Cropping of photos?

[KevinR]

What's your thought?

The photography instructor I had was totally against it. And I'm not talking the 35mm to 8X10 crop. I am talking serious rearrangement of photos. I actually am not sure how I feel. Everytime I see a critique photo and there is a suggestion to crop, I kind of cringe a little. It has just been drummed into me to do the cropping in the camera.

Was wondering if there is opinions on this? And is this crossing over to an ethics question ever so slightly?

[pursuer]

I personally don't see any problem with cropping after the fact. While you should know exactly what you are after before you shoot and compose the shot accordingly in the viewfinder if you see a way to improve the image later by cropping then why not crop? A better image is a better image. On the other hand I can see how cropping could be used as a crutch. When I fist started taking photographs most of the time I decided on the composition after the fact while cropping, now that I compose the shot in the viewfinder most of my crops are minor tweaks but once in a while I see something completely different then what I originally intended. The bottom line for me is if I feel can improve my photo by cropping it I will.

[Andrea K]

i personally have nothing against this and i do it quite often with my own pictures. i see it as removing an unnecessary paragraph from a book, it's still the same book just refined.

[Nikon Fan]

I have no beefs against it...of course I think I've thrown out my mental ethics of photography handbook since coming here :) I see it as a way to improve and to learn. To me as long as I realize while I'm cropping that "hey I really should have composed this differently" then it doesn't matter to me.

[errant_star]

I agree with Amanda insofar as looking at it as a learning experience. Finding what works better in a situation, even after the fact, can't help but influence your composition the next time around. Hopefully this will eventually, with time, eradicate the need for cropping but I definately look at it as a learning process.

Just my opinion anyways

[KevinR]

I kind of figured I would be in the minority on this, but was curious to other peoples views.

Thanks for responding.

[Andrea K]

I kind of figured I would be in the minority on this, but was curious to other peoples views.

Thanks for responding..

if you dont mind me asking, why are you opposed to cropping?

[Chase]

I see where you are coming from, although I don't think the suggestions to crop around here are always what you may see them to be. There is no way I would suggest to someone that they take a wide shot with the intention of going back to crop it. Instead we're looking for ways to improve the photos that have already been shot. The natural outcome will most likely be the photographer paying more attention to composition the next time around or picking up some key points to keep in mind.

Going back to the shots that have already been taken, if you can take a bland shot and make it something good by cropping, I see no problem with it. I agree that the ideal situation is to have composed it more to your liking when you took it, but why toss it aside if a crop can help? :)

[thebeginning]

i've had trouble with this as well...sometimes i've wondered, if you dont have a large enough lens, you almost have to crop to get the desired image, wouldnt you?

[Nikon Fan]

i've had trouble with this as well...sometimes i've wondered, if you dont have a large enough lens, you almost have to crop to get the desired image, wouldnt you?

Not technically...just move in closer if space allows that is.

My high school teacher always used to say to use your body as the zoom...makes since to me and I've done it ever since :)

[terri]

I agree that the ideal situation is to have composed it more to your liking when you took it, but why toss it aside if a crop can help? No reason at all. If it improves the end result, sure, crop. Kevin sounds like he had an instructor similar to mine, though - I also had it drilled into me when learning composition - try to get it right in camera. "Stop. Think. Look at all corners of your viewfinder and visualize your final print."

I had a different instructor for darkroom, and even though he had a more liberal view towards cropping, he too had been trained in this fashion. But he also wanted us to know how to crop, as an added darkroom tool. ;) Yet, he was always more impressed with a full bleed image, he definitely had a preference.

I also have a 35mm negative carrier that throws a beautiful shadow that really sets off the image when I print full bleed, too. I'm partial to that look, and think it adds another dimension to my print. Personal perference.

I think whatever you're comfortable with, whatever works for you, is fine. Cropping isn't hard, and sometimes even when you think you have what you want in camera, you might see it differently later.

It's going to vary image by image. In addition to being taught that getting it right in camera forces your mind to previsualize the outcome, I'm also lazy and don't want to fool with cropping - but there are times when I know I must, to the betterment of the final image. :)

[KevinR]

I don't know if it's that big a problem. I guess part of me feels that to perfect my craft(i know, sounds very high handed, but I'm my own worst critic) I need to get to a point that I am getting it right in the first place. Please remember, this is my ideal. So to go back trying to rearrange the photo is just something I try not to do.

Maybe I need to be shooting 8X10 LF and just contact printing everything. :D

Like I said, I was just interested in other people's views.

This sort of thinking would progress into digital and photoshop if I let it I guess. ;)

[KevinR]

Maybe this also stems from the fact that I shot only slides for many years. Just thought of that one.

[terri]

Maybe this also stems from the fact that I shot only slides for many years. Just thought of that one.
That's actually an interesting idea. I have a completely different mindset about cropping when I'm working with slide film, because I do so much Polaroid work from slides. If I'm cropping, it's usually via the Daylab (slide printer). An image transfer is basically contact printing. ;) I'm very selective about what slides can be effectively used for a transfer as opposed to, say, an emulsion lift where I can *crop* by actually twisting or ripping the emulsion to get what I'm after.

And for SX-70 work, I'm using a rectangular format to project onto square format film, so cropping is always an issue. You learn to think in a completely different light when shooting slide film that may be further manipulated down the road. :)

[craig]

Personally; cropping in the camera is mandatory. Too bad after twenty years of photography I still crop some photos... a little. Keep in mind that commercial clients demand that there art is full frame. No one wants to hear "why am I paying for all this "white" space. Also keep in mind that art directors and editors are famous for cropping the poop out of photos.

[Hertz van Rental]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[deb]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. :)

[Jeff Canes]

---My high school teacher always used to say to use your body as the zoom---


I would not recommend try this in Irag ;)