Cropping 6x6

[robert blu]

I usually do not crop, when I do it is minimal and most of time keeping the same format as shoot. But what is important is the final effect, the emotion it gives, the informations it transmits and if cropping helps in this why not?
robert

 

[DominikDUK]

Let them if they want to cropping is allowed and should be done if necessary. When I shoot 6x6 I compose for the frame and print square.

 

[Mcary]

Whither it be 35mm, 6x6 or 4x5 I usually tend to use the entire frame or crop to the original ratio, but that doesn't mean that I won't crop a 6x6 to 2x3 or 35mm to 1x1 or even a 4x5 to 1x1 or 2x3 if I think it results in a stronger image.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I like square so I wouldn't do this often. However, I also believe we should crop our shots to maximum benefit and there's no "rules" to prevent us.

 

[Gumby]

Square pegs

Square pegs

I like square and shoot/print square often. But if the image is better suited to a rectangle then crop to rectangle is what is best. There is no such thing a "sacrilege" in image making simply for the sake of maximizing the use of film real estate, or ritualistic avoidance of cropping. The image drives the format of the product.

 

[DominikDUK]

Cropping is bad.

What is the point of composing if you are to crop?

I never crop, and my photography is just that much better.

I have to disagree you can compose the image for a rectangular resulat in a square viewfinder, composing has nothing to do with the viewfinder of film aspect ratio. Composing is about knowing what the final image ought to look like and to put every necessary component for the image you have visualized onto the film/sensor.

 

[Sparrow]

... and if we don't follow your rules our images are inferior?

 

[Gumby]

... and if we don't follow your rules our images are inferior?

I do believe that is what the lady was saying. :bang:

 

[DominikDUK]

Ned unless you use a camera with a 100% viewfinder that shows everything you will get on film 1:1 you do not compose the whole frame in the viewfinder with a Leica RF you see at best 85% of the image in the viewfinder so basically 15% or more of you're image is not visible in your VF at the time you composed the image. You might not crop but you do add something to the final print that was not part of you original composition. Adding isn't much better than cropping. 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

I do believe that is what the lady was saying. :bang:

em, I assumed Ned was a man's name, but no, he or she was not saying that ... however the implication was that his, or her method, was superior is there I felt. Did you not pick up on that?

 

[Dwig]

My friends are cropping 6x6 images to 3:2 or even 16:9.
To me this is sacrilage as the essence of 6x6 is the square. Othervise it doesnt make sence to me.
What is your thought?

Wrong, it makes perfect sense to crop square negs.

The main reason square formats have existed was because camera manufacturers found it a reasonable way to design cameras that didn't have to accommodate both horizontal and vertical compositions by rotating the camera and still providing a working VF. You'll find a number of 120 TLRs that have factory marked focusing screens with either 3:2 or 5:4 ratio marks for both horizontal and vertical cropping to "standard" sized prints.

 

[DominikDUK]

Needing a VF to compose the image could also be seen as lack of imagination. You should see the scene and image in your minds eye before you press the shutter, the VF is only here to make sure that all important parts will be on film. Holga and LF Shooter have learned that a long time ago.

As for cropping calling it sloppy shooting is not right if the composition is stronger if you crop than cropping is okay maybe the shooter couldn't get as close to the subject as would like to have, maybe the lens on his camera doesn't allow to get closer, etc.....
In photography the final image should be the ultimate goal not the way to the image.

 

[Gumby]

em, I assumed Ned was a man's name, but no, he or she was not saying that ... however the implication was that his, or her method, was superior is there I felt. Did you not pick up on that?

Yes, I picked up on that and was reinforcing your comment by agreement.

Pardon me if my gender identification is incorrect; I seem to be a bit off on that lately.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Never mind Erik Kim what does Ken Rockwell say? 🙄

 

[DominikDUK]

"Associated press, press, reportage, even wedding photographers: the good ones compose and snipe. No crop needed. What the editors get is great as is.
It's all there. This is why those folks get paid, and this is how they earn their living. Getting the shot."

I hate to burst your bubble but the succes of a photo in a newspaper starts and ends with the quality of the picture editor who is not above cropping your picture for maximum effect.

Even HCB cropped some of his pics 🙂

 

[jim_jm]

Two notable photographers, W. Eugene Smith and Arnold Newman would frequently crop their images (sometimes severely) to achieve the result they envisioned for their final prints. Both are often recognized as masters of their craft.

I shoot 6x6 format for much of my work now, but have no qualms about cropping a print if it suits the image. Why should I compromise my final image because of the aspect ratio of the camera frame? I use a particular camera more for it's capabilities and handling characteristics - what it allows me to do rather than how it restricts me.

Cropping is just another part of the editing process, like studying contact sheets to pick the best negs to print.

 

[Sparrow]

I dont follow erik or anyone else. My photography is strong enough and I've put a lot of time and effort in it to know that I can follow my own advice and be succesful. However, Eric Kim, in this article, gives a lot of good examples and quotes. Very serious article.

... I thought they looked a lot like that Japanese chap who was big back in the 1980s ... published a lot of stuff in Provoke at the time ... before Eric Kim's time though

 

[hepcat]

My friends are cropping 6x6 images to 3:2 or even 16:9.
To me this is sacrilage as the essence of 6x6 is the square. Othervise it doesnt make sence to me.
What is your thought?

I've read both pages of this thread so far. I suspect that you have too much information about and from your friends. If the final product is the print, and the subject of the print has value in whatever aspect ratio it's printed, who cares what it was shot with or how? Does knowing how Michaelangelo mixed his paint make the Sistine Chapel ceiling somehow more or less valuable?

Cameras and negatives are just tools; means to achieve an end... the print. I think that the discussion of aspect ratio may have merit if you're discussing it in terms of transparencies... but shooting negatives and making prints, it's irrelevant.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If that's what they want to do, why not let them? I prefer to shoot formats that adhere to the ratio I want to print at and not crop (which is why I shoot mostly 6x7, 4x5, and 8x10, for the standard 4:5 ratio) but totally understand why others would do it differently. Different strokes, etc.

Well, yes.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Associated press, press, reportage, even wedding photographers: the good ones compose and snipe. No crop needed. What the editors get is great as is.
It's all there. This is why those folks get paid, and this is how they earn their living. Getting the shot.

Twaddle. They supply suoerb pics, perfectly cropped, whether straight from the camera or cropped afterwards. THAT'S how they earn their living. Look out HCB's pic of someone jumping a puddle sometime. What they say to the editors is, "Don't f*** up my crop, because that's the way I want the picture."

A publisher once fired a designer on one of my books because instead of cropping he'd stretched the pic (in Photoshop) along one axis, but not the other, to make it fit the space.

Cheers,

R.