• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Image cropping, Yes or No?

Tompkins Square Park

A
Tompkins Square Park

  • 5
  • 0
  • 70
Siesta Time

A
Siesta Time

  • 2
  • 0
  • 53

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,859
Messages
2,846,683
Members
101,573
Latest member
IanSeehorn
Recent bookmarks
1
SNIP>
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.
SNIP<

If you don't like it why did you put it on your plate in the first place? :D
 
If you don't like it why did you put it on your plate in the first place? :D

I recently went to a buffet dinner & chose items that looked good. Unfortunately, some of the items tasted horrid & some were very salty. I am on a low salt diet so chose not to eat it. Only dogs & hogs eat everything regardless. YMMV
 
I had no idea this was such a contested topic!

Seems like the only way to settle it may be with a game of red rover.
 
why not a game of "duck, duck, goose"?
 
Thank you for that clarification. I retract my suggestion and apologize for my ignorance and wonton disregard for HCB's preference. :laugh:
 
Thank you for that clarification. I retract my suggestion and apologize for my ignorance and wonton disregard for HCB's preference. :laugh:

Is there an emoticon for eye rolling?

I think HCB would scoff.

I prefer the eye roll, myself.
 
A man with an intuitive grasp of composition and timing.

Who hated darkroom work and never did his own printing once he could afford for someone else to do it from him.

I've seen an exhibition of his work at the High Museum here in Atlanta. It's everything it's reputed to be. But I would be shocked if he were alive and working today if he would be shooting film, with his disdain for process. His style was perfectly suited to digital. That's not bad either, but another way of saying, "as great as he was at what he did, and he WAS, I have no desire to be or emulate him as I don't desire to do the same things."
 
Who hated darkroom work and never did his own printing once he could afford for someone else to do it from him.

I've seen an exhibition of his work at the High Museum here in Atlanta. It's everything it's reputed to be. But I would be shocked if he were alive and working today if he would be shooting film, with his disdain for process. His style was perfectly suited to digital. That's not bad either, but another way of saying, "as great as he was at what he did, and he WAS, I have no desire to be or emulate him as I don't desire to do the same things."

Choosing to print full frame does not necessarily mean you're emulating HCB. Is every Leica owner also emulating? (I do not own or use a Leica camera).

I was instilled with the full-frame ideal when I learned photography. I didn't learn about HCB's work until several years afterward. I think all of our photographic ideals and methods are in large part formed by when, where and from whom we learned. Right down to how we agitate a tray or the temperature at which we develop.
 
i often times have no idea what is being framed / composed when i point a camera.
its an entropic memory box anyways and it really doesn't matter much to me if the image is perfectly composed.
there is no such thing as perfection anyways ...
the sooner one realizes perfect is non-existent the sooner one gets to making better photographs ...
 
Choosing to print full frame does not necessarily mean you're emulating HCB. Is every Leica owner also emulating? (I do not own or use a Leica camera).

I was instilled with the full-frame ideal when I learned photography. I didn't learn about HCB's work until several years afterward. I think all of our photographic ideals and methods are in large part formed by when, where and from whom we learned. Right down to how we agitate a tray or the temperature at which we develop.

Nono, of course it doesn't mean one is emulating HCB. I just meant that "because HCB did it" was not in itself a good reason.
 
Who hated darkroom work and never did his own printing once he could afford for someone else to do it from him."

Why should he bother with darkroom work, that is a job for a technician. He was a photographer.
 
Why should he bother with darkroom work, that is a job for a technician. He was a photographer.

And in the other corner, we have Ansel: a superb darkroom technician, who likes to take pictures in his free time.
 
And in the other corner, we have Ansel: a superb darkroom technician, who likes to take pictures in his free time.

Correct.
 
Why should he bother with darkroom work, that is a job for a technician. He was a photographer.

Well we have a huge difference of opinion, or at least approach. For me, the darkroom is 2/3s of the fun and at least 60% of the creativity in photography. It's largely why I don't get anything out of digital. YMMV of course.
 
When it comes to HCB, I can appreciate what people see in his work, but it simply does not appeal to my aesthetic.

Is that because you don't value the abstract "image" above the physical "print" and for your aesthetic a photograph needs to be physically outstanding?
 
I'm ALMOST with Michael. I do like HCB's work, and some of it moves me emotionally. But it's not the kind of thing that I do or would seek to create. Similarly, to use a silly but perhaps accurate analogy, I like xkcd and The Oatmeal but have no desire or plans to try to be a web cartoonist. I enjoy music but I have no musical aptitude of my own and don't plan to waste my time trying to be a musician. There are painters whose work I admire greatly but I am not and do not aspire to be a painter, etc.
 
I tend to compose in whatever aspect ratio a given format has, and naturally try to use as much surface area of the film as possible. But some
fine-tuning with regard to exact image perimeters is inevitable during both enlargement and trimming the print afterwards, and I get very nitpicky about my exact image margins. Rarely do I crop significantly, though it happens once in awhile, for example, when I just didn't have the correct lens for a given perspective; but maybe it's only 1% of the time. But I have little patience for any demagogue manifesto mentality over this kind of subject - any book of artificial rules about cropping or not would serve a better purpose in an outhouse.
 
I tend to compose in whatever aspect ratio a given format has, and naturally try to use as much surface area of the film as possible.

I must say that I also have a real tendency to do this too.

I also see this tendency in myself as a bad habit.

Artistically, I see no reason to accept the constraint of the aspect ratio of the camera in hand.
 
Artistically, you should not be restrained by any artificial rule. But in terms of spontaneity of composition, film budget, and quality of enlargement, it does make sense to productively use as much of the film surface as possible. Probably why I never took to square format.
 
I never tell anyone whether I crop or not.

If you don't know, do you wonder whether it's been cropped or not?
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom