Do You Often Crop Images? Technique?

What makes Raid’s question so contentious? Reading through this thread it seems to me to be impossible to argue either side convincingly without some sort of “belief” or “faith” being accepted as a truth.

On the crop-till-you-drop side the image itself is everything so it’s only the duty of the photographer to make the best possible picture. Now that’s fine with a family photo or a fashion shot, however it starts becoming ethically doubtful as you move into documentary or journalism the first duty is then to be truthful.

On the other side at least you have the moral certainty that you have “told the truth” and can prove it to the viewer with that ragged black outline, allowing you to feel “morally superior”? Except that’s not the case in reality is it? The same argument holds good for the whole film as for that one frame; if you have two shots of the same scene then you would certainly have the print both to keep the viewer full informed and you could argue all the negs in the correct order from any given location in order to maintain it’s full integrity, tell the whole truth that is

So as with many things the answer is “well……it depends” it depends on the photographers intention and the use the image is finally put.
 
I rarely crop though there is nothing wrong with doing so if it is necessary to save the picture. No offense intended but Raid's example is a poor one and only cropping could have saved it. In general I want to remain true to the way I saw the picture when I snapped it.
 
Cropping whether in the camera or later does change the content of the image. I don't think any method is "true." I just try to be "true" to myself, and I hope what I perceive.

Frank pointed out something interesting. I don't know if anyone remembers Dan Quale (Sp?) and his presidential bid. There was a well publisized photo of him with a kid that was yawning implying that Dan bored children. It was a tight shot. The uncropped frame was something very different. Dan had placed the kid on his knee and the kid was wearing leg braces. I understand Dan had done that because the kid was tired. It is a very different picture. Now this is not a justification for full frame as it could have been shot like that as well. Rather this is an example of the influence of selection and "truth" in photography.

I am not sure that "truth" can exist in photography except as spatial reference. Some folks have reacted to Raid's photo as a man in dispair. He could also be tired or drunk. Or a combination of all three. We simply do not know unless Raid found out what the situation was. If not, we are just projecting and our interpretation is more of a comment on us and our mental process.

PS I am sorry if my enthusiasm for this topic was taken that I was "upset." I was frustrated that I could not articulate MY thoughts well, but I was not bothered by anyones approach to photography. I had hoped that I had made clear that a personal approach could never be "wrong."
 
At times I have printed an 8 by 12 inch picture and used an 8 by 10 inch matte. There will be some cropping here, but only a bit on the sides. Other than that, I try to compose a picture using framelines, rather than think about cropping later...
 
Rayt said:
I rarely crop though there is nothing wrong with doing so if it is necessary to save the picture. No offense intended but Raid's example is a poor one and only cropping could have saved it. In general I want to remain true to the way I saw the picture when I snapped it.
Click to expand...

Sadly none of my RF cameras’ frame-lines are that accurate, I seldom see exactly what is going onto the film.
 
Finder said:
Cropping whether in the camera or later does change the content of the image. I don't think any method is "true." I just try to be "true" to myself, and I hope what I perceive.
............
I am not sure that "truth" can exist in photography except as spatial reference.
Click to expand...


I very much agree with these two sentences.

But from here I make some conclusions I am not sure anyone will agree:

a) While the camera lies for showing a single moment, people perceive it as truth. Hence much of the power of photography. The photographer is not a deceiver, but just a guy who writes his own history, according to his own vision and understanding. This is not bad at the end account, but very democratic.

b) These two sentences uncover also the substantial emptyness of the "Decisive Moment". Ceirtainly it is an aesthetic formula, but nothing more than that.

c) One very important side of the whole package is that photography tells about the photographers themselves too. In this aspect, dealing with photographing my own vision, better I will be caught cropping, to show what was important for me and what not.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the uncropped version of one of my photos:
1433262186_eb5764e848.jpg

And this is what I posted here in my gallery:
1344074494_a38cbbb3ee.jpg

I was meandering along the lake and noticed the guy and his dog and took the shot. But the cropped version is a much better relection of what I saw.
If I'd had a 90 or 135 on the camera I might have left the cropping as it was but I didn't so I cropped the photo again when I was editing.
I'll leave it to the viewer to decide if they think one is better than the other--I prefer the heavily cropped version.
My point is that when I'm photographing, I am already cropping by my negative size and my lens choice so to crop some more as I make the print/image I'm going to show people isn't a big deal to me.
I always make an effort to get just the part of the scene in front of me that I want on the film with as little else as possible but I will shoot even if I don't get that exactly as I want. And some times I realize only after the shot that I didn't get my cropping in camera exactly as I wanted.
Rob
 
Sparrow said:
Sadly none of my RF cameras’ frame-lines are that accurate, I seldom see exactly what is going onto the film.
Click to expand...

And who really remembers what they actually snapped? These frame lines are certainly more accurate than my powers of recall. I just learn to have faith and trust in the force. I am not the type who burns in the sprocket holes and only prefer big picture not disturbed. A little off the sides to compensate for too tight 50mm framelines should be OK. No need to drink the cool aide
 
Rayt said:
I rarely crop though there is nothing wrong with doing so if it is necessary to save the picture. No offense intended but Raid's example is a poor one and only cropping could have saved it. In general I want to remain true to the way I saw the picture when I snapped it.
Click to expand...

My posted example was to stimulate a discussion on cropping vs. no cropping. Why was it a "bad example"? I don't agree that "only cropping could have saved it". It may be your taste or opinion on the image itself. :bang:

While I tried out different croppings, I returned full circle to the original version, and my personal taste prefers the full version. As we have seen in the discussions above, different people have different opinions and different tastes. You are with the group of people who crop when taking the photo. I do this too, but sometimes, there are new perspectives opening up after the image was captured in the camera.

The high rate of comments/views in this thread reflects the fact that cropping is a decision that many of us face.
 
ruben said:
I very much agree with these two sentences.

But from here I make some conclusions I am not sure anyone will agree:

a) While the camera lies for showing a single moment, people perceive it as truth. Hence much of the power of photography. The photographer is not a deceiver, but just a guy who writes his own history, according to his own vision and understanding. This is not bad at the end account, but very democratic.

b) These two sentences uncover also the substantial emptyness of the "Decisive Moment". Ceirtainly it is an aesthetic formula, but nothing more than that.

c) One very important side of the whole package is that photography tells about the photographers themselves too. In this aspect, dealing with photographing my own vision, better I will be caught cropping, to show what was important for me and what not.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

Ruben, while I agree its desirable if not imperative that a photographer presents his work from a personal moral standpoint like you (I think) I don’t see how a dogmatic approach to cropping would increase his integrity.
The truth is one of many things that influence the viewer, if Raid calls the full frame print “Depression” its one thing, “Heat-wave” or “Junkie” it’s something different, I don’t feel having a dogmatic approach on a single aspect of its production can validate an image; it can only have integrity if it’s a proper reflection of the photographer’s vision.
 
Last edited:
Rayt said:
And who really remembers what they actually snapped? These frame lines are certainly more accurate than my powers of recall. I just learn to have faith and trust in the force. I am not the type who burns in the sprocket holes and only prefer big picture not disturbed. A little off the sides to compensate for too tight 50mm framelines should be OK. No need to drink the cool aide
Click to expand...

We probably agree then, if you can’t recall exactly what you've shot, it can’t be too important to the final image can it?
🙂
 
Sparrow said:
Ruben, while I agree its desirable if not imperative that a photographer presents his work from a personal moral standpoint like you (I think) I don’t see how a dogmatic approach to cropping would increase his integrity.
........
Click to expand...


Ho no, my friend,
If I left the impression I am a compulsive cropper, well that't not the case. Ceirtainly I am not going to ruin a good image for the sake of cropping, in the same way I am not going to ruin it for the Puritanist sake.

If I souded dogmatic, perhaps it was due to the heat of this good discussion. By definition, a dogma is a mistake, an axioma it step door.

Cheer,
Ruben
 
It's like starting fire with one match.. you can do the same with gas lighter but you get no badge for it 🙂

But seriously.. in my case, maybe two or three shots I've shown to public were cropped. For me it turns out that when I crop, am making up for not knowing what I was doing when taking the shot. Does it look better like this, or like that, or like this.. all translates to my artistic failure and lack of vision firstplace.

When I look at full neg or chrome, I know right away if it's a failure or not. Hits jump out loudly, while the rest look dormant and wrong. Messing with a reject trying to improve it by scissors *to my ways of photography* is counterproductive. Am certain it was different for Newman, but I'm sure no Newman 🙂
 
Sparrow said:
Finder, you imply a quality or value to an un-cropped image by its method of its production if truth is the wrong concept, what exactly is that value?
Click to expand...

For me? The value is being there. To know that I was on the rails and working at the best of my ability. The other value for me is that a perfection or harmony (composition some may say) that can exist at one moment. That is magic. 20/20 hindsight is less impressive.

I also find I am not working at a conceptual level but something deeper or more instinctive. Writing has been brought up from time to time. You can bleed the life out of a first draft by forcing formalist notions on it. I find cropping may help a bad photo, but it does not make it great as you are dealing at a conscious level using concepts.

As far as "truth"? What is the truth in a picture of a flower? Could the picture ever be a lie? I would like to say, here is "truth." But in reality, it is just an image of something at a particular time framed and presented by me and my predudices and assumptions. It may not even be that complex. I may just like it. I find little "truth" in my preferences. At best, all I can say, this is "what I saw."
 
ruben said:
Ho no, my friend,
If I left the impression I am a compulsive cropper, well that't not the case. Ceirtainly I am not going to ruin a good image for the sake of cropping, in the same way I am not going to ruin it for the Puritanist sake.

If I souded dogmatic, perhaps it was due to the heat of this good discussion. By definition, a dogma is a mistake, an axioma it step door.

Cheer,
Ruben
Click to expand...
I didn’t make myself clear Ruben, I was meaning in general not you in particular, sorry poor English 😱
 
Imagine this: you compose and shoot to the best of your abilities.
Then somebody else takes your films, screens and develops and crops
pictures, if necessary. That's what I do, except the 2nd person is me, too.

Best,

Roland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom