To crop or not to crop

typhillips said:
...

(Maybe I shouldn't use the term "debate" - I probably framed this whole thread wrong from the beginning...)

...
Click to expand...

Probably so. Simply asking those who do one or the other to give their reasons for their preference might have gotten more responses of the type you seem to want.

For my part, I have seldom not cropped. Even on evidence photos. When using 35mm film, you will not have a perfect fit on 8x10 paper.

Aside from the perfect fit question, in personal photography, I look for the best photo in my opinion. That usually requires cropping, and often dodging and/or burning. I try to fill the frame as best I can to lessen the need to increase enlargement, but if I am not sure, I will leave myself some room.

Naturally, concern for composition requires getting as much of the photo in the viewfinder as possible, without wasted space. Sometimes one worries beforehand, what will be best. Actually seeing a print may change one's mind. At least I am sometimes that way. I consider any manipulation I need to get the photo I want, just the proper thing to do.

For those who don't think as I do, I am somewhat baffled, but not angry, disdainful, or condesending. Actually, in some ways, I suppose I envy them. It must be simpler.
 
You have the option to crop with the viewfinder, and the option to crop or edit as you produce the image, an option you can utilize from 0-100% with discretion. Do what you think makes the best image. If you are lucky you will have a strong opinion about what makes your work its best.
 
Finder said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gliderbee
If you decide never to crop, you are supposed to have a camera with a viewfinder that shows exactly 100% of what will be on film.

Really? Can you cite your source?
Click to expand...
I'll suggest a possibly clearer phrasing... " If you decide never to crop, one supposes you have a camera with a viewfinder that shows exactly 100% of what will be on film." And then see how that fits the rest of his post... 🙂
 
Hm, my English seems to be insufficient; what I meant is:

I suppose we all here try to get on film (or sensor) what we think will be a good picture.

I think we can agree that framing is an important part of how good or bad a picture will be.

You can try to frame very scrupulously when taking the picture (I usually try to), but how can you decide beforehand you will not crop the picture if you can't see the future result in the viewfinder for exactly 100% ?

Most viewfinder frames on rangefinders show a bit more then what will get in the picture, most SLR viewfinders show a bit less.

That means that, if you have decided you will print 100% of the resulting frame, without any cropping:
- you will have to guess what will not be on film in the case of the rangefinder,
- and in case of the SLR even worse: you will not be able to even see completely what will be on film, hence there's part of the image you didn't even frame for (since you couldn't see it). Why wouldn't you crop that part if you don't like it ?

So, I meant: if you decide never to crop, and if you want to be the master of your own pictures, I think you need a camera with a viewfinder that shows 100%. Otherwise, you're guessing (and maybe you are very good at it, but still: it's guessing).

Hmm, after all, Doug resumed it better then I did here 😛

Stefan.
 
You don't even have this conversation if you're shooting as a photojournalist. You do what you need to do to get the best shot.
 
I don't crop much, it starts feeling uncomfortable if I'm taking off more than the frame-line inaccuracy so I tend to stop at that point ...

... but I do feel a bit offended by this inference that printing the full neg is somehow morally superior, I don't find the "HCB was a great photographer and he didn't crop, I don't crop therefore I too am great" argument to be convincing, and he did crop anyway

So it just seems improper to start making value judgements of the methods of others, which is what Frank was saying way back at the start
 
Sparrow said:
... but I do feel a bit offended by this inference that printing the full neg is somehow morally superior, I don't find the "HCB was a great photographer and he didn't crop, I don't crop therefore I too am great" argument to be convincing, and he did crop anyway

So it just seems improper to start making value judgements of the methods of others, which is what Frank was saying way back at the start
Click to expand...
Dear Stewart,

Quite. I like the filed-out-carrier look, but if I crop, I can't use it. So I don't, if I crop.

Surely everyone tries to frame the pic perfectly, all-in, but there are all kinds of reasons why it doesn't always happen. At which point, you crop. Why not?

Cheers,

R.
 
peterm1 said:
... Ansell Adams spent hours and hours in the dark room working on each image and, I imagine, cropped to his heart's content (he certainly did everything else that could be done to improve an image so woould find it hard to believe he did not crop.) ...
Click to expand...

For the record, Adams did crop. At the photography museum in Riverside, CA there are original submissions where he was providing printing information for photos headed into his books. His handwriting designates crop and tonality info among other things.

Dean
 
gliderbee said:
So, I meant: if you decide never to crop, and if you want to be the master of your own pictures, I think you need a camera with a viewfinder that shows 100%. Otherwise, you're guessing (and maybe you are very good at it, but still: it's guessing).

Hmm, after all, Doug resumed it better then I did here 😛

Stefan.
Click to expand...

What you may think of as "guessing," other can consider it skill. After all, there is nothing that can be done with 100% certainty.
 
back alley said:
burn in and dodge
feathering
cropping

all means to edit an image and all legit in my eyes
Click to expand...

And there is nothing wrong with it. It certainly is rewarding for you. But that does not mean there are not other ways to achieve the same result.

BTW, the writing analogy is not accurate as the writer invents the reality which has no existence--even if writing about events or actual things, the words do not exist. The photographer is duplicating a space/object that is existent.

Not that I am picking on you Joe. Just posting thoughts related to your ideas.
 
Finder said:
And there is nothing wrong with it. It certainly is rewarding for you. But that does not mean there are not other ways to achieve the same result.

BTW, the writing analogy is not accurate as the writer invents the reality which has no existence--even if writing about events or actual things, the words do not exist. The photographer is duplicating a space/object that is existent.

Not that I am picking on you Joe. Just posting thoughts related to your ideas.
Click to expand...

no worries, i'm keeping my upper lip stiff 😉

and i agree with the first part of your comment as i do not think either way is 'wrong'. i do think not cropping at all is a rigid way of going about things. when i started to write creatively i thought it was taboo to edit my words as they were more 'pure' as first uttered or written. i soon discovered that was not true. i need to edit to become more clear and effective in what i was trying to communicate.

and while, yes, we are duplicating scenes before us, a good photographer will ofet see things differently than others and be able to interpret that vision with his camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom