Cropping of photos?

Hertz van Rental · May 24, 2005

I always try to frame it in the camera - but I'm a purist. Minimum darkroom intervention is my motto so I do not crop. But it doesn't mean I think no-one should. You do what works for you - if we all worked in the same way it would be boring.
Besides, on 35mm at least, the viewfinder usually only shows you 90-95% of what you will get on the neg so some cropping is inevitable.
I prefer to call it 're-framing' - I don't feel guilty then.

ksmattfish · May 24, 2005

I try to crop in the camera as much as possible, but if a darkroom crop will improve the image, then I'm all for it. When shooting 35mm, I definately am trying to use the maximum amount of film, but for medium and large format I've found it advantageous to leave just a little space around the edges. I do get a sense of satifaction when I can print something full frame, but if a pic needs to be cropped, then it needs to be cropped, and I think it would be silly to disregard the photo just because it wasn't composed perfectly in-camera.

I can't remember his name, but I read an interview with a top printer in NY. He made the comment that too many photographers are stuck on cropping in the camera only, and he felt it was to the detriment of their work.

EDIT: Reading more of the posts here, I can see why it would seem important to a slide shooter, or photog that needs to rely on the lab for printing to crop in camera as much as possible. Taped up slides don't look as cool.

As a darkroom guy who does most of my own printing, I don't consider the creation of the image finished until I end up with a final print.

danalec99 · May 24, 2005

I'm not against it, but I personally prefer to crop in the camera. I am sometimes forced to crop in PS due to crooked horizons.

KevinR · May 24, 2005

After going through the posts again, I guess I need to change the focus a little.

What about mindset?

Those that posted I don't believe have the mindset that "I can always fix this in photoshop". The general consensus is that I try to make the best possible image first, but if by tweeking it later, I can get a better image, then great. I believe then you are using tools to your advantage.

But, what about "I can just take that out later, or I'll fix it later"?

Does this bug anybody?

Not sitting on a high horse, just hoping to spark conversation and maybe make people think about their approach to photography.

Chase · May 24, 2005

Yeah, that reminds me of the television/motion picture mindset that we used to joke about in my old job..."Don't worry, we'll fix that in post [production]". That mindset does bother me, but I can't completely explain why. I guess I just prefer to see someone at least TRY to get it right when they press the shutter release.

LaFoto · May 24, 2005

Coming from film and coming to this forum as some sort of "purist", I came here with the same "mindset" as yours, Kevin: a good composition is one that has been composed in the "inner eye" of the photographer and hence in his viewfinder. When you have to rely on given frames (slides, prints on normed paper from the lab), you're usually better off having a photo that is at least "ok", if not yet good, from the start.

I know through my father and sister, though, that sometimes they used to have photos that they wanted to crop. So they ordered the print one size larger and cropped.

My sister has become VERY free about literal cropping, i.e. she works lots with the scissors. No funny shapes, but she has said good-bye to standardized paper sizes for the creation of her photo albums. I must say that now her albums look more interesting than they used to when all her photos were standard sizes.

So there also are those who deliberately crop PRINTS. For a reason, mind. And I am just convinced my sister does not take a photo with the firm idea "This will be cropped". She only decides on whether it is better cropped (for the album!) later.

With digital photography, such things have become so much easier.
And I find out that with digital photography AND the many ideas that I get on here (TPF), I have done some "creative cropping", too. Like give a normal standard size photo a panoramic shape, for example. I consider that "playing" or "experimenting", and as far as I know these two have always also meant "learning".

But I still don't go about and snap away, thinking that Photoshop (or whatever other post processing software people might have) will correct or cure or fix everything! I still think that in general you should know what you are doing when you go out to take a photo.

KevinR · May 24, 2005

But I still don't go about and snap away, thinking that Photoshop (or whatever other post processing software people might have) will correct or cure or fix everything! I still think that in general you should know what you are doing when you go out to take a photo.

But is that idea being lost somewhat because of technology, or is learning curves becoming shorter?
mmmmmm.

craig · May 24, 2005

I think my ultimate goal is to spend as little time in pshop as possible. That goes for color correction as well.

deb · May 24, 2005

Sounds like what you are really opposed to is sloppy work.

I, like you, subscribe to the idea of get it right in the camera. If the image isn't sharp, isn't properly exposed or isn't properly composed, it's a throw away.

I enjoy practising the manipulations available in photoshop, but I don't rely on them.

Just because I have a hammer and a welder doesn't mean that I should use them every time I open and close a jar of pickles. The tools are useful, however, should I ever need to drive a nail or weld some angle iron together.

JonMikal · May 24, 2005

i generally see the shot before i press the shutter and if lens allows, i'm good. however, lately, i'm finding some of my images have a .5 - 1 degree tilt that i need to correct which requires a crop after. as we know, cropping is a method used many ways; PS, darkroom, matting, etc. i wouldn't hesitate using any of these methods if needed, as many photographers long before me have.

ksmattfish · May 24, 2005

KevinR said:
What about mindset?

...what about "I can just take that out later, or I'll fix it later"?

Does this bug anybody?

I think many photographer perceive the photo to begin and end in the camera. My mindset is that the photograph starts in my mind, and ends up as a print. The camera is just one of many tools I need to get from my mind to a print. I don't believe what goes on in the camera is more or less important than what goes on at any other step in the process.

With BW film photography I'm regularly in lighting situations that are low or high contrast. Sometimes I bring in reflectors or flashes to control the lighting, sometimes I wait until the lighting changes by itself, but many times I shoot with the idea that "I'll fix it later" in the development process by changing my development times. Or even when I go to print by using multigrade filters and multigrade paper.

I also like formats other than the typical 2:3 and 4:5 aspect ratio rectangles. If I see a scene that begs for square composition, but only have a rectangular format camera with me, I shoot it knowing I'm going to crop it into a square later. And of course the opposite, going from square to rectangle, happens all the time.

I also like making panos (like a 1:2 or 2:5 ratio) from 6x6cm, 6x7cm, and 4x5. I used to have a darkslide I modified that allowed me to shoot 2 2.5"x4" frames on a single sheet of 4"x5" film. Later I decided that: 1) it was sort of a pain in the butt, 2) film is cheap, and I ought to be using the best part of my lens (the center), and 3) if I shoot it full frame I have the option of all sorts of image shapes in the future. Some of my best panos weren't initially conceived in the pano format, they were shot full frame, but seemed stronger as a pano when viewed later.

I think it is a good idea to have personal rules and goals, although they don't have to be set in concrete. I believe it's fairly useless to try and impose them on others.

I think most folks would consider my BW pretty straight; I mess with contrast, burn, dodge, crop, and tone, but that's about it. What you saw at the time the photo was taken is pretty close to what the print looks like. I've had a DSLR for a week, and I can already tell that my color work is going to tend to be highly tweaked and edited. I prefer dealing with color in a more pictorial manner. To me I don't think of it as correcting things later, but just an extension of the creative process.

pictorialism http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/pictoria.htm

terri · May 24, 2005

Interesting notes on pictorialism. :thumbup: That caught my eye because the bromoil process, which I am doing quite a bit of lately, has apparently been long associated with pictorialism. The article mentions the gum bichromate process, as well - but I suppose there are many alternative photographic processes that seem to fit. It's amusing to me that Matt will be using his high-tech new digicam to achieve his view of the term. I'll be looking forward to seeing those "highly tweaked and edited" color images from him.

Hertz van Rental · May 25, 2005

Different kind of pictorialism, Terri. Bromoil and Bichromate were used by people like Alvin Langdon Coburn, Clarence White and Anne Brigman - they used the processes to get a 'painterly' effect along the lines of the impressionists. There was a similar group in England.
The Frenchman, Robert Demachy, was the king of them all. He was interested in printing techniques and his photos are incredible.
http://www.leegallery.com/demachy.html

ksmattfish · May 25, 2005

terri said:
It's amusing to me that Matt will be using his high-tech new digicam to achieve his view of the term.

Using an early (circa 1990s) digital camera for digital illustration was how I got into photography in the first place, so it's sort of coming full circle.