Bill Pierce
Well-known
Our last thread on megapixel counts turned, in good part, to a discussion of cropping. At the extremes of opinion were the thought that cropping was a heinous sin or liberating and life changing. A look at the history of cropping may produce a more middle of the road perspective.
Obviously daguerreotypes weren’t cropped. Even when negative-positive processes came about, the paper’s sensitivity was such that contact printing, not enlarging, ruled the day. Although it’s not an exact parallel, anybody who has made platinum prints by exposing the contact frame to bright sunlight will get the idea. If you wanted a big print, you used a big camera. If you wanted a very big print, you used a very big camera. Even when enlargers that could handle up to 8x10 sheet film and enlarging paper came around, there were photographers who preferred to contact print their negatives. Although Weston is known for his 8x10 work, he often shot portraits with a 4x5 camera and presented them as 4x5 inch contact prints. When you have a relatively small print to begin with, in general you don’t crop. It would have to be said that when Walker Evans was shooting for the Farm Security Association, he did crop a few of his 8x10 contact prints with scissors.
However, as technology improved, most photographers moved both to smaller cameras and bigger enlarged prints. You certainly didn’t have to crop, but you could. And in many cases there would be no significant loss in print quality. While many photographers are aware that Ansel Adams moved from 8x10 to 4x5 and produced beautiful work, fewer are aware that in later years he also shot 2 1/4.
And, in the news business, cropping was standard. You used a 4x5 Speed Graphic with a modest wide angle and when you needed to, as in portraiture and a lot of news events, you cropped rather than change lenses. This philosophy extended even to sports where the wire associations with permanent positions at sports arenas had cameras like 5x7 single lens reflex Graflexes with 20 to 40 inch lenses. And those images were highly cropped before they appeared in your newspaper or magazine. (I do remember when I got my first 35mm camera the local AP photographer said, "What are you going to do with that - sneak it into courtrooms?)
And those square twin-lens reflexes that were becoming popular, (They have a square format because it’s a little difficult to turn them 90 degrees and still use the reflex finder.) in their heyday, everybody cropped those images to the popular 8x10 and 11x14 print sizes - choosing a horizontal or vertical crop that best suited the image.
So, where did this “no crop” philosophy come from? In 1913 Oscar Barnack made some prototypes of a small camera using 35mm film. In 1923 Leitz introduced the camera which became a success after being shown at the 1925 Leipzig Spring Fair.
Initially, if you wanted decent image quality with these cameras, you shot slow film and made relatively small uncropped prints. As time passed you shot faster films and made bigger prints, but you kept image quality up by never cropping needlessly. The same philosophy certainly held true with most early digital cameras. And in both cases for some folks these philosophies grew more extreme. They went from a practical concern to an esthetic mandate - do not crop. And yet the history of photography gives its blessings to cropping when possible - if it can, without lowering quality, make shooting simpler or the image esthetically better. A high megapixel count in recent and affordable digital cameras makes that possible.
Your thoughts?
Obviously daguerreotypes weren’t cropped. Even when negative-positive processes came about, the paper’s sensitivity was such that contact printing, not enlarging, ruled the day. Although it’s not an exact parallel, anybody who has made platinum prints by exposing the contact frame to bright sunlight will get the idea. If you wanted a big print, you used a big camera. If you wanted a very big print, you used a very big camera. Even when enlargers that could handle up to 8x10 sheet film and enlarging paper came around, there were photographers who preferred to contact print their negatives. Although Weston is known for his 8x10 work, he often shot portraits with a 4x5 camera and presented them as 4x5 inch contact prints. When you have a relatively small print to begin with, in general you don’t crop. It would have to be said that when Walker Evans was shooting for the Farm Security Association, he did crop a few of his 8x10 contact prints with scissors.
However, as technology improved, most photographers moved both to smaller cameras and bigger enlarged prints. You certainly didn’t have to crop, but you could. And in many cases there would be no significant loss in print quality. While many photographers are aware that Ansel Adams moved from 8x10 to 4x5 and produced beautiful work, fewer are aware that in later years he also shot 2 1/4.
And, in the news business, cropping was standard. You used a 4x5 Speed Graphic with a modest wide angle and when you needed to, as in portraiture and a lot of news events, you cropped rather than change lenses. This philosophy extended even to sports where the wire associations with permanent positions at sports arenas had cameras like 5x7 single lens reflex Graflexes with 20 to 40 inch lenses. And those images were highly cropped before they appeared in your newspaper or magazine. (I do remember when I got my first 35mm camera the local AP photographer said, "What are you going to do with that - sneak it into courtrooms?)
And those square twin-lens reflexes that were becoming popular, (They have a square format because it’s a little difficult to turn them 90 degrees and still use the reflex finder.) in their heyday, everybody cropped those images to the popular 8x10 and 11x14 print sizes - choosing a horizontal or vertical crop that best suited the image.
So, where did this “no crop” philosophy come from? In 1913 Oscar Barnack made some prototypes of a small camera using 35mm film. In 1923 Leitz introduced the camera which became a success after being shown at the 1925 Leipzig Spring Fair.
Initially, if you wanted decent image quality with these cameras, you shot slow film and made relatively small uncropped prints. As time passed you shot faster films and made bigger prints, but you kept image quality up by never cropping needlessly. The same philosophy certainly held true with most early digital cameras. And in both cases for some folks these philosophies grew more extreme. They went from a practical concern to an esthetic mandate - do not crop. And yet the history of photography gives its blessings to cropping when possible - if it can, without lowering quality, make shooting simpler or the image esthetically better. A high megapixel count in recent and affordable digital cameras makes that possible.
Your thoughts?
Dogman
Veteran
Cropping is okay. Full frame is okay. Personally, I think the final photo is the print and however you get there is okay. The late Richard Benson used to say how the picture looks is the important thing. He knew more about printed pictures than the whole lot of us. Personally, I crop if it makes the picture look better. Otherwise I leave it alone.
There's not much else to photography but framing and content. For me, I really love composing with the viewfinder and getting it right. That is satisfying. Rarely can I fix a bad composition with a crop... if it doesn't balance properly, generally a crop won't fix it. I guess it depends on how simple or how complex the image is. However, there are times where I know I'm composing for a crop for whatever reason... so, basically for me, cropping to fix bad compositions isn't a great rule of thumb. Cropping for other reasons, as stated by Bill, has been done forever.
RichL
Well-known
I agree with Dogman. When i was still useing a 120 tlr I marked the groundglass for 8x10 and composed to that with a bit of fudge factor. Now I primarily use a minox III and cropping is minimal.
hap
Well-known
It really happened. approximately 18 years ago the famed LF photographer Michael Smith (RIP) came to my little doctors's office having traveled to California from I think Pennsylvania. He brought his wife Chamlee, also a noted photographer. He had seen me lurking on LF forums for years and wanted to sell me prints and/or one of his books. During his visit he asked me if I had my own prints and could he look at my stuff. I said, "sure". he looked at one of my panoramics that I had taken with a noblex 35 of the first game of 2002 world series Angels v SF Giants. Stands full, lights on but not dark. I placed the camera on a concrete block and guessed the exposure. he went over the entire image but was looking at the edges closely and saw a small part of a curved steel support underneath the stands and pointed to it saying "did you frame that on purpose"? Right at the edge of a pano. It was not cropped but I did not lie...either.
Just validates some of the above that I learned that day. He expected the full frame in all it's glory including the edges to be purposeful. He was a full frame maximalist.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I generally try to utilize the full 35mm frame unless I intend to print (or project) at a wider aspect ratio. I rarely use the full square format of my Hasselblad, either printing to an 8 x 10 format, or, once again, intending a more "panoramic" (wide aspect ratio) result, usually for projection.
kangaroo2012
Established
I was brought up on Kodachrome 25 and Tri X and rarely cropped.
Now with digital I find I am making panos from 24x36 by cropping.
This in spite of having an X pan and all the pano stuff built in to digital cameras.
Just getting old I guess.
Philip
Now with digital I find I am making panos from 24x36 by cropping.
This in spite of having an X pan and all the pano stuff built in to digital cameras.
Just getting old I guess.
Philip
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
We all do what we need to do to make an image work, and I'd be the last to lay down the law about cropping. For myself, when I shoot square it's because I want a square, not with the intent to crop to a different aspect ratio. And regardless of the format, I like the rigor and discipline of composing out to the edges, with no cropping intended or planned. That being said, rangefinders, and particularly the M6, are notorious for inaccurate frame lines. When, because of that inaccuracy, something very distracting creeps in just inside the edges of the frame, I'll crop it. HCB be damned!
CMur12
Veteran
I started shooting slides, early on, because I didn't have access to a darkroom and it was the only way for me to be able to control the final product.
As such, I have always composed full frame, in both 135 and 120. I have no problem with cropping, however, in concept.
I really like square composition, so I have always composed shots from my TLRs in the square. I thought it would be fun to have the full-frame shot, then see how many additional images I could find worth cropping out of the original frame. If I ever get my digital up and running, I could actually do that then.
- Murray
As such, I have always composed full frame, in both 135 and 120. I have no problem with cropping, however, in concept.
I really like square composition, so I have always composed shots from my TLRs in the square. I thought it would be fun to have the full-frame shot, then see how many additional images I could find worth cropping out of the original frame. If I ever get my digital up and running, I could actually do that then.
- Murray
lynnb
Veteran
Agree with you Bill. It's all about the picture. Sometimes you see a picture that will work in a different aspect ratio to the film or sensor you're using; or you have to grab a shot with whatever lens is on your camera and crop afterwards - or miss the picture. Who cares. It's the picture that matters.
olakiril
Well-known
I routinely crop my digital files for the following reasons:
1. My camera has a 2:3 aspect ratio sensor but many times I want to shoot 4:5, 1:1 or even 2.7:1. Sometimes there is an even weirder aspect ratio that works best.
2. I don't like the size/weight of zoom lenses or carrying a bunch of primes with me. So I prefer using a sharp 28/35/50 and cropping in if I need to. Sometimes a sharp prime & cropping can give equal or even better results than an average zoom.
3. I am out of range with my set of lenses. Don't have anything more than 135mm so when I need more zoom, I crop.
4. Sometimes I see an even better composition within an already captured image in post.
I don't feel any of the aforementioned reasons make me a bad photographer, as it doesn't reduce the amount of thinking I have to do before I take the picture (if anything it makes it even harder). If people don't like cropping in post, its certainly their cup of tea.
1. My camera has a 2:3 aspect ratio sensor but many times I want to shoot 4:5, 1:1 or even 2.7:1. Sometimes there is an even weirder aspect ratio that works best.
2. I don't like the size/weight of zoom lenses or carrying a bunch of primes with me. So I prefer using a sharp 28/35/50 and cropping in if I need to. Sometimes a sharp prime & cropping can give equal or even better results than an average zoom.
3. I am out of range with my set of lenses. Don't have anything more than 135mm so when I need more zoom, I crop.
4. Sometimes I see an even better composition within an already captured image in post.
I don't feel any of the aforementioned reasons make me a bad photographer, as it doesn't reduce the amount of thinking I have to do before I take the picture (if anything it makes it even harder). If people don't like cropping in post, its certainly their cup of tea.
robert blu
quiet photographer
For decades I shot slides...
But at the end what is important is the final image and if croppping helps why not?
But at the end what is important is the final image and if croppping helps why not?