Image cropping, Yes or No?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Most of the time I don't because I make it a habit of composing with the view finder. Sometimes, the world doesn't fit exactly the way I want in my camera. I tried to be flexible and crop only when I need to.

 

[Eric Rose]

I absolutly NEVER crop. Unless I have to.

 

[eddie]

There is nothing sacrosanct as to how a negative is used. Equal thought, in both the viewfinder and darkroom, is necessary. The basic rule should be to utilize as much of the negative possible while taking the photo, and framing/cropping (in the darkroom) to best express what caused you to take the photo in the first place.

 

[jovo]

However... I really think it's a personal style.
.

There is nothing to dispute here. Varya's work is intimate and tightly framed with minimal dof. The shutter is only activated when everything is as intended. That's an approach that's different from that of those of us who deal with the world as it is, and who try to silence the raucous visual voices that attempt to shout down our contemplative visions of the world as it should be.

 

[Roger Cole]

Im super strict. Its all in thd vf. Why do i even bother composing if im to crop later?

Im strict. Im a snob. Im a purist. I never crop.

Hcb? I dont know more then 6 of his pictures. Fanboys or the contrariams slways have to mention him. I dont know his work. But if he' like me, never cropped, then I guess he was as smart and as comon sensed as I am.

Croping is bad practice.

I say not cropping is bad practice. So there.

 

[Roger Cole]

Framing is cropping, people. And if you've ever changed focal lengths without changing where you stand, you've cropped. To the guy saying cropping is bad practice, wow.

+1

 

[Roger Cole]

Michael, well... should I use a 6mm fisheye, then? Looking is cropping, then?

I practice my photography without cropping in the darkroom or in photoshop. I'm not sure why I should debate over that.

Well you shouldn't, until you claim that those who do are engaging in "bad practice."

 

[fastw]

Never crop film, almost always crop digital. Not quite sure why, must be the whole film slow photography thing. Just framing more carefully.

 

[Bill Burk]

NB23,

I don't know if it's good to not know Henri Cartier-Bresson, maybe you are developing your own style this time of your life and don't want to be influenced externally (That is fine while you are searching - but be sure to expose yourself to great people when you are free). Maybe you aren't impressed by fame. Aside from the famous shots, he provided a lifetime of work that I would recommend seeing. I particularly like the one of a woman walking up cobblestone steps with a tray of buns on her head. ITALY. Abruzzo. Scanno. 1951. Cliveh so strongly exhibits that style that I sometimes feel HCB's presence.

I found this appropriate red warning on the Magnum site when I went to look for the picture. While we discuss our preferences haphazardly, HCB made it contractual and permanently so... This photo may not be cropped or trimmed in reproduction.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

I couldn't care less. If it is necessary: sure, if it isn't: sure, if you do: great, if I do who: cares? An unimportant consideration for anyone but the photographer, but, like abortion or religion one that apparently is much more important to those who feel a moral imperative to be pure and enforce their purity upon others. Leave me the feck alone, I'll be equally considerate...

 

[Bill Burk]

You don't believe an artist should 'suffer' for her work?

I think that suffering is meant to be emotional torment over the cruelty of the medium not responding to your will... Starvation perhaps... But not a stiff neck.

Your photomicrographs are beautiful and worth the pain, but if you can rig a better setup (Maybe a spare enlarger can give you a column you can raise to eye level - that's how I mounted my microscope), maybe you can at least be more comfortable.

 

[Alan Klein]

Our preferences about cropping, purist or practical, are the views of the photographer. Cropping or not cropping has no meaning to the viewers. They only look at the final product and don't know how we got there.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

Our preferences about cropping, purist or practical, are the views of the photographer. Cropping or not cropping has no meaning to the viewers. They only look at the final product and don't know how we got there.

My sentiments much more eloquently stated. Bravo. I always take it as an affront when someone shoves their superiority upon me without any desire to listen to reason, or even have a discussion.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I say not cropping is bad practice. So there.

+ 1

 

[eddie]

I've been asked if my work is digital or traditional. I've been asked about what format or film I've used. I've never been asked if the print is full frame. I doubt anyone has.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I absolutly NEVER crop. Unless I have to.

Exactly. And I never say never too.

 

[Bill Burk]

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).

 

[NB23]

I print the full negative. The client/collector takes the print and puts a matte board over it. The matte is to his liking: it crops the image or it doesn't. I absolutely don't care.

It's just that effing simple.

 

[NB23]

NB23,

I don't know if it's good to not know Henri Cartier-Bresson, maybe you are developing your own style this time of your life and don't want to be influenced externally (That is fine while you are searching - but be sure to expose yourself to great people when you are free). Maybe you aren't impressed by fame. Aside from the famous shots, he provided a lifetime of work that I would recommend seeing. I particularly like the one of a woman walking up cobblestone steps with a tray of buns on her head. ITALY. Abruzzo. Scanno. 1951. Cliveh so strongly exhibits that style that I sometimes feel HCB's presence.

I found this appropriate red warning on the Magnum site when I went to look for the picture. While we discuss our preferences haphazardly, HCB made it contractual and permanently so... This photo may not be cropped or trimmed in reproduction.

Bill, I really love his shot of the kid with his hands over his eyes, with some plant twigs framing him.

 

[Bill Burk]

I print the full negative. The client/collector takes the print and puts a matte board over it. The matte is to his liking: it crops the image or it doesn't. I absolutely don't care.

It's just that effing simple.

In your case it's that simple... Your prints don't need any cropping. No explanation needed, they look great that way.

 

[erikg]

There is nothing sacrosanct as to how a negative is used. Equal thought, in both the viewfinder and darkroom, is necessary. The basic rule should be to utilize as much of the negative possible while taking the photo, and framing/cropping (in the darkroom) to best express what caused you to take the photo in the first place.

Even this is just personal choice, not a basic rule. Personal strictures can bring order but they can also block the way to new ideas. I try hard to question my own basic assumptions, usually I fail badly.

 

[VaryaV]

I really value threads like this. The passion people feel for their work is inspiring to me. I can get so wrapped up in my own technique/methodology that I sometimes forget or don't see how other people work. I find it interesting as well as the the thought process and the philosophy behind the shots. No matter how heated or intense these discussions can become, all opinions are valuable to me. (I'm not saying they aren't for others that's not what I'm trying to say.)

I too am a purist about some things so I can understand where ND is coming from regarding cropping. I won't watch any movie in CG, I hate the way it looks, and I loathe over-saturated colours that are completely removed from reality. I actually prefer silent films, noir and Italian Neo-realist stuff because they did so much with so little. But I stray from topic.

Have a great day everyone. Stay warm!

 

[ataim]

For me I crop most of my pictures. I shoot with either a 4x5 or 8x10 so I have plenty of real estate to work with. Back in the day with 35mm i would try my best to not have to crop. With 35 you loose too much space. Also with the 8x10 i'm limited by two lens and where you place it.

 

[fotch]

You are always cropping. When you frame with the camera, you are cropping.

I think this idea of using the full negative comes from the fact that one has paid for the full film & to not use it, is wasting money. This is similar to eating everything on your plate.

There is nothing wrong with this, nor is there anything wrong with not eating something on your plate that you do not like, or cropping a negative to eliminate something you do not want to show now, later.

You paid for the film, you’re free to use as you see fit. There is no wrong way. Everyone is free to choose. JMHO

 

[eddie]

The client/collector takes the print and puts a matte board over it. The matte is to his liking: it crops the image or it doesn't. I absolutely don't care.

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.