lukitas
second hand noob
Nothing wrong with cropping. Photography is about choosing a frame. Having second thoughts about in-camera framing happens all the time.
That said, especially with 35mm film, using the full frame is much more efficient : the enlarger stays at the same height for the size of paper you work on, exposure for D-max doesn't change, and fiddling around with the rotation or the tilt of the easel is not really my idea of fun. And as a bonus, you can use the black borders as a frame, if you should like that style. (When I had a Hassle, I used to show off the Hasselblad nicks in the frame that way.)
That is why one should aim for the perfect frame and exposure at the time of shooting : less waste of time and test strips and film.
Of course, you can follow The Way of the Million Monkeys Typing out a Shakespeare Sonnet, shoot like a Gatling Gun, and then spend years editing and cropping and rotating and tilting for a few printable negs. I tried that too, long ago.
True Art is about obtaining a maximum of effect with a minimum of means. It is about frugality and laziness and elegance : no unnecessary gestures, nothing superfluous.
The goal is to make every shot perfect, every print made with a minimum of fuss. Not that I am quite there yet.
That said, especially with 35mm film, using the full frame is much more efficient : the enlarger stays at the same height for the size of paper you work on, exposure for D-max doesn't change, and fiddling around with the rotation or the tilt of the easel is not really my idea of fun. And as a bonus, you can use the black borders as a frame, if you should like that style. (When I had a Hassle, I used to show off the Hasselblad nicks in the frame that way.)
That is why one should aim for the perfect frame and exposure at the time of shooting : less waste of time and test strips and film.
Of course, you can follow The Way of the Million Monkeys Typing out a Shakespeare Sonnet, shoot like a Gatling Gun, and then spend years editing and cropping and rotating and tilting for a few printable negs. I tried that too, long ago.
True Art is about obtaining a maximum of effect with a minimum of means. It is about frugality and laziness and elegance : no unnecessary gestures, nothing superfluous.
The goal is to make every shot perfect, every print made with a minimum of fuss. Not that I am quite there yet.
Last edited:
I may shoot cameras with 2:3, 3:4, or 4:5 frame proportions, and there are popular standard paper sizes that don't gracefully contain one or more of these. When shooting, I try to arrange a composition that fits the proportions of the camera in use. This often works fine. But it's not uncommon for a composition to "want" to be square, or be squished toward pano proportions. I will crop as necessary for the benefit of the composition...
L David Tomei
Well-known
I suppose that the camera's format and image dimensions would be fixed if one doesn't crop. Many images just don't look good when I stick with the frame that comes off the camera. I crop when it is needed to achieve the image I want. I see no reason not to crop. For me, images from photos evolve from the moment I push the shutter button until I end up with the penultimate image I want and often some degree of cropping is part of that process.
Richard G
Veteran
For the first 30 plus years, no. I didn't have a darkroom. I shot almost exclusively 50mm focal length on 135. When I could crop with software in the last ten years, hardly ever until after joining here and especially since getting an M9 and learning Lightroom, I have been doing so more and more. I try to compose properly in the viewfinder with wide angle lenses, but the edges of those frames with RF are very variable and cropping and especially rotating is an absolute boon of digital photography, including from 35mm negatives. I deliberately shot a scene with my 28 which is very very sharp, knowing that 35mm focal length was the ideal for that scene and I just cropped with software. Everything about that shot was intentional, and there seemed no point to change lenses unnecessarily and take a less sharp picture and risk getting dust on the sensor. I think the discipline of trying to get it right first time and have just the whole frame shot is wonderful and I try to pursue it, but I have been liberated by the options and like to crop square and produce the best picture I can.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
"We don't like to crop.…"
Like Maggie Steber says.
Like Maggie Steber says.
miguelruizjimenez
Member
Dont crop, remember HCB...
c.poulton
Well-known
I almost never crop, usually just to straighten the image and for some reason hate to crop - probably due to coming from a 35mm negative film & slide background where you could not crop, or in the case of 35mm, you gain grain.
Having moved into medium format recently, I'm amazed at the increase in resolution and the temptation to crop has grown, but I resist
Thinking about this, I wonder if with the amazing resolution you can achieve nowadays with digital technology, cropping is just so much easier without any noticeable loss in image quality?
I know it's become a bit of a cliché but including the negative frame border when scanning an image does infact appeal to me - it means that I have to try harder at the initial image taking stage, which I believe to be a good thing for me, instead of firing off shots and 'fixing' at a later stage.
Still, each to their own, and at the end of the day it's the 'final' image that counts!
Having moved into medium format recently, I'm amazed at the increase in resolution and the temptation to crop has grown, but I resist
Thinking about this, I wonder if with the amazing resolution you can achieve nowadays with digital technology, cropping is just so much easier without any noticeable loss in image quality?
I know it's become a bit of a cliché but including the negative frame border when scanning an image does infact appeal to me - it means that I have to try harder at the initial image taking stage, which I believe to be a good thing for me, instead of firing off shots and 'fixing' at a later stage.
Still, each to their own, and at the end of the day it's the 'final' image that counts!
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
Cropping is a non-issue.
By taking the photo in the first place you have cropped the view you have seen with your eyes!
jesse
By taking the photo in the first place you have cropped the view you have seen with your eyes!
jesse
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Eh?
HCB didn't want editors cropping the prints he sent them (no-one does) but the prints he sent out might well be cropped from the whole negative. The famous 'puddle jumper' is one of the best known examples.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Surely any sane person will crop if it makes for a better picture; and equally surely, any sane person will try not to crop if they can make the right picture without cropping.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Harry S.
Well-known
I crop every single time.
I like the 5 x 4" ratio most of all, so I shoot knowing that will be the output. I never frame anything important on both edges of the frame when shooting to allow for this.
I have a notion that this ratio results in a more considered, finished look. Also a 1200x960 px. image displays larger than a 3:2 ratio image with the same horizontal dimensions. This is practical for web use especially.
I like the 5 x 4" ratio most of all, so I shoot knowing that will be the output. I never frame anything important on both edges of the frame when shooting to allow for this.
I have a notion that this ratio results in a more considered, finished look. Also a 1200x960 px. image displays larger than a 3:2 ratio image with the same horizontal dimensions. This is practical for web use especially.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Funny, I find it much too stubby: I'm much happier with 5x7, 13x18cm or whole plate (6.5 x 8.5 inches). True, 24x36 and 6x9cm (56 x 84mm) are rather long and thin, but I prefer even those to 5x4. De gustibus non disputandum.
Cheers,
R.
Mark T
Established
I chose the "other" option. I try my best to compose in camera. However if it is not possible because, for example, the wrong lens is on the camera or I later see a stronger composition in the negative, then I will crop without hesitation. I think this is smart practice, no?
thegman
Veteran
Perhaps, but maybe some people like to get things the way they want them first time, and that's how they enjoy the hobby. Perhaps also they enjoy limitations of not cropping, only using B&W film, only using a certain lens, or some other limit.
I'm not saying I'm that person, but I think when it comes to hobbies, sanity or rational thinking often goes out of the window, we just do what we enjoy. If I don't like to crop, I don't. If I don't like digital, I don't use it. When you have the freedom of a hobby, not a profession, you just do what you like.
ajramirez
Established
I try to get it right in camera, but I will not hesitate to crop when it helps the picture.
It's funny you say this...because I never cropped in the darkroom, but I crop slightly in digital now. Never to change the ratio though... only to correct perspective and / or horizons. I like the white borders on a print. I've always hated 8x10 without borders...
What I don't understand is why one would use 2:3 ratio if they don't like it... why not use the ratio you prefer?
Sparrow
Veteran
... but, surely if one's printing 8x10 in a darkroom there is no choice but to crop an inch off each side?
Harry S.
Well-known
In my case there arent any digital cameras that capture in the 5x4" ratio I prefer.
daveleo
what?
If you matte the 8X10 prints to 11X14 frames (as I do), adding an unsymmetrical white border to a 2:3 print inside the matte gets kind of klunky looking when it's all framed up.
I personally would love an 8X10 aspect ratio sensor . . . but the world does not need yet another digital format ! !
Clint Troy
Well-known
I never crop. The cropping has been done in the composition stage. Once the shutter fires, the decision is FINAL.
Once the poem or prose is done, it is DONE. No more editing.
Once the poem or prose is done, it is DONE. No more editing.