Pixel Problem

[Bill Pierce]

When I first started taking news pictures, the camera of choice was a 4x5 Speed Graphic. It has one primary lens, usually a moderate wide angle. But the 4x5 inch format provided a crop friendly negative that could provide the angle of view of necessary for a portrait. You didn’t change lenses, you cropped the image. (Of course, if you were lucky your employer had a long lens for sports, maybe even a 4x5 SLR, the Graflex D.)

Over time journalists moved to smaller formats until 35mm became the most used film format. You could crop for the relatively small and relatively low resolution images for publications, but when it came to exhibitions with fairly large print sizes, photographers tended to avoid cropping if at all possible.

Sound familiarly like the early days of not so many megapixels digital? For many of us it meant maintaining our “cropping is evil and the devil’s work” attitude. But now we have many megapixels. Leica has spoken from on high and told us that we can crop the 28mm frame of the 47.3 megapixel Q2 as though it were a 50mm lens or even a 75mm lens. And these days there are many other cameras with a somewhat similar megapixel count.

So, the question is - ARE YOU CROPPING? If that sounds like a silly and somewhat stupid question, it is. But after years of 35mm film, I seem to be in some kind of deep rooted anti-cropping mode instead of the earlier Speed Graphic crop like mad mode. I’m paying for the pixels, but I’m not taking advantage of them. I wondered what you are doing.

 

[ptpdprinter]

No. I learned to frame the image in the viewfinder shooting slides.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Yes, I’ll crop when I feel it will enhance the total image.

I shoot a lot of street photography and the opportune moments are fast and fleeting. There’s not a lot of time to frame the subject in the viewfinder and nail the focus. When I get home after a day of photography I go through my images and edit as I deem necessary. That usually entails straightening the image a degree or two, and a little cropping to eliminate an undesirable object or to better place the main subject in the frame.

In a perfect world I wouldn’t need to crop. Fortunately I don’t live in a perfect world.

All the best,
Mike

 

[shimokita]

I seem to be in some kind of deep rooted anti-cropping mode

I seem to be stuck in a "make it beautiful" mode where cropping, cloning, horizon, h/v perspective all come into play... plus I like cinema mode rather than 800:533

I’m paying for the pixels, but I’m not taking advantage of them

Now days most of my photos end up in forums and/or social media... paid work is long past. On occasion the tripod comes out and that's a different story.

 

[Ronald M]

I learned in late 50`s and early 60`s and as a student,
35 mm was all I could afford, Waltz Envoy with 50 2.0 Nippon Koagu (nikor) lens. Tried lens converters but they were junk. There was nothing to crop except a millimeter or two.
Graduated to Pentax Spotmatic , still 35 mm.
Tried a Mamiya tlr, 330 and 5 lenses. Not happy with images. Kept the Spoto.
Tried a RB67. Better lenses, but way too much to drag around. Kept Spoto.
Got a Leica, finally a winner. Sold the spotos. Still not much to crop.
Zone 6 4x5 and 6 lenses. Old lenses were junk. Moderns make sweet images. Still have it, but 6 lenses do not require cropping. View cam+ LF lenses + film holders + meters are a heavy load.
Still have the leicas + digital Leica M. These can be cropped, but why? Lenses are small and use what is in your pocket.
So no I don`t crop. Get it right in the camera by habit.
My Nikon DSLR + zooms are a decent crutch, but I prefer primes.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Somehow my uncropped photos get published in local media.
I like to work my prime and get it framed on exposure. It is more easier to frame with prime by walking instead of zooming to me. Every time I could, I switch from zoom to prime.

The 4x5 era news paper photos looks terrible.
Not terrible, but any 28 to 50 crop sucks.
Pixels doesn't count, it is cropped out draw of the lens.

 

[farlymac]

I select a crop that will best frame the image. Sometimes that's none at all, other times it's to fill a 16x9, 8x10, 5x7, or 5x5 frame.


4x6 is almost no crop at all, but there is always that little slice on the end that doesn't make the cut.


PF

 

[Michael Markey]

Always try and get it right in the camera but like Mike says ,its not a perfect world and I`m not perfect either.
The only time I shoot knowing I`m going to crop is if I can`t physically get close enough either because of obstacles or for safety reasons.

So the majority of the time I probably don`t crop but it`s not an issue , I just do what I have to do.

 

[Rob-F]

No. I learned to frame the image in the viewfinder shooting slides.

Same here. I still shoot some slides, so framing exactly is a strong habit. I rarely crop my black and white negatives by much, just to eliminate unnecessary foreground. With digital, I often crop to 16:9 whenever there is unnecessary foreground and sky.

 

[pluton]

In theory, when 24x36 DSLR/MILCs achieve the number of pixels plus good lenses to roughly compete with fine grain 4x5 film, cropping can be done as freely as with the old Speed Graphic w/135/4.5 standard lens. I crop my Nikon 24x36 and Fuji APS-C cams to get alternative aspect ratios, but somehow the idea of simply zooming in in Lightroom in order to get "an 85mm shot" out of a frame I originally shot with a 35mm lens is abhorrent.

 

[Michael Markey]

…. but somehow the idea of simply zooming in in Lightroom in order to get "an 85mm shot" out of a frame I originally shot with a 35mm lens is abhorrent.

Is there a technical /aesthetic reason ?
Interested because I`ve never come across this in over fifty years of shooting.
I always thought it common practise in the newspaper industry

 

[Dogman]

The concept of cropping being a mortal sin must be the silliest photographic concept ever fostered on young photographers. Bill's original post shows how beneficial cropping can be. So, yes, I crop when necessary. And "necessary" to me means improving the way the picture looks. Because the way the picture looks is more important than following some silly rule.

 

[jsrockit]

The concept of cropping being a mortal sin must be the silliest photographic concept ever fostered on young photographers. Bill's original post shows how beneficial cropping can be. So, yes, I crop when necessary. And "necessary" to me means improving the way the picture looks. Because the way the picture looks is more important than following some silly rule.

I’m not so sure it is silly. The major thing we do in photography is put a frame around something in a compelling way. It is best to do this in your viewfinder. There’s a difference between cropping in the way that Bill is talking about vs. trying to save a poorly framed image. When he was using that 4x5 I’m sure he was thinking about the crop while shooting.

I crop sometimes... but I’m thinking about that crop while shooting. IMO, A badly framed image is rarely saved by cropping.

 

[shimokita]

The concept of cropping being a mortal sin must be the silliest photographic concept ever fostered on young photographers [...] the way the picture looks is more important than following some silly rule.

I could not agree more... I was once told that to crop was sacrilegious but if it was absolutely necessary it must be done in the same ratio as the original image... I never heard a bigger crock...

 

[Solinar]

But after years of 35mm film, I seem to be in some kind of deep rooted anti-cropping mode instead of the earlier Speed Graphic crop like mad mode. I’m paying for the pixels, but I’m not taking advantage of them. I wondered what you are doing.

It may be irrational - but even with 6x9 medium format film - I still try print or display, at least 90% of the narrowest dimension of the frame.

 

[olifaunt]

I am the opposite. My local photo lab crops the edges of my scans (the mask on her scanner cuts not only left and right but also top and bottom; she caters to people whose idea of composition is putting a subject in the middle and that's all she seems to understand). This drives me insane. Almost always this ruins edge elements in the composition and then I need to rescan at home if I want to publish something.

 

[Mcary]

For the most part I try to use the entire frame when composing and shooting and that's what I generally end up presenting/printing. Now I do make exceptions when I feel a slight bit of cropping or a change in aspect ration will result in a better final image/print.

 

[Dogman]

There's no really right or wrong way to do it. It's photography, it's not splitting atoms.

I like the video I saw years ago where Eddie Adams explained how to take good pictures. He said you buy the Eastman Kodak book on how to take good pictures, read it cover to cover and memorize the rules and then finally throw the effing book away, forget the rule and go out and take good pictures.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I treat 35mm digital like I treat 35mm film. I try my best to crop in camera, but in some cases I modify the crop in post, but mildly.

I remember when I tried to get comfortable shooting medium format 6x6. All the literature said you didn't have to turn the camera to shoot portrait or landscape mode, you could just make an image and crop it in post. That concept never worked for me, just not the way I see images.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Mcary]

There's no really right or wrong way to do it. It's photography, it's not splitting atoms.

I like the video I saw years ago where Eddie Adams explained how to take good pictures. He said you buy the Eastman Kodak book on how to take good pictures, read it cover to cover and memorize the rules and then finally throw the effing book away, forget the rule and go out and take good pictures.

I think rules are good to follow when starting out but as one gains experience they should be considered more as guidelines and finally as suggestions.