Do you crop your photos?

[cliveh]

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

Yes.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

So why even bother to take a photo.

 

[cliveh]

So why even bother to take a photo.

I don't understand your point.

 

[Pieter12]

You seem to be able to see everything that would be in the photo already. So why bother taking it?

 

[cliveh]

You seem to be able to see everything that would be in the photo already. So why bother taking it?

?

 

[faberryman]

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.

I am not sure I understand why you think you have sinned. Something I said?

I asked those questions of cliveh because he said changing contrast in the darkroom was a failure of vision at the camera, and if you were going to do that, you might as well be using Photoshop. It seems to me that if a low or high contrast scene were presented in the viewfinder because the scene itself were low or high contrast, the insistence on printing the negative on a normal paper would be the failure of vision. It seems to me you would want to have the contrast adjusting methods I mentioned at your disposal to more closely reflect the scene.

 

[Bill Burk]

Original negative and print notes

 

[Bill Burk]

I am not sure I understand why you think you have sinned. I asked those questions of cliveh because he said changing contrast was a failure of vision, and if you were going to do that, you might as well be using Photoshop.

Because in a few rare cases I use that Adobe product to reveal an image. It goes against all I stand for.

You will notice that I take the position over and over that I use black borders and don’t crop. But that’s not dogma, I do that for consistency in my normal line of prints. I also enjoy a good experiment to demonstrate other possibilities.

When I do it all analog I am happy to share that here.

When I use the “other stuff”, I am ashamed and even if I get 500 likes it feels hollow.

 

[Bill Burk]

And cliveh is HCB. He knows of what he says.

His images could all be printed straight without cropping, dodging or burning because his images all have a strong subject. They do not have to be seen in person because they look good even as thumbnails. The idea comes through readily.

My prints on the other hand, may be best appreciated in person where you can see why I dodged the rock in the middle of the stream, to reveal the small waterfall underneath. Not sure how easy that is to see on screen.

I’ll try to find that picture to show you what I mean…

 

[faberryman]

And cliveh is HCB. He knows of what he says.

I understand his rubric. I just don’t see why his rubric is any more valid than another photographer’s rubric that is identical in all respects except that he has decided to always print on a particular manufacturer’s grade 3 paper, or another photographer’s rubric that is identical in all respects except that he uses a different paper developer which results in a somewhat different contrast. You have to do it my way with my chosen materials or else you might as well use Photoshop? Really?

 

[Pieter12]

Because in a few rare cases I use that Adobe product to reveal an image. It goes against all I stand for

It is sad to have to say this, one should probably stand for greater things than the opposition to using an image-editing program.

 

[Vaughn]

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.

While I would like to agree, I believe that is up to the photographer. Some are geared more towards the final print as being their primary goal. Some are more geared more towards the original seeing and making the image as their primary goals. Some use various forms of hybrids of the two approaches. All these approaches to photography are valid, all will create a different approach to cropping.

 

[Bill Burk]

It is sad to have to say this, one should probably stand for greater things than the opposition to using an image-editing program.

I’ve told the story of the day I went to pick my boy up from a camping trip and got “busted” with an OM adapter on a Canon Digital Rebel by a dad, Reed Graham and he looked shocked and said “Bill! I thought you stood for something!!!”

The pictures that day were useless because I had the white balance set to tungsten.

 

[Pieter12]

I’ve told the story of the day I went to pick my boy up from a camping trip and got “busted” with an OM adapter on a Canon Digital Rebel by a dad, Reed Graham and he looked shocked and said “Bill! I thought you stood for something!!!”

The pictures that day were useless because I had the white balance set to tungsten.

Well if you committed the mortal sin of using an image editing program, you could have salvaged them pretty easily.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

So, if I'm getting this straight, someone like W. Eugene Smith or Koudelka, who spent ages in the darkroom working on their prints - i.e., manipulating the photograph - are essentially failed photographers?

And cliveh is HCB.

Well, HCB didn't print his negatives. I'm sure whoever did it manipulated them plenty in the darkroom.

 

[MattKing]

I'm sad that cliveh learns nothing from his time in the darkroom. I get lots of joy from the discoveries I make there.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

You seem to be able to see everything that would be in the photo already. So why bother taking it?

I like this. Sort of pushing Winogrand's logic to its utmost limit. As he said "I photograph things in order to see what they look like photographed," you could argue that there is no point taking a photograph of something if you already know what the thing you are photographing will look like photographed.

 

[Bill Burk]

I'm sad that cliveh learns nothing from his time in the darkroom. I get lots of joy from the discoveries I make there.

His images prove his approach is valid. I agree with faberryman’s point that his rubric isn’t necessarily right for everyone. No, cliveh has so much experience that he’s like superman at the bar on the top floor telling the newcomer that there’s a breeze at the 42nd floor that picks you up and brings you right back up to the bar if you jump out…

It works for cliveh his pictures look good at any speed, but the newcomer is going to hit the ground with a splat.

I took this journey into 4x5 which makes me appreciate what large format brings to the table. The prints I make from larger film look “better” to me in ways that I feel like that picture needed. My pictures sometimes need to be seen well printed and in person.

.

 

[faberryman]

I like this. Sort of pushing Winogrand's logic to its utmost limit. As he said "I photograph things in order to see what they look like photographed," you could argue that there is no point taking a photograph of something if you already know what the thing you are photographing will look like photographed.

Actually, it is more like "I photograph things in order to see what they look like printed on variable contrast paper without a contrast filter." It is certainly one approach, but I don't think the only valid alternative is to learn Photoshop.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is sad to have to say this, one should probably stand for greater things than the opposition to using an image-editing program.

Using film and a darkroom means one does not need to apologize for using image editing software.

 

[radiant]

Actually, it is more like "I photograph things in order to see what they look like printed on variable contrast paper without a contrast filter." It is certainly one approach, but I don't think the only valid alternative is to learn Photoshop.

Reminds me of my teen years (90s) when I printed in local darkroom. I always wondered what the "multigrade" means on the paper boxes. I only discovered that few years ago what it means. Nobody told me. I just always shot T-max 400 + T-Max developer, nothing else, ever. Never had any issues with contrast. Now it is my biggest worry. Hmm ..

So much talk and no prints. Here is my weekend work (shot + printed on saturday, glued on baseboard today), "non-cropped" on shot and printed full frame in 5x7 format. I think "not cropping" is just the easiest way to do it. In this triptych the composition on shot was just the way I wanted and printing was such a joy, just make it full.

Also I think 135-film size aspect ratio is a bit problematic, I have always been struggling with it. Dunno if the issue here is really that people shoot on bad aspect ratio and end up cropping lot in post because of that? I don't think anyone really wants to shoot so that you always need to crop afterwards? That is always extra work, who wants that.

 

[Craig75]

I could think.of nothing more boring than churning out straight grade 2 prints year in year out

 

[warden]

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.

Well at least you didn't continue down the gatekeeping path and declare all those who crop or do anything different from you aren't photographers.

I try to get the image framed as close as possible to what I'd like to see on a print. If I later see a superior crop or other adjustment in the darkroom, that is in no way a failure: it is a success of vision that results in a better print.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...
Also I think 135-film size aspect ratio is a bit problematic, I have always been struggling with it. Dunno if the issue here is really that people shoot on bad aspect ratio and end up cropping lot in post because of that? I don't think anyone really wants to shoot so that you always need to crop afterwards? That is always extra work, who wants that.

The 135 format has been a problem for me for years and it because exacerbated when I built my darkroom. Thus my constant chanting about "Square being the perfect format." I also like the 4"x5" format, again because it is not that stretched out 135mm format that makes me crop and reduce the usable negative area.

 

[wiltw]

I try to get the image framed as close as possible to what I'd like to see on a print. If I later see a superior crop or other adjustment in the darkroom, that is in no way a failure: it is a success of vision that results in a better print.

^^^
Sometimes it simply is NOT POSSIBLE to optimize framing in the viewfinder...

• camera position cannot be altered,
• FL cannot be altered,
• the aspect ratio of the scene does not well fit the aspect ratio of the camera frame.

There is nothing wrong with alteration of what was captured in the frame, to make up for whatever deficiencies existed when the shutter was opened! If what was pre-visualized in the photo does not match the framed image, why not make the final image the same as the pre-visualization?!

All I had was a P&S with limited FL range, a 4:3 aspect ratio, no ability to alter camera position, and so this was the as-shot image

And in my mind's eye I was previsualizing something for like this...