To crop or not to crop.....

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like the uncropped version best of all and it shows your total mastery of photography:D

 

Thanks for the snide comment. It is not appreciated.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lct]

Perhaps a criterion of 'good' cropping is that the image should tell the same story. In Delander's pic above, the sun and the pub were in the story so i'd keep them both personally.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[SJP]

Thanks for the snide comment. It is not appreciated.

Jeff

Apologies. It was not intended to be snide but as humorous. Apparently not.

 

What I don't understand however is that you demonstrate with this picture that in some cases it is perfectly possible to take a picture that is intended to be cropped -governed by specific circumstances. It may have been a busy road with traffic approaching and even if you could have stepped onto the road to frame as intended the scene might have changed (for instance it could draw the attention of the people to you).

 

That you would have preferred to have taken it differently is legitimate, but not always feasible. Similarly removing the paper bag (lying on the road) from the scene in postprocessing is OK from my point of view.

[delander †]

Apologies. It was not intended to be snide but as humorous. Apparently not.

 

What I don't understand however is that you demonstrate with this picture that in some cases it is perfectly possible to take a picture that is intended to be cropped -governed by specific circumstances. It may have been a busy road with traffic approaching and even if you could have stepped onto the road to frame as intended the scene might have changed (for instance it could draw the attention of the people to you).

 

That you would have preferred to have taken it differently is legitimate, but not always feasible. Similarly removing the paper bag (lying on the road) from the scene in postprocessing is OK from my point of view.

 

Apology accepted. I'm getting a bit grumpy because I seem to be taking a lot of flack for what I think are logical views.

 

What attracted me to this scene was the light flowing in from the right. I took it quickly (in fact there is another but a man walked in front of me as pressed the shutter).

 

Contrary to what everyone seems to think I'm not against cropping but I do like to get it framed properly in camera. In this shot I knew that I could crop out what I wanted and make a nice large B&W print (which is what I do generally).

 

But cropping is the easier route, it is the result of what NB23 said 'sloppy work'. I could have gone closer into the road (there was little traffic) to more tightly frame the scene. That to my mind is a more skilful way of making the photograph and I feel good when I do that, a sense of achievement. Whatever people say here I am often asked if a photograph is cropped and there is reason for that question.

 

Cropping later just is not the same. Now I understand that many people have the view that anything goes - it does not matter. I dont have that view but surely I dont deserved to be treated like some sort of nutter.

 

Jeff

[bill]

Just on the subject of black borders.

 

I was looking back at some of my shots today and realised that I apply a border under the following circumstances:

 

White border -

1) to give an image room to "breathe" in a frame. It's a lazy way to a rebate on smaller images. This tends to be a big area - 2 to 5 inches depending on the image and the frame size.

 

2) To make a generally dark image stand out against a dark background

 

Black border - to make a generally light image stand out against a light background.

 

So, thinking about it, borders to me are just an aesthetic tool to make the image "pop". No more than that. I read no more into their use by others.

 

Just an observation.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

My main reason to use borders on my images, which I only do on the Internet, is that the forums and galleries tend to squeeze the images on top of one another, so a border gives better separation.

[Michael Hiles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like borders and frames. I want to show how my picture would look on a wall - which is the final goal for me. That means a mat and frame. For B&W the mat would be white and the frame would be black, with a tiny gray line representing the bevel cut of the mat opening. Just a method of presentation.

[Guest mc_k]

...

Cropping later just is not the same. Now I understand that many people have the view that anything goes - it does not matter. I dont have that view but surely I dont deserved to be treated...

 

Jeff

 

no I think everyone gets the approach, it's just you did not justify it in the usual way. I thought it follows from the camera, and a kind of "seeing everything at once" that the viewfinder/small camera allows. Or from the idea that cropping is dishonest or manipulative. Or from the idea that not cropping forces a discipline of composition.

 

Instead you said a couple of times that cropping "takes no skill" or is the sign of "sloppy work," and I think that's why some (at least me) were defensive.

[Driver8]

Last night I was reading an interview with Henri Cartier Bresson. It appeared in Leica Fotografie Number 4 /1964. He said:

 

"I never crop a photograph. If it needs to be cropped I know it's bad and that nothing could possibly improve it. The only improvement would have been to take another picture, at the right place, at the right time".

 

There was also an article entitled "Has Black-and-White a Future?" But I digress.

 

The ease of cropping in Photoshop makes it so tempting I confess I do crop, especially my (non-Leica) wildlife shots. What do other photographers do? Do you share Cartier-Bresson's purist approach or have we simply moved on?

Modern masters like Alex Webb, David Alan Harvey, Jeff Mermelstein, Bruce Gilden, and Lise Safarti haven't moved on. These photographers never crop and share HCB's philosophy that if you need to crop then the photograph wasn't that great to begin with. Just move on to a better picture.

 

Last weekend, I attended the Steve McCurry exhibit in Seoul. All prints were displayed in 3x2 format and it was stated that McCurry prefers to exhibit the original image without any cropping.

 

When you're under temptation, remember that amatuers crop and artists don't crop.

[bill]

When you're under temptation, remember that amatuers crop and artists don't crop.

 

Hmm... the word "bollocks" springs to mind...

[stunsworth]

These photographers never crop and share HCB's philosophy that if you need to crop then the photograph wasn't that great to begin with. Just move on to a better picture.

 

So let's say you see a fantastic photograph but it doesn't suite a 3x2 format. What would you do, not take the photograph?

 

If you go to an art gallery you'll see paintings and drawings that have lots of different aspect ratios, because that what the artist thought suited the composition best.

[lct]

...amatuers crop and artists don't crop.

Artists can and do crop. PJs don't or should not. Legal photogs either. There is a basic misunderstanding of what photography may be here. Sorry to repeat but all photogs are not legals or PJs.

[pop]

 

When you're under temptation, remember that amatuers crop and artists don't crop.

 

Thank you very much. Now I can publish a book on how to become an artist in one easy lesson: Don't crop.

[NB23]

Modern masters like Alex Webb, David Alan Harvey, Jeff Mermelstein, Bruce Gilden, and Lise Safarti haven't moved on. These photographers never crop and share HCB's philosophy that if you need to crop then the photograph wasn't that great to begin with. Just move on to a better picture.

 

Last weekend, I attended the Steve McCurry exhibit in Seoul. All prints were displayed in 3x2 format and it was stated that McCurry prefers to exhibit the original image without any cropping.

 

When you're under temptation, remember that amatuers crop and artists don't crop.

 

Be prepared to be attacked by a funny bunch for your comment on cropping.

[Driver8]

Artists can and do crop.

Who are they? Now that I think about it - I can hardly name any. Henry Wessel cropped to make his favorite 16x20 print. Frank and Erwitt cropped.

 

Manos, Shore, Arbus, Winogrand (purposely made the unusual 8.7x13 print to avoid cropping), Friedlander, Sternfeld, Parr, Soth, Jeff Brouws, and Philip-Lorca diCorcia didn't crop.

 

Until Eggleston's latest book on Paris - he was always against cropping.

[Driver8]

Thank you very much. Now I can publish a book on how to become an artist in one easy lesson: Don't crop.

I can also write a book on how to perfect your golf swing in one easy lesson: keep your head down.

[Driver8]

So let's say you see a fantastic photograph but it doesn't suite a 3x2 format. What would you do, not take the photograph?

Your vision should match your tool - whether it be 3x2, 4x3, 6x6, 8x10 or whatever. Great photographs can be found in any format - its up to your eye, not the computer, to see them!

[bill]

Clearly your vision is constrained. You let your tool dictate your output. You have my sympathy.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[luigi bertolotti]

Hmm... the word "bollocks" springs to mind...

 

Well said : as an amateur with no pretending at all to be an artist, I'd say it's ridicolus that an artist, i.e. a FREE creator, ought to consider it's liberty of expression limited by such a trivial operation like a crop.

[delander †]

Your vision should match your tool - whether it be 3x2, 4x3, 6x6, 8x10 or whatever. Great photographs can be found in any format - its up to your eye, not the computer, to see them!

 

I agree and wish I had said that earlier in this thread. But watch out they will all start getting uptight and using words such as "bollocks"

 

Jeff