Do You Often Crop Images? Technique?

back alley said:
a photographer who doesn't crop is like a writer who doesn't edit.

this no cropping rule that some adopt seems foolish, like we're perfect to begin with.
writers and poets always edit and a good photographer will crop if it makes the image stronger.
btw, i prefer ruben's crop.
joe
Click to expand...

So you don't like Salgado's work. He don't crop - foolish man. Mary Ellen Mark don't neither. Snappy sentence yous got goin.

All generalizations is false.

Funny, I don't mind those who crop. If that floats their boat, great. I think Newman did an excellent job with Picasso. But why do I have to be "foolish" coz others don't like working my way?

Naturally, the simplistic nature of your argument does not work as I do edit my work. I discard the "paragraphs" that are no good. I also learn to "write" good "prose" or "poetry" the first time around.

I find the approach "do photography my way or no way" very disturbing.
 
Finder said:
I find the approach "do photography my way or no way" very disturbing.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure Joe didn't mean that every photographer MUST crop, but instead, was speaking out against the dogma of NEVER cropping on principle.
 
Last edited:
Tom hicks said:
Never, the challenge is get it right in camera.
Click to expand...
Well, which camera? Any camera? If there's something magical about a 2:3 proportion viewfinder frame, how can an ideal uncroppable photo be made with a square-format camera? Does one ignore good photo opportunities where the composition doesn't perfectly fit the proportions of the camera frame? Does the magic change when you change film formats?

Not many hand-held camera viewfinders show precisely 100% of what will be recorded on film; it can be as little as 85-90%. How can we treat with reverence the "extra" 10-15% that appears on the film? The issue seems particularly ironic in the context of rangefinder cameras, in which viewfinder framing is notoriously casual in relation to what is actually captured.

For film efficiency I'd want to use as much of the precious film area as possible by careful framing as time permits. But when a composition turns out better as closer to square or more nearly pano in proportions, then how is one's effort well-served by ignoring this?
 
Doug said:
For film efficiency I'd want to use as much of the precious film area as possible by careful framing as time permits. But when a composition turns out better as closer to square or more nearly pano in proportions, then how is one's effort well-served by ignoring this?
Click to expand...

In the field I use a 6x6 and a 6x12 camera. Actually, when I buy cameras, the format is a huge consideration.

As far as not seeing 100% in the viewfinder, you learn to compensate. You get a feel for the camera you are using. BTW, 10% loss in viewfinder coverage is not as large as it sound as it is an area distributed over the edges.

BTW, my avatar is a square full-frame image. It is very easy to have a square picture and not crop.
 
Dektol Dan said:
Folks who lean on cropping are most likely amateurs. If I have to crop I have terrific angst and self doubt of abilities. Composing on the fly is the mark of the professional craftsman and artist. Too often I have to lie to myself about it. If I have to fudge a bit I always crop with the same porportion of the viewfinder in order to hide my failure.

Things are different now. We don't have to be a slave to Kodak or printmaker porportions. And while the Golden Mean still is the Law, it still can be represented in a compromised 35mm porportion.

The moment is everything in photography. If one cannot master that he should find some other hobby. Even though St. Ansel was a darkroom magician, his compositon was created in the camera as it should be. This is ultimate proof of skill, especially if the camera is all manual.

Cropping is for snapshootists.
Click to expand...

LOL!! horse manure and trollish blather. The image is everything. If you've a better image on your negative and you refuse to bring it out because of some bogus rule, then you're not an "artist" or "craftsman," and you're not a photographer. You're someone carrying a camera and following a rule, a formula, you might as well be painting by numbers. It's great to try to get it right in the frame, but leaving a better image dormant is a true failing.


.
 
back alley said:
a photographer who doesn't crop is like a writer who doesn't edit.

this no cropping rule that some adopt seems foolish, like we're perfect to begin with.
writers and poets always edit and a good photographer will crop if it makes the image stronger.
btw, i prefer ruben's crop.
joe
Click to expand...


Joe,

I don't think anyone has implied that they or their photos are perfect...just that they prefer to print the full frame...and I don't print all my shots...that's where I edit...
 
FrankS said:
I'm pretty sure Joe didn't mean that every photographer MUST crop, but instead, was speaking out against the dogma of NEVER cropping on principle.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't quite see how this is not endorsing a crop only position:

a photographer who doesn't crop is like a writer who doesn't edit.
Click to expand...

Personally, I never crop. I know a number of very well regarded photographers who do not as well. Why can't we work this way? Now, I am not saying this approach is good for everyone. There are also a number of well respected photographers that do crop. I find this limit I PLACE ON MYSELF, very rewarding.

Now Joe came up with a writer metaphor. I see it as an athlete or actor metaphor. The act of taking a picture is an event or performance. You don't have two chances to get it right - excuse me sir, can I go run the one hundred meters again? (Oh, wait... I know this line.) And like the athlete or actor, the photographer conditions him/herself to perform. You are out there working (hopefully) at your potential.

Why is this foolish?
 
I like the original image of the old man. He may be dead center but he is slightly lower than the horizontal center. I would have liked him a bit lower but the original proportion is good.
I crop but I don't shoot with the intention of cropping.
 
Finder said:
Why is this foolish?[/QUOTE]

Well, what if ... there was a great image composition that could be had from a negative IF it were cropped? Would you fore-go that image due to your self-imposed (and arbitrary) rule of no cropping? I think that would be foolish.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Finder said:
So you don't like Salgado's work. He don't crop - foolish man. Mary Ellen Mark don't neither. Snappy sentence yous got goin.

All generalizations is false.

Funny, I don't mind those who crop. If that floats their boat, great. I think Newman did an excellent job with Picasso. But why do I have to be "foolish" coz others don't like working my way?

Naturally, the simplistic nature of your argument does not work as I do edit my work. I discard the "paragraphs" that are no good. I also learn to "write" good "prose" or "poetry" the first time around.

I find the approach "do photography my way or no way" very disturbing.
Click to expand...


what i said was...a good photographer will crop if it makes the image stronger.

i did not say that you had to crop. i do think it's foolish to have a rule that says i will not crop.
and for the record i do like salgado and mem was an early influence on me.
joe
 
nikon_sam said:
Joe,

I don't think anyone has implied that they or their photos are perfect...just that they prefer to print the full frame...and I don't print all my shots...that's where I edit...
Click to expand...

and to each his own.
i am not proclaiming to know the path of photo rightiousness.
but it does seem to me to be a very limiting way to do things.

do other arts and artists practice this? i know as a poet that i have to edit because my first thoughts/words are not always the ones that have the most impact.

joe
 
FrankS said:
Finder said:
Why is this foolish?[/QUOTE]

Well, what if ... there was a great image composition that could be had from a negative IF it were cropped? Would you fore go that image?
Click to expand...

Yes.

But your assumption is the crop would add significance. I have found that there is usually more than framing causing the problem to a weak image. You are also assuming there is a imperative greater in the image than the will of the photographer and I must be subservient to that. Photography is, first and foremost, for me. It is my art and my challenge is to shot full frame. I get great satisfaction from that. I don't see using methods that gives me no satisfaction a great insentive to photograph just because it results in a pleasing image (that would seem foolish to me).

So, Adams, Weston, Salgado, Mark, to name a few who shoot full frame are foolish? (Perhaps you can answer the question with a statement not another question.)
Click to expand...
 
The act of "cropping" is really just a choice of view, and begins with the very act of looking at a scene visually, aiming the camera, framing the shot, and finally choosing what aspect we want to express in the final image presented to the world. All shots have some detritus, and there is no great nobility in keeping the detritus. Cropping is ok, it is what we do with a scene that matters, not the purist act of keeping every photon we chose to capture in the act of the photograph.
 
no one is trying to shove this done your throat finder.

my belief system is different than yours. i do think that limiting oneself with a hard and fast rule like no cropping allowed is foolish.
if you see this differently then fine. you must follow your own path and your own rules as must i.

joe
 
back alley said:
what i said was...a good photographer will crop if it makes the image stronger.

i did not say that you had to crop. i do think it's foolish to have a rule that says i will not crop.
and for the record i do like salgado and mem was an early influence on me.
joe
Click to expand...

Joe, I am confused by your statement. You say a good photographer crops, but you admire two that don't. You are saying by their adherence to not cropping, they are foolish. I don't get it? To me, neither method ensures a successful image and both can produce them. So does the cropping/full frame debate have nothing to do with whether you are going to make successful images? (I would say neither method is a root to good images.)
 
If you choose to print full frame or crop an image only you will know...unless you choose to tell...(or the print size/shape may indicate cropping)
Neither way is wrong...either way is a personal choice...
 
back alley said:
no one is trying to shove this done your throat finder.

my belief system is different than yours. i do think that limiting oneself with a hard and fast rule like no cropping allowed is foolish.
if you see this differently then fine. you must follow your own path and your own rules as must i.

joe
Click to expand...

But I do not see this as anyone trying to make my change my foolish ways - there should be a song with these words. I think I have clearly stated this is the way I like to work, but others can take their own path.

What I find distrubing is the polarized positions on each side. The interesting thing is neither side can show their position is anyway true as both positons produce great images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom