Do you crop your photos?

[gone]

Cropping your photo seems to be an old taboo that's left over from the pre-photography art world, where it's considered less than good form to improve your finished painting's composition by cutting it down to size. Same w/ a watercolor and drawing, not necessarily w/ a print.

I wonder why that should be w/ analog photography? Even though we can crop the image in the enlarger, or do it by matting the print or cutting the paper down, it somehow feels wrong to me. Which is not smart, since at least half of my work could surely do w/ some compositional tightening up.

And what if I want a square print? The photographer's solution is truly wacky: since almost no one here would cut down a 35mm print to a square, including me, then we think it's time to go buy a completely different type of camera (plus lenses), probably a different enlarger w/ different neg carriers and lenses, and buy a different type of film that fits none of the other cameras! All just to go from rectangle to square. We don't have to, but we just do.

 

[Don_ih]

I've enlarged a portrait oriented rectangle out of a landscape oriented negative, several times. All that matters to me is getting the print I want. Yes, compose in the camera. But sometimes you change your mind after that.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Cropping your photo seems to be an old taboo that's left over from the pre-photography art world, where it's considered less than good form to improve your finished painting's composition by cutting it down to size. Same w/ a watercolor and drawing, not necessarily w/ a print.

I wonder why that should be w/ analog photography? Even though we can crop the image in the enlarger, or do it by matting the print or cutting the paper down, it somehow feels wrong to me. Which is not smart, since at least half of my work could surely do w/ some compositional tightening up.

And what if I want a square print? The photographer's solution is truly wacky: since almost no one here would cut down a 35mm print to a square, including me, then we think it's time to go buy a completely different type of camera (plus lenses), probably a different enlarger w/ different neg carriers and lenses, and buy a different type of film that fits none of the other cameras! All just to go from rectangle to square. We don't have to, but we just do.

I consider cropping in the dark room for a while matting the final step of composition and do it all the time.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes if I want to. Why not? It's my photo after all.

 

[wiltw]

Even though we can crop the image in the enlarger, or do it by matting the print or cutting the paper down, it somehow feels wrong to me. Which is not smart, since at least half of my work could surely do w/ some compositional tightening up.

Consider that if you take the 135 format neg, and then print the following, you HAVE TO crop the original image, simply to fit the print size!

1. 4x6
2. 5x7
3. 8x10
4. 11x14
5. 14x17

...only the first print in the list exactly fits the 135 neg! Nothing is 'wrong' unless you think that it is only acceptable to print 4x6" and 8x12" and 16x24", and other sizes are just plain 'wrong' for the format.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes. If it makes it stronger.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I crop to get the best composition. I prefer to crop in the lens before I take the photograph. Slides I remount and crop with black paper. When I am in the darkroom I crop when I enlarge. Sometimes I crop by cutting the mat and framing and sometime I crop by cutting the print. There are no rules, it is up to you. You do not have to crop to any standard sizes either.

 

[BradS]

cropping is taboo? Forty-five years doing photography...this is the first I've heard of this notion. In fact, quite on the contrary, I'm sure that I have books on my shelf that direct the aspiring photographer to crop vigorously. No. There's nothing wrong with cropping.

 

[Dirb9]

Sure, cropping is a tool in the process of creating a photo, just as selecting a specific focal length during while taking the photo or using a filter are tools as well. I certainly have had at least one teacher in the past who insisted that all our assignments be printed with filed negative carriers and the film's borders exposed, to show 'we knew how to frame in the camera'. While a decent idea in theory, that's not always an option, due to a variety of reasons. I moved past printing all my photos like that as soon as the class was done.

@wiltw hey, a good reason to shoot 6x7! Didn't Mamiya advertise their cameras as 'ideal format' for that reason? (I still crop 6x7 sometimes...)

 

[wiltw]

Sure, cropping is a tool in the process of creating a photo, just as selecting a specific focal length during while taking the photo or using a filter are tools as well. I certainly have had at least one teacher in the past who insisted that all our assignments be printed with filed negative carriers and the film's borders exposed, to show 'we knew how to frame in the camera'. While a decent idea in theory, that's not always an option, due to a variety of reasons. I moved past printing all my photos like that as soon as the class was done.

@wiltw hey, a good reason to shoot 6x7! Didn't Mamiya advertise their cameras as 'ideal format' for that reason? (I still crop 6x7 sometimes...)

Yes, 6x7 frame size might well match 8x10, but if your client wants 5x7 or 11x14 or 14x17, we're back to forced crop yet again!

As for 'crop with lens'...if shooting fixed FL, sometimes our position for shooting is forced upon us, with no flexibility of camera position...and so our frame contains distractions from the main subject, which are easily removed with crop!

 

[cliveh]

In general, never. Does a painter make a painting and then cut a bit off the end?

 

[Maris]

I crop virtually all photographs except full frame 8x10 contact prints. Why?
The reason comes down to the deep difference between composition and framing.

Composition is achieved by placing the taking lens at such a point that objects in the field of view have the desired spatial relationship front to back and side to side. I'll select a lens with a wider field of view to preserve the composition rather than trying to tighten the framing by moving in closer .... which changes the composition.

Usually the field of view includes peripheral objects that are not wanted as part of the composition. These objects can be hidden by cropping either at the enlarging stage or when the print is over-matted for presentation.

As for full frame 8x10 contact prints, they depend on the happy coincidence that composition and framing are both exactly correct from the same point. Doesn't happen very often.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Cropping is a "taboo" for those who have no idea what they are talking about. It's part of the process. Composing in camera allows for maximum use of frame space and subsequent improved image quality at bigger enlargements. But while setting up LF does give time to examine elements with more precision, the smaller the format the harder it gets to get it all right. And in the end it makes sense to leave some margin for final tune up in darkroom.

 

[Vaughn]

I crop every image...the default setting of my cropping tool just happens to be zero.

I compose to fit the format 99.99% of the time. I contact print and often leave the rebate as part of the image.

 

[mshchem]

In general, never. Does a painter make a painting and then cut a bit off the end?

If I could paint I wouldn't need to crop.

Using a view camera I can reduce cropping to a minimum, still I crop nearly every negative to some extent when printing.

 

[Moose22]

In general, never. Does a painter make a painting and then cut a bit off the end?

Better question to ask is if a painter has a 2x3 shaped piece of canvas but a 4x5 frame does he worry about what's outside that frame? Heck no. He "crops" -- cuts and stretches that canvas to the size he wants and works there.

Likewise, since he's making the image from whole cloth, not on the fly, he can virtually position himself in any perspective he chooses. Photographers might not be so lucky, especially in street, sports, news, or action photography, where you have to work quickly, or where your movement is restricted. f/8 and be there man. A painter "crops" in his minds eye, which is where the image was formed, then paints (prints) that composition on the canvas.

I seldom crop a completed print. But I'll crop negatives in a heartbeat if it makes sense. People shots get cropped all the time, especially if I use 35mm and want to print 5x7 or 8x10s. I love to give 5x7 prints to people I photograph, they appreciate it way more than a cellphone snap.

 

[Pieter12]

Consider that if you take the 135 format neg, and then print the following, you HAVE TO crop the original image, simply to fit the print size!

1. 4x6
2. 5x7
3. 8x10
4. 11x14
5. 14x17

...only the first print in the list exactly fits the 135 neg! Nothing is 'wrong' unless you think that it is only acceptable to print 4x6" and 8x12" and 16x24", and other sizes are just plain 'wrong' for the format.

You can have wider borders on the top and/or bottom, it's not a sin. Or would cut the paper down to match your preferences.

 

[pbromaghin]

It's just dumb.

 

[Tel]

Yes if I want to. Why not? It's my photo after all.

+1

 

[Moose22]

You can have wider borders on the top and/or bottom, it's not a sin. Or would cut the paper down to match your preferences.

My first medium format was 6x8. That doesn't fit anything. Even my scanner masks: 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 -- Doh! But there's no reasonable sized print that matches the 3/4 ratio. At first I cropped some, but then I got it in me to embrace the oddness.

Now when I print landscapes I do it with the original ratio and leave the white strips on the ends as a badge of honor. I had frame destination custom cut mats to match when I mount them and it all works great.

 

[ic-racer]

I let the subject dictate if I print full-frame or crop. I'd say 95% get cropped for smooth borders.

 

[Pieter12]

Better question to ask is if a painter has a 2x3 shaped piece of canvas but a 4x5 frame does he worry about what's outside that frame? Heck no. He "crops" -- cuts and stretches that canvas to the size he wants and works there.

Likewise, since he's making the image from whole cloth, not on the fly, he can virtually position himself in any perspective he chooses. Photographers might not be so lucky, especially in street, sports, news, or action photography, where you have to work quickly, or where your movement is restricted. f/8 and be there man. A painter "crops" in his minds eye, which is where the image was formed, then paints (prints) that composition on the canvas.

I seldom crop a completed print. But I'll crop negatives in a heartbeat if it makes sense. People shots get cropped all the time, especially if I use 35mm and want to print 5x7 or 8x10s. I love to give 5x7 prints to people I photograph, they appreciate it way more than a cellphone snap.

Painters have been known to cut down canvases to change the composition or even to fit in specific space.

 

[MattKing]

But there's no reasonable sized print that matches the 3/4 ratio.

Same ratio as 6x4.5. And it fits perfectly as a 7.5" x 9.375" print on an 8" x 10" paper. Or a 4.5" x 6.25" print on 5" x 7" paper.
That is why they make movable easel blades .
Practically speaking though, it is frames or pre-cut mats that are the problem.
Speaking more generally, I always think this question is asked the wrong way. There is nothing wrong with cropping a negative.
The question should really be: "is there an advantage to shooting a full frame, and using all of it when we present the final result."?
For projected slides, it was an absolute pain to crop them, so the answer is/was yes.
And there is some technical advantage to fully utilizing every bit of the film real estate available to you.
Printing the full frame without cropping reveals a lot about your visualization skills, but I have certainly shot lots of negatives with the knowledge that I was only going to use a portion.
There is an effect I've enjoyed using where the full negative holder presents itself - like this:

And of course, if your image is intended to be like this, what else are you going to do?

 

[Vaughn]

My first medium format was 6x8. That doesn't fit anything. Even my scanner masks: 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 -- Doh! But there's no reasonable sized print that matches the 3/4 ratio. At first I cropped some, but then I got it in me to embrace the oddness.

Now when I print landscapes I do it with the original ratio and leave the white strips on the ends as a badge of honor. I had frame destination custom cut mats to match when I mount them and it all works great.

And the extra blank area on the paper lets one safely handle it during processing. That's the down-side of using the same proportion negs as the paper. Leaving only a half inch border around a 16x20 prints means carefully edge handling.

There were very limited papers sold in the square format. I learned with a 6cmx6cm film TLR. Got use to it. A 7x7 image on 8x10 paper (or 10x10 on 11x14) can look pretty cool. Print with intent and one will use less paper.

 

[awty]

Only lazy people never crop.
Even alternative processing when using a full negative to contact print I will not always run my painted on emulsion to go fully to the boarder.