To crop or not to crop

Here's another question to ponder: For those who strongly believe their shots should never be cropped, how do you deal with RF frameline accuracy issues? In other words, you saw the shot in your head a certain way but what you actually got on the negative had just a wee bit extra that introduced a distracting object.

Would you crop that tiny little extra bit off? Or cut your losses?
 
My avatar is a full frame shot and I painted it with the film edge showing. I like it.

I wonder how cropping is any different from other creative choices/manipulations made after the image is on film, in the printing process such as dodging/burning, and selection of contrast grade and paper surface.

My point about digital is that one has to make even more technical and creative decisions regarding the final output beyond default settings, of the image after the image has been captured.
 
I guess I'm saying that I try to produce an image, with the least amount of manipulation as possible, that matches/approaches my visualization ideal, but I would not rule out manipulation, including cropping, to do so.
 
Well, it's time to show my colors.

Frank, I agree 100% with you. I don't see how cropping an image is any different from the other processes you mention. Whether it's by viewfinder, easel or computer, it's all the same IMHO. You are merely controlling how much of a scene the viewer is allowed to see.

Although I much prefer to try and compose the image in the viewfinder the way I'd like to see the final print (or scan), I'll happily crop if it strengthens the image.

The impression I get from some of the photographers that shoot exclusively full frame is that they think cropping is somehow "cheating" or "being lazy". And I suppose this could be true of some people. But I'd like to think that most seriously minded photographers take care to compose their shots carefully, when possible.

I know it's pretty common in photo courses to not allow cropping on the assignments. And, from a teaching perspective, that's perfectly valid. After all, you are trying to teach careful composition and visualization of the final print. But to somehow extrapolate this to all image making seems to be a logical fallacy, in my view.

One of the other things I've seen (and I'd be lying if I didn't admit to falling victim myself on ocassion) is an image that could really benefit from a crop - typically because of a distracting object near the edge of the frame, where the photographer insists on not cropping it. Personal preference, of course, but I can't help thinking that by being so mired in the "full frame mystique" the photographer has somehow managed to convince him or herself that the distracting object actually makes the shot better.
 
Last edited:
I only crop shots from the digital, mostly resulting from horizon aligning. the film shots remain as close to the original as possible, I don't usually find need to crop those. maybe it's because when I edit the RAW files from the digital all the tools are there, so it gets more prone to image editing. film scans I just use healing brush when needed and adjust levels.
 
Leigh Youdale said:
Well, that was two hours of uninformative nonsense!
Click to expand...

Yes

-----------

The paper size, frame size and intended use of the final print will all demand some selective alteration of the original image. I cannot concieve of a final print that has not been "cropped" (hate that word) however slightly. Of course I may be strange in that I dont believe a photograph exists until it is printed !

ron
 
I crop my images to the correct aspect ration when i scanned them. It gives room to leave a littlebit out of the picture and change the composition a little. I never rotate my photo's because most of the time the horizon is already aligned (When i shoot i always align to something). I don't like rotating because it will crop a LOT out of the photo.

So: I almost always crop, but less cropping is always better, why throw those pixels away?
 
I have no problem cropping.

I do find it odd if a lot of photos displayed are uncropped and then suddenly you can see a cropped one, but otherwise its usually fine.

What annoys me are Hasselblad (or any 6x6) shooters who display every single photo in the native square format. When a photograph suits the square it really works. The problem is that a very low percentage of photographs really suit the square over a cropped ratio and 6x6 shooters seem afraid to crop. So you end up with large portions of unnecessary and sometimes distracting content.

Large format contact prints are an exception of course. It would be odd to see a collection of crops which are in effect all different print sizes....or would it?
 
Almost every photo taken is already a rectangular crop of the image circle projected by the lens, so what is the difference whether it is your camera cropping to 6 x 6 or 3:2 --pick an image ratio here--or you do so at some other point before the print is made?
Rob
 
I'd like it if my shots were perfect straight-out, but this is difficult even in the best of circumstances. I think that there is a good case to be made that avoiding the tool of framing is tantamount to restricting oneself to in-store printing and developing.

Then again, if your MO is wallgreens prints of uncropped pinhole polaroids, who am I to argue. I'm cool with that, too, and can respect the process as the art.
 
typhillips said:
For example, how do people that fall more closely in the "only shoot full frame' category feel about taking a shot with a 35mm camera that the photographer fully intends to crop to square format later, merely because the image itself calls for that aspect ratio and the only tool on hand doesn't make square images "in camera"?
Click to expand...

If I want to shot a square image, I would have a 6x6 camera in my hands. If I have a 35mm camera in my hands, I want to shoot 3:2. You use what you have. It really is simple.

I don't believe a subject defines a format, rather you use the format to the define the subject.
 
typhillips said:
Here's another question to ponder: For those who strongly believe their shots should never be cropped, how do you deal with RF frameline accuracy issues? In other words, you saw the shot in your head a certain way but what you actually got on the negative had just a wee bit extra that introduced a distracting object.

Would you crop that tiny little extra bit off? Or cut your losses?
Click to expand...

You anticipate the inaccuracy. It does not take much to learn how to do this--it comes down to practice. You can also shoot full-frame with an SLR if you would like.

And if you blow it, you blow it. You then learn and are more careful in the future.
 
typhillips said:
but I can't help thinking that by being so mired in the "full frame mystique" the photographer has somehow managed to convince him or herself that the distracting object actually makes the shot better.
Click to expand...

Now you are projecting onto others. I do not show a bad image by trying to justify bad elements. I simply reject the image.
 
I like to print uncropped because of the pleasant black "frame" around the image when I use a slightly filed out negative carrier.
 
If you decide never to crop, you are supposed to have a camera with a viewfinder that shows exactly 100% of what will be on film.

Otherwise, you let the maker of the finder decide what will be in your final picture and what will be left out.
Since we talk about cropping, that decision will be made about the very subject of this discussion, and it is not yours then ...

I'm not sure there are many camera's that fullfill this requirment (not even SLR's), and afaik no rangefinders, right ?

Generally, I crop depending on the subject, and I don't care about what the "traditional" formats are; e.g. I might make a very long, vertical print from a tower, or just the opposite, if I feel it's fitting.
In this respect, the only thing I'll take into consideration is if I like it. If others also like the result, so much the better.



Stefan.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom