Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Without hesitation if I feel the necessity to do so.
It is satisfying to get it right in the camera ... which is probably why I lean towards the SLR.
I also like Joe's analogy.
It is satisfying to get it right in the camera ... which is probably why I lean towards the SLR.
I also like Joe's analogy.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'd be curious to find out how many anti croppers are comfortable using a zoom lens?
hteasley
Pupil
Were I perfect, I wouldn't crop as much as I do, but I'd still do it (mostly to get around minimum focusing distance composition flaws). As it is, I crop a fair bit. I also rotate images to level my horizons out (if I was shooting for basically a level horizon), but not if doing so means I hurt the composition.
jky
Well-known
...or LCD screens/ EVFs for me.... for obvious reasons I crop less with these.
Harry Caul
Well-known
I've been shooting a Polaroid lately, so I definitely don't crop those! It is especially tough as the exact frame line coverage changes with focal distance... not to mention parallax issues.
MartinP
Veteran
I voted "it depends".
If I see a skyline which I like, I can visualize a result which is likely much wider than it is tall, so I expect to lose the top and/or bottom in the darkroom. Other times, I may be shooting 6x6 and see a rectangular composition, again I will lose the unwanted parts in the darkroom. Sometimes, I will choose a composition on 35mm film which will be more square than the 3:2 ratio, so I will lose the edges in the darkroom. Additionally, one can frequently consider the proportions of the size of paper one anticipates printing on, as a factor in choosing variations of some particular composition. When the subject is available, it makes sense to shoot alternatives, for different end products.
I think the vehement anti-crop idea came about because of a combination of the lower film qualities available historically and reaction to a "no composition - we'll sort it out later" style of shooting. The latter point would have been heavily stressed on most educational courses and has become a dogma of it's own. Even M.Cartier-Bresson didn't make every picture in 3:2 format - but I'm fairly sure he knew what he wanted before clicking the shutter, as should the rest of us.
There was a prototype digital camera in Japan which was made for placing on party tables. When it saw some programmed arrangement/quantity of faces it would focus and make a picture. Even that cost-less (per image) party camera wasn't simply random.
If I see a skyline which I like, I can visualize a result which is likely much wider than it is tall, so I expect to lose the top and/or bottom in the darkroom. Other times, I may be shooting 6x6 and see a rectangular composition, again I will lose the unwanted parts in the darkroom. Sometimes, I will choose a composition on 35mm film which will be more square than the 3:2 ratio, so I will lose the edges in the darkroom. Additionally, one can frequently consider the proportions of the size of paper one anticipates printing on, as a factor in choosing variations of some particular composition. When the subject is available, it makes sense to shoot alternatives, for different end products.
I think the vehement anti-crop idea came about because of a combination of the lower film qualities available historically and reaction to a "no composition - we'll sort it out later" style of shooting. The latter point would have been heavily stressed on most educational courses and has become a dogma of it's own. Even M.Cartier-Bresson didn't make every picture in 3:2 format - but I'm fairly sure he knew what he wanted before clicking the shutter, as should the rest of us.
There was a prototype digital camera in Japan which was made for placing on party tables. When it saw some programmed arrangement/quantity of faces it would focus and make a picture. Even that cost-less (per image) party camera wasn't simply random.
Dwig
Well-known
I frequently crop. I do this because my shooting is almost exclusively as "art" and the image's aspect ratio is dictated by the subject and not some need to meet a client's spec'd image shape nor do I slavishly let the camera's aspect ratio dictate my composition.
That said, I rarely crop both dimensions. I do my best to frame the image properly when shooting so that I only have to crop one dimension to achieve the desired shape. My images tend to float between roughly the 4:3 native aspect ratio of my m43rd camera through the common 3:2 to about 2:1 for horizontal "landscapes". Squares and wider panoramas are rare but occasionally a subject screams for one or the other.
That said, I rarely crop both dimensions. I do my best to frame the image properly when shooting so that I only have to crop one dimension to achieve the desired shape. My images tend to float between roughly the 4:3 native aspect ratio of my m43rd camera through the common 3:2 to about 2:1 for horizontal "landscapes". Squares and wider panoramas are rare but occasionally a subject screams for one or the other.
biomed
Veteran
I try to compose with the viewfinder. Often when reviewing a photo the composition/image can be improved by cropping. I consider cropping as much a part of the photographic process as dodging or burning in (darkening or lightening in digital speak). To each his own.
Bill Clark
Veteran
All the time.
When making photographs, I may need the space as I see folks desire different sized enlargements.
I make photos allowing room to crop.
One important reason I capture using RAW.
When making photographs, I may need the space as I see folks desire different sized enlargements.
I make photos allowing room to crop.
One important reason I capture using RAW.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
If you print in the darkroom using an enlarger, you'd immediately feel that cropping is a natural part of the process, 35mm negative does not have the same ratio as any of the popular paper format, neither is 6x6. So you crop, or end up with a lot of white space and smaller print (okay in some cases).
Cropping that enhances the look of a photograph, is part of the process that creates the final image. It does not in any way diminish the satisfaction of creating a good composition.
To me, getting a perfect composition in the shot is akin to scoring a basket from the middle of the court. I'd be elated for about 4 minutes, but I don't expect myself to do it regularly.
Cropping that enhances the look of a photograph, is part of the process that creates the final image. It does not in any way diminish the satisfaction of creating a good composition.
To me, getting a perfect composition in the shot is akin to scoring a basket from the middle of the court. I'd be elated for about 4 minutes, but I don't expect myself to do it regularly.
lynnb
Veteran
It's all about making good pictures.
I crop for three reasons: aspect ratio, subject isolation and to make an effective composition. These can all be related.
Aspect ratio is sometimes to do with print media and sometimes to better isolate the subject and make a more effective composition. Some subjects just work better with a particular aspect ratio, regardless of what camera and format you used.
Subject isolation is often when I'm caught out with a wider lens than I wanted, and can't get closer to the subject. Or when I can't avoid an intrusive element when taking the picture, but can remove it and improve the picture by cropping.
Ideas for a more effective composition can sometimes occur at the review stage. Sometimes details can make effective pictures in their own right, and sometimes multiple crops from the same image can work equally well, even telling entirely different stories.
Why limit the possibilities? It's the end result that counts. No-one cares whether you cropped or not.
If the knowledge that you composed within the frame without cropping is important to you, then by all means be happy with that. Photography is a mental exercise and everyone is different. To me, cropping is a non-issue. All that matters is the pictures.
I crop for three reasons: aspect ratio, subject isolation and to make an effective composition. These can all be related.
Aspect ratio is sometimes to do with print media and sometimes to better isolate the subject and make a more effective composition. Some subjects just work better with a particular aspect ratio, regardless of what camera and format you used.
Subject isolation is often when I'm caught out with a wider lens than I wanted, and can't get closer to the subject. Or when I can't avoid an intrusive element when taking the picture, but can remove it and improve the picture by cropping.
Ideas for a more effective composition can sometimes occur at the review stage. Sometimes details can make effective pictures in their own right, and sometimes multiple crops from the same image can work equally well, even telling entirely different stories.
Why limit the possibilities? It's the end result that counts. No-one cares whether you cropped or not.
If the knowledge that you composed within the frame without cropping is important to you, then by all means be happy with that. Photography is a mental exercise and everyone is different. To me, cropping is a non-issue. All that matters is the pictures.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
11x14 is not the same ratio as a 35mm negative therefore cropping always occurs.
Pablito
coco frío
?? no logic here
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I try to let the picture tell me the crop not the camera. That said, I'm restricted to store bought frames and mats so I tend to stay in those ratios.
redisburning
Well-known
no crop no zoom no AF.
I have the privilege of sticking to my principles. my subjects rarely move, I shoot relatively high magnification lenses (one of my most used lenses being a macro), and no one will buy my photos so I can just do as I please.
I will crop unimportant pictures (e.g. selling something). I used to crop more, but these days Im perfectly happy with a composition that's a little loose.
I have the privilege of sticking to my principles. my subjects rarely move, I shoot relatively high magnification lenses (one of my most used lenses being a macro), and no one will buy my photos so I can just do as I please.
I will crop unimportant pictures (e.g. selling something). I used to crop more, but these days Im perfectly happy with a composition that's a little loose.
icebear
Veteran
If I have time to frame perfectly, cropping is not necessary.
This ideal situation rarely occurs in most of my street shooting situations,
so consequently, there is a need to crop out distracting stuff that jumped into the frame w/o permission.
If the answer to "Is this part of the photo important for the context" is "No", then it will be cropped.
Easy as that.
This ideal situation rarely occurs in most of my street shooting situations,
so consequently, there is a need to crop out distracting stuff that jumped into the frame w/o permission.
If the answer to "Is this part of the photo important for the context" is "No", then it will be cropped.
Easy as that.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Maybe once every Haley's comet cycle, but nope.
froyd
Veteran
Likewise, if you shoot slides, you feel compelled to get it right the first time. And that's where an SLR with 100% viewfinder coverage can be a great asset.
Not disagreeing with your statement, mind you. I'm an unrepentant cropper myself, but I can see why photographers who grew up on slides might look down on cropping when printing.