Do you crop your photos?

[L Gebhardt]

Actually, I prefer the original. The cropped version is trying to say you were not where you were.

It's saying you used a smaller film format than you did. This is the same thing as using the same lens on a smaller format from exactly the same spot.

Edited for clarity

 

[faberryman]

It's saying you used a smaller film format than you did. This is the same thing as using the same lens on a smaller format from exactly the same spot.

Edited for clarity

To me, the crop is saying that he used a longer focal length lens from exactly the same spot than he actually did, regardless of film format.

 

[TJones]

I finally remembered where I had heard this discussion before:

 

[faberryman]

Isn't cropping like putting on your socks and shoes after you get to the fishing boat? Might be a good idea if the captain has some rubber boots waiting for you. That way you wouldn't have to take off your shoes to put on the the rubber boots. I can see how cropping might be the preferable in certain narrowly drawn circumstances. Imagine, two working methods co-existing. Sort of primary and secondary working methods. Nah.

 

[Pieter12]

To me, the crop is saying that he used a longer focal length lens from exactly the same spot than he actually did, regardless of film format.

The crop says nothing if you don't know the image was cropped. It is the image I wanted, period.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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. But perhaps it would be too busy.

Too busy.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

Who ever claimed it could?

 

[Pieter12]

Just so you know, if I see another photograph of someone faffing about with his/her phone, I'll scream.

It's about the composition, the birds flying above connecting the woman photographing and the woman being photographed. Plus the grittiness of the weather being accentuated by the larger grain.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Who ever claimed it could?

There are people here who claim that these things can be corrected by cropping when editing. Maybe you missed their posts.

 

[Pieter12]

It always makes me think he might just as well have been shooting 35mm.

I think Newman shot mostly 4x5, although he did do some 35. His style was to place the subject in the bottom third of the frame in an environment that reflected who the subject was. But he was smart enough to recognize that for the Stravinsky shot, cropping out the dead space, leaving the subject in the bottom corner made a better composition and made the subject more dominant.

 

[Pieter12]

There are people here who claim that these things can be corrected by cropping when editing. Maybe you missed their posts.

I must be. Such a claim is ridiculous. But you can minimize such things with burning and dodging. Cropping would help only if the object is large and dominating the subject. If the subject is large enough in the frame, you could crop tight to the subject as to eliminate a tree or pole.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The crop says nothing if you don't know the image was cropped. It is the image I wanted, period.

But if you cropped in the viewfinder, you would not need to spend time and effort to do it later and for every time you print the negative. Do it right to start with and your life will be better.

 

[Pieter12]

But if you cropped in the viewfinder, you would not need to spend time and effort to do it later and for every time you print the negative. Do it right to start with and your life will be better.

I could not get that crop in the viewfinder under the circumstances. And once I have determined the crop, it is no big deal to reprint it as desired.

Maybe I could have sprinted through the sand to get closer, scared the birds and attracted the attention of the subjects, making them self-conscious and gotten a totally different photo that wouldn't please me. Or to get a more ideal composition, I could have tripped while running, dropping my camera in the sand. My life wouldn't be any better and neither would the photo.

 

[faberryman]

The crop says nothing if you don't know the image was cropped.

Obviously. However, when you presented us with both a cropped and uncropped version, we knew the image was cropped, and so commented on the effect of the crop.

It is the image I wanted, period.

Obviously.

 

[Sirius Glass]

But if you cropped in the viewfinder, you would not need to spend time and effort to do it later and for every time you print the negative. Do it right to start with and your life will be better.

I could not get that crop in the viewfinder under the circumstances. And once I have determined the crop, it is no big deal to reprint it as desired.

Maybe I could have sprinted through the sand to get closer, scared the birds and attracted the attention of the subjects, making them self-conscious and gotten a totally different photo that wouldn't please me. Or to get a more ideal composition, I could have tripped while running, dropping my camera in the sand. My life wouldn't be any better and neither would the photo.

We are talking in two different directions. I am stating that if one were to strive to crop in the viewfinder, time and effort is saved in the long run. You are talking about specific situations when the desisive moment is upon one and cropping in the viewfinder will loose the moment.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I must be. Such a claim is ridiculous. But you can minimize such things with burning and dodging. Cropping would help only if the object is large and dominating the subject. If the subject is large enough in the frame, you could crop tight to the subject as to eliminate a tree or pole.

Cropping doesn't help if the camera angle was wrong. I have no idea how dodging and burning help at all.

 

[faberryman]

It's about the composition, the birds flying above connecting the woman photographing and the woman being photographed. Plus the grittiness of the weather being accentuated by the larger grain.

It's hard for me to overlook the content.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I could not get that crop in the viewfinder under the circumstances. And once I have determined the crop, it is no big deal to reprint it as desired.

Maybe I could have sprinted through the sand to get closer, scared the birds and attracted the attention of the subjects, making them self-conscious and gotten a totally different photo that wouldn't please me. Or to get a more ideal composition, I could have tripped while running, dropping my camera in the sand. My life wouldn't be any better and neither would the photo.

Of course, we wouldn't want you to fall off a cliff trying to get the right angle and composition. However, in the end, viewers don't care about our predicaments. Either the picture works or it doesn't.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There are people here who claim that these things can be corrected by cropping when editing. Maybe you missed their posts.

I must be. Such a claim is ridiculous. But you can minimize such things with burning and dodging. Cropping would help only if the object is large and dominating the subject. If the subject is large enough in the frame, you could crop tight to the subject as to eliminate a tree or pole.

Cropping doesn't help if the camera angle was wrong. I have no idea how dodging and burning help at all.

If the camera angle is wrong, then get up and move to a better position. This ain't rocket science!

 

[Pieter12]

Cropping doesn't help if the camera angle was wrong. I have no idea how dodging and burning help at all.

By minimizing something that might be better off not in the composition. Lightening that pole coming out of the subject's head, so it blends in with the background, for example.

 

[Pieter12]

Either the picture works or it doesn't.

For me, the picture works. But I guess I'll burn in hell for the sin of such wanton and egregious cropping.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

By minimizing something that might be better off not in the composition. Lightening that pole coming out of the subject's head, so it blends in with the background, for example.

Stepping over to the left one foot before snapping the shot is easier.

But orienting the subjects in a shot cannot be adjusted afterwards by any means, They must be composed in camera.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For me, the picture works. But I guess I'll burn in hell for the sin of such wanton and egregious cropping.

No one says you shouldn't crop. I crop too. just remember there are limits to cropping.

 

[Pieter12]

Stepping over to the left one foot before snapping the shot is easier.

But orienting the subjects in a shot cannot be adjusted afterwards by any means, They must be composed in camera.

One foot (or even 3 feet) would not have made the foreground trash go away, tilting the camera up would have made the photo about the sky. And those birds weren't hovering, waiting for me to nail the composition.

 

[Pieter12]

No one says you shouldn't crop. I crop too. just remember there are limits to cropping.

Meaning the amount of cropping or what cropping can accomplish?