two adjacent negatives without checking. I almost always get burned by having a dud print when I do this.

And the enlarger height is locked per format according to a note pasted on the enlarger carriage. Most of my carriers are filed.

I have gotten into this heated discussion before and brashly demonstrated how someone else’s negative could be cropped. The guy must not have liked my idea because I haven’t seen or heard of him since.

So I demonstrated on one of my own negatives…

This is what I came up with in the darkroom with cropping. Two different prints from different parts of one negative. Not previsualized at the camera, although at the camera I tried to make sure the negative would be a good one, it was skewed so not suited to my usual standard treatment.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/sandstone-tidepools-upside-down.64899/

 

[MattKing]

Any manipulation of contrast or cropping is a failure of your original capture of the image.

And failures are the best way to learn.
You do recall that your initial statement was about learning to see, don't you?