Some of the most iconic photographs of the century are actually cropped versions

[Vics]

Not true. Read the article in post #1 and find this:

and I don't remember the widely-published 'original' image being fogged from a slow shutter curtain to the left side at all

Not fogged. He was shooting through a slit in a fence, and one of the boards got in the way.

 

[photomoof]

Not random, and not much variation: 10% at the outside, usually 5% or less (often zero). Odd that such tiny variations would matter more to you than content and composition. I don't think I'd even notice.

Cheers,

R.

10% would be 2.4 inches on most of the work I have shown, very distracting, personally if the work is a series (which all of my work is).

Of course others don't give it a thought. I saw the Joaquín Torres-García retrospective yesterday, he seemed to paint in almost endless variations of size, of course they were not cropped in the photo sense (or even visual sense since they were abstracts) but never gave it a second thought.

Still for myself, I may not photograph to the edge of the frame, but the frame size is always a decision, or in the case of slides or Video a frame I work with.

 

[uhoh7]

Surely, the ones who get "touchy" are the anti-crop brigade. The rest of us are quite flexible about it and can't see what the anti-croppers are on about, apart from some quasi-religious obsession.

It's always "them" who are the touchy ones. 😉

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

The act of photographing anything and putting a photograph frame around a select part of reality is already cropping. Refining that crop with a slightly tighter crop while printing is no big deal, IMO.

Yeah, I'm of the school that regards framing as a form of cropping. Every photo is a crop of reality. I suppose there's some special cachet to be had for having been able to "crop" correctly on the fly as you frame the shot, but it's pathetically meager IMHO, and more preoccupied with the photographer's opinion of him/herself than with the people who are going to be looking at the photo for the next umpteen years.

An alternate way of looking at it is, cropping is a skill too, sometimes a more challenging one that framing in the first place. A good crop requires a good eye.

 

[Hsg]

... And there are always zoom lenses for even better flexibility in real-time cropping. I only use zoom lenses these days.

I shot this image with a DSLR and a 55-200mm zoom lens.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Or, to go totally over the top, all photography is fiction. We're always telling a story, and we're often making it up. I think I've argued this before, but I like to cite Arbus's contact sheet for the photo of the kid with the toy grenade; in only one of the photos does the kid look weird, and that's the one she chose, because that's the good story.

 

[FrankS]

It's always "them" who are the touchy ones. 😉

This is usually the case: There can be no peace until they bow down and accept our superior God!

In this case however, only those anti-crop, are making it an issue. The rest US, are like, chill.

😉

 

[photomoof]

Yeah, I'm of the school that regards framing as a form of cropping. Every photo is a crop of reality.

One could look at it that way, it is the old cliche of a director's framing.

But in a purely literal sense, framing and cropping are not the same concept, certainly not strictly definition-wise. 🙂

Attached A. Hitchcock framing.

 

[FrankS]

One could look at it that way, it is the old cliche of a director's framing.

But in a purely literal sense, framing and cropping are not the same concept, certainly not strictly definition-wise. 🙂

Attached A. Hitchcock framing.

Why limit yourself to the purely literal? That's such a small, boring world.

Framing and cropping embody the same concept of exclusion.

 

[photomoof]

This is usually the case: There can be no peace until they bow down and accept our superior God!

In this case however, only those anti-crop, are making it an issue. The rest US, are like, chill.

😉

Sure about that? Seems just the opposite to me. Looks like many are saying it is ridiculous not to crop, that personal decisions are a fetish.

I don't crop (I would not say never), but could care less if you punch holes in your photos.

 

[FrankS]

Yeah, pretty sure.

I could not care less what others do as long as it doesn't affect me. At least some against cropping seem to want to make it a rule for all.

 

[photomoof]

Yeah, pretty sure.

I could not care less what others do as long as it doesn't affect me. At least some against cropping seem to want to make it a rule for all.

Really, a rule for all, who said that? Seems crazy.

How would "they" enforce the rule? Refuse to look? 🙂

Even those Kodak slides I refer to can be masked, although when I have exhibited them, I just put them in the carousels.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

One could look at it that way, it is the old cliche of a director's framing.

But in a purely literal sense, framing and cropping are not the same concept, certainly not strictly definition-wise. 🙂

Why limit yourself to the purely literal? That's such a small, boring world.

Framing and cropping embody the same concept of exclusion.

Awww, he knew what I meant ;-)

 

[FrankS]

Of course he did. 🙂

 

[oftheherd]

Over the years here the cropping discussion has cropped (ha ha) up quite regularly. 😛

Also, quite a few crapping discussions now that I think of it. 😀

 

[photomoof]

Why limit yourself to the purely literal? That's such a small, boring world.

Framing and cropping embody the same concept of exclusion.

Think more positively, think inclusion, what you choose to include, not exclude.

What you wish to show to others.

My question about cropping in general is why don't you want "that?" Why are things better without "that?"

Perhaps I remain a follower of Malevich, when it comes to the edges. There was a great show "The cosmos and the canvas" in 2014 at the Tate.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I certainly agree that it's possible to suck the life out of an image by trying to perfect it...

 

[FrankS]

Think more positively, think inclusion, what you choose to include, not exclude. What you wish to show to others.

Sure, that's just another way of stating it. I will stick with my phrasing however, because most photography (especially beginner photography) is improved by more exclusion than more inclusion. Some famous photographer even said: if your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough.

My question about cropping in general is why don't you want "that?" Why are things better without "that?" Perhaps I remain a follower of Malevich, when it comes to the edges.

If a visual element does not add to an image, it is a distraction and detracts from it. making such choices contributes to the style of an image, and if the choices are somewhat consistent, to the style of the photographer.

 

[photomoof]

because most photography (especially beginner photography) is improved by more exclusion than more inclusion. Some famous photographer even said: if your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough.

That quote was attributed to Robert Capa. Still, he put his most iconic portraits in a context.

https://newhousempd300.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/2013-10-25-par132190.jpg

 

[FrankS]

I'm not arguing against relevant context.