Do you crop?
- Thread starter msbarnes
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 151
- Views 2K
Souljer
Established
Hi,
Since I've never had a darkroom I don't have that point of view and maybe I'm not fully understanding the thought process. I see a lot of discussion of paper sizes and standards that don't necessarily match the ratios of film negatives.
I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would crop their photo to accommodate paper size. Why would the image be cropped? Why not print as big as possible and trim the blank extra edges of the paper?
Why is printing format more important than the image?
Or did I misunderstand?
Since I've never had a darkroom I don't have that point of view and maybe I'm not fully understanding the thought process. I see a lot of discussion of paper sizes and standards that don't necessarily match the ratios of film negatives.
I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would crop their photo to accommodate paper size. Why would the image be cropped? Why not print as big as possible and trim the blank extra edges of the paper?
Why is printing format more important than the image?
Or did I misunderstand?
DNG
Film Friendly
And Many DO just that.... why not... if it works for maximum impact....go for it... you can do that with some online printers also.
Harry S.
Well-known
What one determines a successful image, others may not. In my opinion the black frame edges are an outdated paradigm, that speak of the photographers' technical nature rather than the artistic nature of the work. Very few photographs really benefit from being boxed within some claustrophobic inky boundaries.
Of course, YMDV. 😉
john_s
Well-known
I usually use square format cameras. I like looking at the world through the beautiful square big viewfinder. But often I crop to a rectangle nearly square but not quite. Square uncropped can be harder to frame IMO.
DNG
Film Friendly
If you Frame your printed photos, the frame you buy, is just as a internet image with a black frame.... unless you use a Floating Frame, But, then the color of your wall becomes a frame !!
For Hanging up a photo... I wander how many (as I) print w/o a border, and frame w/o an over-sized mat (IE: Flush mounted)
candidcameraman
Member
Without hesitations
Without hesitations
I tend to shoot a little wider than needed, parts of it is due to wearing glasses and having extra elements around the edges in the final capture and the other part is I like a little wiggle room to straighten the horizon, lens distortion as well as lens perspective distortion.
More often then not - I don't need to crop
And then there is the little sad fact I like square prints, I need to crop for these.
Cropping tightens my shots and clean the edges...
Without hesitations
I tend to shoot a little wider than needed, parts of it is due to wearing glasses and having extra elements around the edges in the final capture and the other part is I like a little wiggle room to straighten the horizon, lens distortion as well as lens perspective distortion.
More often then not - I don't need to crop
And then there is the little sad fact I like square prints, I need to crop for these.
Cropping tightens my shots and clean the edges...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Okay, please educate me why this is the case.
I know zero about printing a slide. Would love to learn about it.
Well, traditionally, slides are displayed by projection onto a screen, as shot. So getting it right in-camera was important.
Though if one were to print a slide, which was a rather sad proposition (IMHO of course) with internegatives until Cibachrome came along, then of course straightening & cropping was as easy as with any other printing.
Pro photographers shot transparencies, easy for the editorial staff to spread out the take on light tables, and easy to adjust a bit for magazine use. Serious amateurs mostly projected them, and on a lower status color negative film was for snapshots.
Fraser
Well-known
You hit the nail on the head!
The no crop I put in the same category as no zoom lenses, no photoshop and digital is not real photography and only used for web images!
Its just silly saying no crop, I would rather shoot with a bit of space so not to cut something out thats critical. Its maybe some kind of macho thing to say I don't crop the same crowd of photographers who say they can focus quicker than autofocus.
thegman
Veteran
I don't think it's about silly or not silly, it's just about people enjoying the hobby as they please. If I enjoy the game of snooker, is it silly to dislike the game of 8-ball pool? If I like to collect manual watches, am I silly to not want automatic or quartz?
What we are talking about here is a hobby (for most of us), and if people don't want to crop, use zoom lenses, or own digital cameras, that's that, that is the hobby for them. We all enjoy it the way we enjoy it.
For me:
1) Cropping - not keen, but I'll do it.
2) Zoom lenses - fine.
3) Autofocus - fine.
4) Digital - Not really
5) Photoshop - Not really.
Who would I submit these thoughts to, for judgement on whether I'm silly or macho?
I think very few people here think others should not crop, they are simply stating that they don't like to crop, and that just falls in with a million other simple preferences which reflect the differences in all of us. There are no globally applicable rules in photography, but if people want their own personal rules, why not?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The 'macho' accusation probably arises from reactions to people -- and we've all met them -- who think it's macho, or intelligent, or artistic, or shows strength of character, or something, to make up their mind in advance AND STICK TO IT, regardless of the actual circumstances. I'm not accusing anyone here of this, and I'm sure you're right that neither the croppers nor the anti-croppers want to impose their views on others: I'm merely addressing the 'macho' question.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
An interesting analysis.
1) Cropping - Utterly indifferent. For me, there are only two reasons not to crop. One is that the composition is fine in the frame as it stands, which obviously is what I always try to achieve. The other is that the less you enlarge, the better the technical quality.
2) Zoom lenses - Really don't like 'em. A terrible waste of time. The time you spend fine-tuning the framing is often plenty long enough to lose the composition. Much better to use a prime, and either grab and shoot, or (if there's time) move to the right position. OK for record shots and happy snaps. EDIT, in light of Souljer's post below: also too slow.
3) Autofocus - Works most of the time. When it doesn't -- aargh! I don't like 'aargh', hence a preference for manual focus.
4) Digital - OK with the right camera. Instead of slides in an MP, I now shoot colour with an M9, but for b+w I prefer film. The thing is, I don't like big, modern, lardy film SLRs and more than I like big, modern, lardy DSLRs
5) Photoshop - It's a 'digital darkroom', just the same way that my real darkroom is, well, a real darkroom.
Cheers,
R.
Souljer
Established
Hi,
Okay. So I guess I misunderstood? Some will print as large as possible and simply trim the edges when necessary, cropping the original image or not when applicable.
I've never heard of an anti-zoom person. I've never owned one but simply because I at first could not afford one and later could never find one fast enough for my available light bands-in-clubs shots. I bought primes that are fast enough and a camera that allowed me to see in dim light.
From what I understand a zoom lens is not cropping but simply changing focal lengths. No real difference than changing lenses or distance to subject when needed.
What's the big deal with that?
Okay. So I guess I misunderstood? Some will print as large as possible and simply trim the edges when necessary, cropping the original image or not when applicable.
I've never heard of an anti-zoom person. I've never owned one but simply because I at first could not afford one and later could never find one fast enough for my available light bands-in-clubs shots. I bought primes that are fast enough and a camera that allowed me to see in dim light.
From what I understand a zoom lens is not cropping but simply changing focal lengths. No real difference than changing lenses or distance to subject when needed.
What's the big deal with that?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Fraser
Well-known
Maybe the zoom lenses example is a bit much I would love to use a couple of leica Ms for work but its not practical. The main reason I have an M is so when I'm not at work I don't need to cart around big lenses and bodies I have enough to carry with two small children and a dog!
Back to the main topic to crop or not, now this is only my opinion and experience, cropping is part of the process to produce an end product. Maybe shooting digital does make you lazy as in the days of shooting film for newspapers you really could not crop into a 35mm neg that much.
1. crop part of the process.
2. zoom lenses have come a long way in 20 years yes they are bulky but with a 16-35 and an 80-200 theres not much you cant do all my lenses are 2.8 and with decent high ISO thats not bad.
3. Digital v Film not getting into that.
4. Photoshop is Photoshop also part of the process.
Back to the main topic to crop or not, now this is only my opinion and experience, cropping is part of the process to produce an end product. Maybe shooting digital does make you lazy as in the days of shooting film for newspapers you really could not crop into a 35mm neg that much.
1. crop part of the process.
2. zoom lenses have come a long way in 20 years yes they are bulky but with a 16-35 and an 80-200 theres not much you cant do all my lenses are 2.8 and with decent high ISO thats not bad.
3. Digital v Film not getting into that.
4. Photoshop is Photoshop also part of the process.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1: Well, there were those who used even 110 successfully, so there is a fair amount of room for cropping. Newspaper repro quality is pretty abysmal, and it was even worse in the past.
Highlight 2: Yes, high ISOs do make slow lenses a lot more usable -- an illustration of a point I made in another thread that many professionals in this forum may give advice that was very good 20 years ago but is less useful now.
Cheers,
R.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I really try to get the cropping right in camera. I do tweak some and I to do not use zooms for either my personal work or my professional work. I also think of photoshop in terms of a digital dark room. I expose the way I need the file to be (which may or may not be accurate to the scene) so in photoshop I can take it to the final print the way I saw it when I pushed the shutter.
I have studied zone system and have shot large format and done all the tests with the camera and lens I was using at the time and would place my shadows where I wanted them and then controlled highlights with processing times. (N, N+1, N+2, N-1, N-2, etc) so the capture is the first part of the process and the darkroom is the second part both equally important to be able to capture the image envisioned in the minds eye at the moment of exposure. I try to take those sensibilities to the digital world though it is a different approach and process for me and I referring to more than the wet dark room vs photoshop differences.
I have studied zone system and have shot large format and done all the tests with the camera and lens I was using at the time and would place my shadows where I wanted them and then controlled highlights with processing times. (N, N+1, N+2, N-1, N-2, etc) so the capture is the first part of the process and the darkroom is the second part both equally important to be able to capture the image envisioned in the minds eye at the moment of exposure. I try to take those sensibilities to the digital world though it is a different approach and process for me and I referring to more than the wet dark room vs photoshop differences.
Shirley Creazzo
Well-known
LOL. I like your answer. Could anyone have said it better?
Similar threads
