Do you crop?

Do you crop?


  • Total voters
    197
  • Poll closed .
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.

Evrything as Roger says

It is logic when you have your photos right in composition and the rest Zero cropping. I have Xpan Square format Hasselblad and a M8.2 which seems to be several ratios and formats . I can't remember when cropped my photo last except once when I wanted to perceive that one photo and yes It looks great and it is within all the other formats and looks unique. So it proves that cropping is not bad and can be useful. so again if I happen to use cropping i'll do it.:D
 
The way I figure it is if I have to crop it means I didn't know what the picture was when I took it. If I didn't know at the time, why did I push the button? Someone earlier mentioned editing writing, which is a bad analogy. A better one would be painting. How often do you think painters saw the edges off their pictures after they're painted?
 
The way I figure it is if I have to crop it means I didn't know what the picture was when I took it. If I didn't know at the time, why did I push the button? Someone earlier mentioned editing writing, which is a bad analogy. A better one would be painting. How often do you think painters saw the edges off their pictures after they're painted?
Because you DID know, and were in the wrong place, and either had a prime lens and didn't have time to move, or had a zoom and didn't have time to zoom. Shoot first, ask questions afterwards.

And editing writing is actually a very good analogy. I've earned a living from writing and photography for decades. In both cases, there's a strong case for cutting out the crap around the edges in 'post production', and 'zooming in' on what matters.

Cheers,

R.
 
Someone earlier mentioned editing writing, which is a bad analogy. A better one would be painting. How often do you think painters saw the edges off their pictures after they're painted?

Most photographers don't crop their photo after it's been matted and framed, either. Nor, probably, do most painters adhere to the initial image they sketch, or to the first round of what they put on canvas. In each case, the painter/photographer refines the image into what they want, and produces the finished piece.

The way I figure it is if I have to crop it means I didn't know what the picture was when I took it. If I didn't know at the time, why did I push the button?

Maybe an impulse said 'shoot this' and looking at the shot later brought out what the picture actually was. Maybe the lens or position didn't allow the framing you ultimately wanted. Maybe you got exactly what you wanted and then changed your mind when doing darkroom/PP work . . .
 
I've realized that anything other than square or 2:3 image dimensions I find aesthetically unappealing. Maybe it's just what my eyes are used to. Even when I crop, I still only crop to either of those dimensions (based on 35mm or 120). When I see images cropped to other irregular dimensions, it bugs me.

Anyone else? To each his or her own, of course. I'm just curious.
 
The answer is:depends.
However, I've come to appreciate the idea, that good presentation of your photos is better than lousy presentation.
Sticking to a few selected ratios. helps organize the work.
So, in a way, I always crop, and never crop, because I have these formats in mind when shooting.
I use square, 1x1.282 and 1x2.382 for panoramas ( rarely).
The closest existing formats to 1x1.382 are 6x45 and 5x7.
This is how it looks like:


20137505 by mfogiel, on Flickr

Aristoteles was way too long with his golden ratio...
 
Why wouldn't we crop?

There are occasions where, by necessity, I shoot at speed and get the whole composition completely wrong. Cropping can often help improve presnetation and I can't see any justification for leaving something "as shot" for some (IMHO) bizarre view on integrity.

As for re-working, I have an Epson V750 scanner and VueScan software through which I scan my negatives. My scans have been passable but, lately, I've started to improve my technique to the point where I fully intend to re-scan and re-process a number of my photos where I know I haven't got the best out of the negative with my earlier scanning settings. Again, why wouldn't I do that if the end result is going to be better than my earlier efforts?
 
The camera raw is 2x3, but I prefer 5x7, so I always crop unless there's no spare room due to image content. However, when I crop, I try to crop off the minimum as I like to think that I did a good enough job framing before pressing on the shutter. Of course, sometimes I miss, so I'll do what's right for the image and not for my self-esteem :p
 
Back
Top Bottom