Image cropping, Yes or No?

[NB23]

I don't understand this, coming from someone who claims that full frame is the only correct way to print. If the buyer can alter the cropping, it becomes a collaboration, between you and the purchaser.

Only if I sleep with the purchaser's wife, it is a collaboration.
Otherwise how ca I control what people do in their household?

 

[Bob Marvin]

RE: Cartier-Bresson cropping; someone who printed for him relatively late in his life gave a talk to my photography group several years ago where she reported that he did indeed specify cropping of some of his negatives. Forbidding further alteration of his work is another matter entirely.

IMO whether cropping is a good practice or not, in absolute terms; this is so subjective that debate is really rather silly. It's the photographer's vision that's important, not how he/she achieves it.

 

[Roger Cole]

Sorry it's such a hot topic for me, I don't get why I am so obsessed with it...

And since I prefer specific examples to generalities, Roger Cole and I were lucky to participate in a print exchange a while back. His print is one of my favorites.

Sun & Blue Hole is a small waterfall/pond scene taken on 4x5 and printed on 11x14 with 1/4 inch clean border. Was it cropped? Literally yes it is because the negative edges do not show. Roger, I believe you probably used most of the negative and only cropped as needed to show a clean edge.

If I had been shooting 4x5 all along this might have been my standard presentation. It's classic. It meets the "requirement" to use most of the film's real estate.

I could have printed my Tiki Room Patio on the whole paper like that.

But the dirty border road I went down came about from my being adamant about wanting to show everything that I saw in the finder (when I was primarily using 35mm).

Thanks Bill. And yes, it is "mostly full frame" as much as will fit with just a bit cropped as needed to fit 4x5 to 11x14 and to make the borders clean. I PREFER to do that when it works. But I'm willing to crop at will when it helps. That's all I'm saying: I'm not a slave to the proportions and framing dictated by the film size, shape and lens. I can and will change lenses as needed within the range available to me. I can and will change location as allowed by the setting. In this case it happened to work, but the rock I was standing on with the tripod allows some, but not a huge amount, of moving around. It might not have worked. And if I had been forced too close for my 90 Angulon (I wasn't) and had a wider lens for 4x5 (I don't) I might have shot it wider and cropped if I had to. The stars just didn't align that way.

This is only for myself and I've no issues with anyone else always printing full frame as long as they extend the same thought to me.

 

[gandolfi]

I LOVE cropping - it is an important tool in my image making.

I have never understood why - just because someone many many years ago decided the negative should be 24x36 / 6x6/6x7/..you get it - I should let that decide how my images should look?
what if I want a round camera? - a panoramic format of my choosing? rounded corners?

It's like being a painter and be told ONLY to stick to certain formats....
In a speech I heard many years ago the speaker stated: An image only has one format and size!: The RIGHT one...

Only the real artists instinctively know how the format and size their image must have to be "perfect".. (he was talking mostly about painters).

At least we have the option to experiment with the size...

I'll be provocative and say: NOT cropping at all, is just being lazy... (allthough I find it amazing when a non cropped image really sing)

 

[cliveh]

I LOVE cropping - it is an important tool in my image making.

I have never understood why - just because someone many many years ago decided the negative should be 24x36 / 6x6/6x7/..you get it - I should let that decide how my images should look?
what if I want a round camera? - a panoramic format of my choosing? rounded corners?

It's like being a painter and be told ONLY to stick to certain formats....
In a speech I heard many years ago the speaker stated: An image only has one format and size!: The RIGHT one...

Only the real artists instinctively know how the format and size their image must have to be "perfect".. (he was talking mostly about painters).

At least we have the option to experiment with the size...

I'll be provocative and say: NOT cropping at all, is just being lazy... (allthough I find it amazing when a non cropped image really sing)

You make reference to painting. How many painters do you know who make a painting and then crop the image?

 

[ROL]

You make reference to painting. How many painters do you know who make a painting and then crop the image?

Photographs are not made in cameras. The camera format crops for you, no matter the composition, like it or not. Photographs are made (per this forum) in the darkroom. Taking the picture, once "composed", is technical. Any boob (including me) can do that nowadays with great image making success with the least of digital equipment. The artistry of photography happens under dim light, on the easel.

 

[cliveh]

Photographs are not made in cameras. The camera format crops for you, no matter the composition, like it or not. Photographs are made (per this forum) in the darkroom. Taking the picture, once "composed", is technical. Any boob (including me) can do that nowadays with great image making success with the least of digital equipment. The artistry of photography happens under dim light, on the easel.

The camera format doesn't crop for you, as you make that decision when taking. Are you implying that this forum is all about creating in the darkroom?

 

[Roger Cole]

They don't crop the final work (which is analgous to the final photographic print), but they do preliminary studies and sketches, and then often make changes on the final canvas/support before calling it "done". This includes everything from subtle refinements to massive changes, sometimes completely repainting. Similar analogies can be made to great musical works.

So I'll say again, a refusal to crop on principle alone is a process-related philosophy. It isn't about art.

Exactly. There is, of course, nothing wrong with that if that's your philosophy. But there is nothing wrong with a philosophy of "crop whenever it suits" either.

 

[erikg]

You make reference to painting. How many painters do you know who make a painting and then crop the image?

I know a lot of painters. It happens more often than you'd think, but most of the time they are working up to the final piece so they've got that settled by then. It's a different process than the way many of us work. On the other hand I knew a painter who didn't care about the shape of his canvases but he did want them to look good on a 35mm slide as that was how work was juried for shows and grants back then so that's the shape he went with. His work was a dream to shoot.

 

[DWThomas]

You make reference to painting. How many painters do you know who make a painting and then crop the image?

Watercolors are typically mounted in window mats I have known artists to cut the window to crop the image (or maybe hide a corner the dog chewed ).

 

[pstake]

It seems like people are ignoring the fact that printing full frame implies that everything in the frame enhanced the meaning of the photo. Cropping is an admission that part of what you framed in the viewfinder was unnecessary. In my opinion, this is at the root of why printing full frame is meaningful at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

It seems like people are ignoring the fact that printing full frame implies that everything in the frame enhanced the meaning of the photo. Cropping is an admission that part of what you framed in the viewfinder was unnecessary. In my opinion, this is at the root of why printing full frame is meaningful at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but sometimes the tool at hand does not match the ideal aspect ratio of the perceived image.

 

[erikg]

It seems like people are ignoring the fact that printing full frame implies that everything in the frame enhanced the meaning of the photo. Cropping is an admission that part of what you framed in the viewfinder was unnecessary. In my opinion, this is at the root of why printing full frame is meaningful at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a good point. I usually print the full frame for a number of reasons, some of them just practical. I see it as my job to make the picture work within that shape. I think of it like Haiku in it's imposed structure. But if the project seems to require a different approach I'll go that way. Interesting that if you shoot commercially, product illustration or even editorial it's a good idea to shoot a little loose, the designers and art directors appreciate room for type and whatnot.

 

[Roger Cole]

It seems like people are ignoring the fact that printing full frame implies that everything in the frame enhanced the meaning of the photo. Cropping is an admission that part of what you framed in the viewfinder was unnecessary. In my opinion, this is at the root of why printing full frame is meaningful at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Um, so what? I don't even understand the point. Cropping is an admission? WTH? Yes, often, part of what I framed in the viewfinder IS in fact un-necessary or even distracting and detrimental. So the #$%^ what? Sometimes I have to shoot fast and do the best I can. More often, the constraints of location, environment, and lens mandate either a photo that has to be cropped later to get what I want or has to be passed up. Others are, of course, free to pass those up. Me, I'll happily take them and crop later. I'll say I did too, but I won't do it in the context of "an admission" of anything as if I committed some silly crime against the dictates of the no-cropping police.

 

[fotch]

No cropping makes more sense, to me, if your contact printing, especially large format, like 8x10 or larger. Is enlarging a negative a forbidden alteration for some?

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . Is enlarging a negative a forbidden alteration for some?

Nearly so for Edward Weston. For him, enlarging relatively small negatives without an enlarger was a laborious process.

 

[pstake]

Yeah I really don't get this "admission" business. So what do you do if you find that some cropping would improve a good picture? Admit it is a failure because cropping improves it, and then throw away the negative? If the answer is yes, I have no problem with the principle, but realize the principle is separate from the art, and that your process-related principle is more important to you than the final product (ie the art). That's perfectly ok, but it is nothing more than a personal bent and has nothing to do with objectively good or bad practice.

I feel like this is somewhat taking what I said, out of context.

If you look back at my earlier post, you can see that I am not so dogmatic. I crop when I need to but I do it reluctantly and make mental notes to myself about how I could have done things differently and use the full frame, so as to hopefully become a better photographer (in my own estimation), by learning how to capture everything in the frame that I need, with nothing superfluous leftover.

You do make a good point that this is my own bent toward photography. Filling the frame with elements that contribute to the photo as a whole, and do not take away from the intended expression/message ... in other words, making photographs that can be printed full frame, is an ideal.

It's my ideal and the ideal of people I have known.

I was just trying to make the point that filling the frame with meaningful content is hard work. Cropping, to me, is an admission that I need to work harder, be more engaged, etc.

If it was easy, I doubt there would be a need for this conversation at all. It's one of the reasons Bresson has demigod status in teh art world.

Someone made a comment that they had never been asked if what was hung on the wall was printed full frame. I have been asked this several times. I used to work at a gallery and it was a fairly common question.

I was taught that this was the whole purpose behind printing black borders. You were telling people that the image was not cropped.

Like you said, this is all my own interpretation of photography, informed by my own experience and it's not right nor wrong.

 

[Bill Burk]

... nor is there anything wrong with not eating something on your plate that you do not like...

I like this analogy... I guess taking pictures is like eating at a buffet... Sometimes your eyes are larger than your stomach.

Generally I like and eat everything on my plate.

 

[Roger Cole]

I feel like this is somewhat taking what I said, out of context.

If you look back at my earlier post, you can see that I am not so dogmatic. I crop when I need to but I do it reluctantly and make mental notes to myself about how I could have done things differently and use the full frame, so as to hopefully become a better photographer (in my own estimation), by learning how to capture everything in the frame that I need, with nothing superfluous leftover.

You do make a good point that this is my own bent toward photography. Filling the frame with elements that contribute to the photo as a whole, and do not take away from the intended expression/message ... in other words, making photographs that can be printed full frame, is an ideal.

It's my ideal and the ideal of people I have known.

I was just trying to make the point that filling the frame with meaningful content is hard work. Cropping, to me, is an admission that I need to work harder, be more engaged, etc.

Maybe it is for you. Most often it's no such thing for me. Most of the time no matter how hard I worked or closely I looked I couldn't make my square film rectangular or my rectangular film square or change the aspect ratio of the rectangle I had, or change the lens on my fixed lens camera, or I needed a lens on another camera longer than one but shorter than my next-down, or I couldn't get any closer, or I couldn't take two steps sideways or...

That's my issue with the word "admission" in this context. Most of the time I'm not "admitting" anything. It's just how I had to arrive at the final image.

The world doesn't come in neat, fixed aspect ration rectangles and squares, ready-matched to my MF and LF lenses or the one lens on my TLR. That part is more flexible with 35mm because I'm usually shooting with a zoom but the shape and location still applies.

 

[markbarendt]

You do make a good point that this is my own bent toward photography. Filling the frame with elements that contribute to the photo as a whole, and do not take away from the intended expression/message ... in other words, making photographs that can be printed full frame, is an ideal.

It's my ideal and the ideal of people I have known.

So, to put this in simplistic terms, in a sense not cropping is about being part of a club.

Don't misread me, I not suggesting this is a bad thing, just putting it in context. Rather, you are in good company, the way you couch the no crop ideal reminds me very much of the "f64" manifesto that created another fairly elite club.

Adams and his compadres used their ideals as a way to differentiate themselves, set themselves apart, and get more gallery time. It was a great marketing tool, and fun while it lasted.

 

[Bill Burk]

As I was framing shots this weekend, trees of course didn't conform to any frame. But with one lens each on two different cameras I enjoyed the views I picked and I might not need to crop any of them. I was free to move around and isolate what caught my eye in the first place... I understand sometimes you cannot back away or move to the side, then cropping would be needed.

In my case, after taking a shot with the big camera, I had to back up a few paces to get the same shot on the pocket sized camera.

 

[eddie]

When I look at the ground glass (or the viewfinder), my goal is to come up with a satisfying composition. Sometimes it's the full frame. Sometimes it's not. When I take the photo, I know whether or not the image will be cropped in printing. My cameras/lenses are tools. I'm not going to let their limitations dictate what ends up in a photograph I've chosen to make.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Do you try to compose in the viewfinder and not crop in the darkroom? I try to, but don’t hold it as a sacrosanct if I feel the image can be improved by cropping at the printing stage.

it's your work and you control the process.sowhatever you decide to do to improve the image is allright.it's yor creative freedom and right.go for it

 

[Alan Klein]

I usually do try to frame the picture the best in camera (6x7mm). But then get screwed when I print on standard size paper that does not have that aspect ratio. None do. I have to crop often screwing up the in-camera frame. I'd be better off leaving some room to allow the crop afterwards but shooting with a 35mm film camera for so many years before, acustomed me to framing in-camera.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

If you are using 35mm, a rangefinder with parallax or any camera with less than 100% field of view, your view is being cropped and can potentially cause problems for you later when printing. There is a very good reason for cameras having 100% field of view as it allows everything to be taken care of in-camera and not seconded to the clumsy after-process of using rules and guesswork to approximate a new view of the scene.