composition & framing question

Whoaaahhhh boy.... hold on there, Finder.

Sorry if my comment came across the wrong way. It wasn't meant to disparage anyone. And I was by no means dissing Leica - I own several Leicas and they are by far my favorite cameras to shoot with.

What I was referring to is the fact that traditional documentary photography (which pretty much means Leica if you go back more than 40 years or so) is unfortunately saddled with "rules", many of which seem ridiculous, IMHO. One of these is that shooting full frame is the only way to go and that if you crop a photo you are somehow ruining the magnificence of the "golden" aspect ratio. I don't have any problem with people who only shoot full frame, but when they criticize others' photos solely because they are cropped, I get irritated.

If you look at great paintings throughout the history of art, you will see many different aspect ratios. Why should photography be any different?

Aspect ratios aside, why is cropping on the darkroom easel (or digital darkroom) any different than cropping in the viewfinder? Nobody has yet provided me any compelling argument for this.

So in summary, I'm not criticizing anyone's personal aesthetic and I'm certainly not criticizing Leica. I apologize if anyone was offended.
 
typhillips said:
Whoaaahhhh boy.... hold on there, Finder.

Sorry if my comment came across the wrong way. It wasn't meant to disparage anyone. And I was by no means dissing Leica - I own several Leicas and they are by far my favorite cameras to shoot with.

What I was referring to is the fact that traditional documentary photography (which pretty much means Leica if you go back more than 40 years or so) is unfortunately saddled with "rules", many of which seem ridiculous, IMHO. One of these is that shooting full frame is the only way to go and that if you crop a photo you are somehow ruining the magnificence of the "golden" aspect ratio. I don't have any problem with people who only shoot full frame, but when they criticize others' photos solely because they are cropped, I get irritated.

If you look at great paintings throughout the history of art, you will see many different aspect ratios. Why should photography be any different?

Aspect ratios aside, why is cropping on the darkroom easel (or digital darkroom) any different than cropping in the viewfinder? Nobody has yet provided me any compelling argument for this.

So in summary, I'm not criticizing anyone's personal aesthetic and I'm certainly not criticizing Leica. I apologize if anyone was offended.
Click to expand...

As a person that does NOT own a Leica and very rarely uses 35mm, but shoot full frame exclusively, perhaps I can tell you why I use the method.

The aspect ratio is not a problem--I use the camera with the aspect ratio I need (1:1, 1:2, 4:3). Like you, I do not believe there is a single perfect ratio. However, format is an important criteria for me when choosing and using equipment.

I find engaging the subject at the location is far more demanding and, as a consequence, far more rewarding. Both in terms of the experience and in terms of the results--one feeds the other. If I blow the shot, I blow the shot--I do not find cropping afterwards fixes a weak image and I usually have others to chose from.

Also, I work with specific focal lengths for the qualities they give. I can anticipate those qualities when I am shooting. Cropping does a few things, it changes perspective, depth of field, and granularity. I would find it very difficult to anticipate the changes when photographing.

However, there a quite a few photographers I admire that do crop--Arnold Newman for instance (even Henry Cartier-Bresson has done it). And that is a perfectly a fine way to work. But personally, shooting full frame has been the one thing that has impacted my photography over everything else.

BTW, shooting full frame goes back more than forty years. Edward Weston and Ansel Adams believed in the method. In documentary photography, students were taught that way because 35mm was such a small piece of film that using the whole frame was the best way to maximize quality--regardless if an editor chopped a bit off later.

No real offense taken. I just thought it was a harsh comment.
 
Point taken, batterytypehah, although in my defense my initial comment was in no way intended to take this where it went.

Perhaps I'll start up a separate thread about this subject. I'm curious to get others' thoughts.

Either way, I did find it interesting to see everyone's different framing interpretations of the original shot by theblotted.
 
I think Finder's crop works best if you don't mind going panoramic, and Payasam's if you want to preserve a more conventional aspect ratio.

It's unfortunately a compromise either way. To me, the cars and bystanders are huge distractions and have to go, but that does put the main subjects uncomfortably close to the upper edge. Too bad but that's life. You captured the moment beautifully, though.

Ideally, the boy's shirt would also not blend quite so much into the grass. This isn't a converted color shot by any chance, is it? If it is, might the color version work better?

Personally, I don't like further manipulation (retouching, different tone for the shirt), even though it clearly makes for a better image. Just reeks of Stalin et al. to me.
 
Finder & typhillips, thanks for the extra insight, i didn't think was OT at all. there's validity in what you both said.. and as much as i would've love to get the perfect full frame shot, not so.. hence i wanted to salvage a special moment by creative crop for composition.

so i've put together what i feel is the best of 2 perspectives. 1 without all the distractions, and 2 with the extra story/plot line. better or worse?

btw i really appreciate all the constructive criticisms so far.

4580466868_ec7309b8a8.jpg
 
Last edited:
my curious question now is - if i never had shown the original, would you guys still mind the boy's head chopped off? because some part of me still feels that, in my first cropping, the eye's natural tendency will go towards the puppy rather than the boy - and thereby bringing out the story of the puppy vs. shadow easier/stronger. no?

oh and batterytypehah!, this was taken with a Kodak B&W film... sorry no color.
 
Last edited:
Over-reaction, typhillips. I know what you mean. I've seen many people go one step beyond to fake thin black borders on their prints.

As for starting a new thread about cropping, maybe you should first search for old ones.

theblotted, my eye is drawn towards the boy's raised arm.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom