Cropping

I crop to whatever dimension and area makes the best print. Photography is a process from conception to exposure to printing.

Why do you never crop?
 
I'm happy to crop if necessary. I'll often crop an image from landscape to portrait format if it gives me something I'm more satisfied with.

Framelines of rangefinder cameras are not accurate enough be precise when it's precision you're after. I've noticed I seldom have to crop SLR shots and it's one of the major advantages of an SLR IMO.
 
I crop when I think it improves the image; but if I ever feel tempted to use cropping to fix an image, I'll bin it instead.
 
I crop when I think it needs it. Cropping isn't lying, by making the frame tighter or straightening the horizon I'm not altering the scene, I'm not changing what happened so I have no problem with cropping.

For street photography I often shoot from the hip ans so a little rotation and trimming is often needed.
 
I always find this a bizarre debate - photography is an artistic process, and how you place your subject(s) in the frame and the size and proportions of that frame are all part of the same compositional dynamic to me. If you only have a 35mm camera to hand but your subject requires a panoramic or square crop to give the most visually pileasing result, why would you not do that? Given a choice betweem a tightly framed, balanced composition and one that loses impact because of wasted space in the frame there's no choice for me.

I understand that some photography teachers require students not to crop so they can learn to compose effectively, think about the corners etc., and that makes perfect sense. There may also be good presentational reasons to have all your shots in a series in one format, but otherwise why tie one hand behind your back, artistically speaking, if you don't have to?
 
"I'm not altering the scene"

You can't alter the scene. There is nothing inherently sacrosanct in the aspect ratio of a 35mm frame. I'm with Steveh on this, it's the final image that matters, not the decision of a camera designer 80 years ago.
 
Sometimes it's forced upon me but if I have to crop I feel I've cheated a bit, however I actively dislike images shown in a variety of ratios, rightly or wrongly I always think it looks like weak images being propped up in the edit.
 
Never liked to crop...always used a black line around the image...

Now I'm digital...funny...still don't crop and still use a black line around the image...
 
Cropping, rotating, mirroring, converting to B&W, even turning a picture upside down! Whatever makes a picture better in my eyes.
We all crop the world to fit into a rectangle frame.
(Even HCBs puddle jumper is cropped!)
 
Ray Nalley said:
I crop to whatever dimension and area makes the best print. Photography is a process from conception to exposure to printing.

Why do you never crop?
Click to expand...

Good point.

Why do I never crop? Good question, I don't know really, that's why I thought I should start this thread and see what people would have to say. I kind of feel like cheating when I crop (although it isn't cheating at all)

I do believe however that it's helping me in the way and speed I frame shots. When I go through my negatives I notice what could have been done better etc.

I don't think cropping is bad however, and when I look at photographs of other people it doesn't really matter to me if they are cropped or not, I just don't feel comfortable cropping myself.

Regards Robbert.

P.S. This message hasn't been cropped from multiple sentences :p
 
I think the primary problem in making a good photograph is how to corral the world into some kind of order within the frame. Limiting myself to the arbitrary frame of the camera makes the problem clearer for me. It is a bit overwhelming as it is with just one frame, let alone an infinite variety of them. So, I don't crop. I am not a strict orthodox non-cropper, though. I will allow myself to crop a couple of percent off to clean up an edge or to straighten a horizon for instance. But if a picture doesn't work, I don't look for another picture within it. I'd rather just go out and make some more.

When I'm looking at the pictures of others, I'm not at all interested in whether they were cropped or not.

There are no rules except for the self-imposed type.

Cheers,
Gary
 
Almost every photograph is a cropped section of the scene in front of the camera*, so while I understand and share the desire to get it "correct" with the first crop, I don't get too upset if I then need/want to crop the photo again in post processing.
Rob

*the few exceptions being full frame fish-eye photos or other situations where the film has recorded the entire image circle produced by the lens. And even those are necessarily limited to the field of view of the lens.
 
my .02: I get some personal satisfaction when I get the image the way I want it in-camera, but I have absolutely no qualms about cropping an image during post-processing if I see a better composition within the original. I agree with others that it's the final image that counts. When an image is shown, it is not necessary to say "btw, this image has been cropped" (or burned, or dodged, or whatever). The viewer only sees the final image as the photographer/artist produces it by using whatever methods or processes he chooses.
 
In my post above I was thinking about this, but you have said it better that I did.
I made a similar point in another--much less friendly--thread about cropping; didn't word it very well in that post either...

Roger Hicks said:
Sometimes I use different formats, too.

Where does that leave cropping?

This is a debate over nothing.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I have heard for a long time, that a good photo is as much about what is left out as what is included. And any photo, full frame or otherwise, crops time; we don't see what was before or after the exposure. So I can't see much difference in excluding space as well. Or re-thinking that exclusion after I see the neg/file/print.
Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom