Do You Often Crop Images? Technique?

[back alley]

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.)

sorry for the confusion. i think you are making incorrect assumption about my way of thinking.

i do think a good photographer is open to cropping. that doesn't mean that if you are not open to cropping that you are automatically a poor photographer. i realize we all have our way of seeing and for me it seems that cropping to make an image stronger is a good thing.
like i said before, a writer will edit to improve his work. i think it very rare for a person to be able to write something well out of the chute, it normally requires some editing. for me it's the same with a photo, especially the way i shoot. i rarely take my time when framing but do shoot quickly. this usually means that i have more in the photo than i like and i almost always crop a bit around the edges.

i guess for me, the 'foolish' part is not being open to other ways, like cropping, to improve an image.
it's certainly not a jugement of others by me, despite my using the word foolish.

joe

 

[FrankS]

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.)

IMO, it is foolish to abandon an image on a negative simply because it requires cropping to "release" it/strengthen it. If that's what you want to do, by all means do so. It is totally your prerogative. Photography is a personal endeavour. But if you ask me if I think it's foolish to do so, I have to answer: yes, I do.

In my mind, it is an artificial and arbitrary limit to place on oneself to never, under any circumstances, crop from full frame. YMMV

 

[Finder]

In my mind, it is an artificial and arbitrary limit to place on oneself to never, under any circumstances, crop from full frame. YMMV

It is extremely artificial and arbitrary. I agree. But I guess I find the journey more interesting than the destination. (Not to say you don't, but rather as an analysis of my motives.)

That is not to say your position is not reasonable or even good about cropping. I do find it interesting that you will not say any of the photographer are foolish that I list - purely a human response interest on my part. I am sure all of those photographers have images that can be fixed with a crop.

Joe, thanks for the clarification.

This has been an interesting topic for me.

 

[eli griggs]

While I do my best to compose in frame and strongly prefer to print full frame, IMO, it is the final image that dictates whether or no to crop. If the image is a good one, it will be apparent how it needs to be printed, regardless of preferences, dogma or philosophical considerations. Any additional editing reflects the needs of those who use the image, not the inherit truth of the composition.

Eli

 

[Welsh_Italian]

I shoot like I type: fast and with a lot of msitakes...

In my job, I do a lot of writing. Getting an article/story down in the first place is the biggest challenge to motivation for me, but most time is spent on redrafting and editing which is pretty much standard in my field: I know of no-one who writes perfect articles from the top of their head.

My photography also has lots of mistakes. If a picture comes out nice as a whole, then that's a great bonus for me. But if I have to, I am happy to crop away, not to save a poor image, but to improve one that's not too bad.

To the way I work, cropping is just another tool like different speed films, depth-of-field or post-processing. I can't follow any dictum slavishly because 1) I'm not good enough and if anyone thinks I'm going to pack in my snapping because of it then they can get stuffed, and 2) it's a good way to learn because I can see what I did wrong by looking at a cropped picture that shows what might have happened had it gone right.

Besides, I use Fed cameras and most of us know how poor the finders are. Although I have a new turret finder which is begging to be used.

My greatest pleasure in photography comes from looking at great pictures others have taken and looking at some of the more reasonable ones of mine. I don't really mind if something is cropped or not.

 

[Keith]

I shoot like I type: fast and with a lot of msitakes...

In my job, I do a lot of writing. Getting an article/story down in the first place is the biggest challenge to motivation for me, but most time is spent on redrafting and editing which is pretty much standard in my field: I know of no-one who writes perfect articles from the top of their head.

My photography also has lots of mistakes. If a picture comes out nice as a whole, then that's a great bonus for me. But if I have to, I am happy to crop away, not to save a poor image, but to improve one that's not too bad.

To the way I work, cropping is just another tool like different speed films, depth-of-field or post-processing. I can't follow any dictum slavishly because 1) I'm not good enough and if anyone thinks I'm going to pack in my snapping because of it then they can get stuffed, and 2) it's a good way to learn because I can see what I did wrong by looking at a cropped picture that shows what might have happened had it gone right.

Besides, I use Fed cameras and most of us know how poor the finders are. Although I have a new turret finder which is begging to be used.

My greatest pleasure in photography comes from looking at great pictures others have taken and looking at some of the more reasonable ones of mine. I don't really mind if something is cropped or not.

So cropping is like 'Spell Check' for busy photographers ... I like that idea!

 

[FrankS]

Finder: it makes more sense to talk directly to the issue of cropping, rather than about the photographers who crop/don't crop.

 

[irq506]

I think it really depends on what you are trying to achieve. What you want your pictures to say. i think good lesson would be to shoot and edit in camera. The original image with no cropping says a lot more to me then the cropping. I love wide images, but I think cropping an image like this would actually serve to up-end the sensitivity of the capture, it would -to me- look as though you were trying to sensationalise the scene to make it "fit" into some kind of graphical contsruct as it were.

I may be biased in this regard as I am a documentary photographer by trade, and I shoot street photography as a way to keep my mind active between projects. I have a firm policy of No Crop No 'Shop. I appreciate the fact that some of my images may be under or over exposed but that doesnt bother me at all because I see my images as windows of something that happened, something that is real. However, I also do commercial work and cropping is usually necessary in these instances.

I think your original image is very powerful, shows the man in isolation, which by the looks of things he is, both physically and mentally. Therefore it portrays what it intended to do exactly as is.

 

[raid]

Thanks for all inputs.
It helps to get other RFF members' opinions. While I take photos with a certain composition on my mind, it is useful to me to later on retroactively consider crops of the original.
In the case of my posted image, I actually am starting to prefer the original uncropped version. In fact, I like the color version that is not posted here. The colors are soft and muted, and the image looks nicer to my eyes than the one that was converted into B&W.

 

[FrankS]

About dead-center subject placement: sometimes an image calls for it, BUT, the default, no compositional analysis/awareness of a child handed a camera, and advice for the novice photographer, is: center the subject in the frame, which often results in a static composition.

 

[OldNick]

I have to agree with Joe and FrankS. I am in the process of digitizing over 50 years accumulation of negatives and slides. I have found that, in spite of my best efforts at capturing the intended moment, many of them can be improved by judicious cropping. I look at that as a part of my normal work flow.

Jim N.

 

[Finder]

Finder: it makes more sense to talk directly to the issue of cropping, rather than about the photographers who crop/don't crop.

Frank, I certainly don't want to keep flogging this to death, but I see the issue of photographers very important. It shows neither approach is going to give success as both work and work very well.

The question is not if cropping can save a hypothetical image - a loaded question as I think you know. But are these techniques really the issue which seems to be what constitutes a good image. Naturally, we cannot say Arnold Newman is lazy or Mary Ellen Mark is just a fool. I have never failed at producing a series of successful images because I refused to crop any.

The issue, as always, is whether the image as a whole is successful. How you get there is irrelavant. However, some folk gravitate to certain methods or processes. I think most get the idea of cropping. What I find is a misunderstanding, at least from my point of view, of shooting full frame. Not only from the folks who don't do it, but also the ultra-disciplinarians who love making photography such a chore. Now, I have been shooting full frame for over twenty years - after I stopped cropping. I just wanted to share some of the things I found that method gave me as well as clear up some misconceptions.

I am actually sitting behind my computer quite calm. I am not offended nor do I want to convert a following - unless they will buy me lunch. I just find this topic really interesting and close to my heart. I have gotten much out of working that way.

BTW, I have cropped other work. In my publishing and design work I have no qualms in cutting up what others do. Mostly because they need it.

 

[FrankS]

Finder, I am very happy that you see this as a discussion and not as an argument or personal attack.

Photography in essence and by its very nature is about cropping a small section from our view of the the world around us and presenting this selected image in a photograph.

Whether this cropping happens with the camera when one decides which section of our view to capture by where one stands and where one points the camera, or later in the darkroom (or in digital post processing) where one decides to further reduce this section by cropping again, a photograph is simply a cropped section of our view of the world around us.

It is what photography is.

To say then that croppping at the camera stage is okay but not in the enlarging stage is totally arbitrary. There is no natural or principle difference between the two, since photography is about selecting and presenting a cropped visual slice of life.

If anyone chooses not to crop after the neg is exposed, or chooses to use only B+W film, that's fine, but simply an arbitrary choice. For myself, I choose not to limit myself with such an arbitrary rule, since I am already cropping by photographing with a lens that doesn't cover 360 degrees.

 

[Keith]

I have to agree with Joe and FrankS. I am in the process of digitizing over 50 years accumulation of negatives and slides. I have found that, in spite of my best efforts at capturing the intended moment, many of them can be improved by judicious cropping. I look at that as a part of my normal work flow.

Jim N.

I go back and look at photos I took a year ago that I thought were a waste of good film occasionally ... and realise that the database in my head has improved to the point where a crop will give me something I hadn't known was there.

'Finder' ... I find your input here excellent and the level of civility in this thread is reassuring!

 

[raid]

... and let's keep things that way! All I wanted from this thread is to start a useful discussion, and I have done so.

 

[FrankS]

The best thing about the "no cropping, no shopping" slogan is that it rhymes. There is nothing inherently more pure or honest about an image from a full frame neg than an image made from a cropped neg, because cropping has already taken place when the photographer decided where to stand and where to point the camera. As a graphic example (sorry), an image that shows a dead child laying in the street, but not showing a government soldier standing beside him, can just as easily be made by cropping with the camera by not including the soldier in the frame in the first place, as it can by cropping the soldier that was present on the neg. No difference. An uncropped neg is no guarrantee of truthfulness or honesty, even in a photojournalistic view.

 

[Ronald M]

I rarely crop, but I would have shot the subject like the first crop in the first place.

 

[MIkhail]

I never crop - how else I am going to print that dark border around my images? I find shooting full frame has made me a better photographer. I also find photographs more magical if they are not "fixed" later.

This does not mean I don't enjoy others work that crop - HBC's Gare St. Lazare is cropped and Arnold Newman has used the technique often. But I found I perfer the photographers that don't crop - Salgado, Mark, etc.

But for me, shooting full frame is an important challenge. To be engaged with the subject at that moment in time and to come away with an image that is significant is utter magic. If I blow it, I blow it. I don't care that others can see a failed attempt or to make my failure presentable by trying to fix it. I just work harder the next time around.

I totally agree with this. You have to try and get the composition right as you see it.
Plus, with 35mm cropping poses some challenges during printing, and more so with digital (not that I do digital anyway). MF you can crop, but why spoil perfect square?

 

[MIkhail]

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.

These are golden words. Usually, it is more than crop that the picture needs if the impact is not strong enough. If its a little extra that came out on a background unexpectedly and "needs" to be cropped, it will not make or brake the final picture. Perfect example is the original picture- however you crop it, it really does not change significantly.

BTW, this rule of thirds and such is really an amateurish thing to start with. Again, not the position of a main character's eyes in golden mean is what makes a strong portrait, not a position of center of tension in it what makes a strong stret photo.

But if somebody wants to crop- more power to them, why not. I happen to pride myself in not cropping. Somebody is proud that he can run 50 miles without stopping. Practical use of that? None, but it's his acheavement.

Peace out. ;-)

 

[Doug]

But if somebody wants to crop- more power to them, why not. I happen to pride myself in not cropping. Somebody is proud that he can run 50 miles without stopping. Practical use of that? None, but it's his acheavement.
Peace out. ;-)

Peace indeed. But I do think you bring up a telling point about pride and discipline. And it's certainly not new. I recall when it was popular to file out the negative carrier so that the clear film around the film frame would print a natural black border for the photo... also displaying the purity of aesthetic vision right in the viewfinder at the instant of exposure.

I knew my aesthetic vision wasn't that pure, so I cropped as appropriate and then used a Rapidograph pen to draw a black border on my prints. No intent to deceive; the difference was obvious.