To crop or not to crop.....

[Fotomiguel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me the important and what I enjoy the most is shooting. After that come the annoying postprocessing. I'm always looking for the perfect shot. How much better is my shot less crop and postprocessing needs. With the M9 FF and the 50mm I'm really happy and with this combination is when my shots are better and I'm cropping less than ever. If I have to crop much that means that my shot is not really good and I will be dissapointed. What a joy when a shot is with the perfect exposure and perfect frame. Because of that I'm always longing to improve my techniques.

[Jeff S]

Lots of great photographers cropped as needed to achieve their desired end result...see Robert Frank, Walker Evans, et. al. Different strokes...not right or wrong.

 

For me, the fun is getting out to make photographs, but the ultimate joy is the final print. If it moves someone, they won't care a twit about how you got it.

 

I found a scene last week that probably suggested a longer lens. But, I had a wider one mounted, and took the shot that was gone in seconds. The cropped version is one of my best of the year. Do I feel like I failed because I cropped? Not in the least.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[UliWer]

...

 

For me, the fun is getting out to make photographs, but the ultimate joy is the final print. If it moves someone, they won't care a twit about how you got it.

...

 

Here you name the true reason for HCB being against cropping his photos: he didn't develop nor print his photos but let it done by orhers. As he did not want others to intervene in his photography his condition was that the print gave exactly the frame he took with the camera. The rare examples of cropped prints were agreed by him. So if he had made his own prints he perhaps would have thought different of cropping.

[Jeff S]

Here you name the true reason for HCB being against cropping his photos: he didn't develop nor print his photos but let it done by orhers

 

Except that Sid Kaplan printed Robert Frank's photographs, under his direction, which sometimes involved cropping (marked up contacts, etc). Two different issues...one doesn't necessarily follow the other.

 

Jeff

[Michael Hiles]

Here you name the true reason for HCB being against cropping his photos: he didn't develop nor print his photos but let it done by orhers.

 

Regarding "behind The Gare St-Lazare", Cartier freely acknowledged that the picture was cropped. He willingly told the story that it was made shooting through a fence. The exception proves the rule. That "crop" falls into the fix a minor mistake catagory. He did not remove anything from the essential image, so to say that it was cropped is factually correct and artistically wrong. The essential IMAGE on the negative is trimmed a little at the bottom to achieve the 2x3 ratio. Otherwise it is in fact NOT cropped.

 

The statement above is really not right. I see no reason to not believe Cartier's own words - he seems to have been an honest man. For myself, I mainly agree with him - although not quite as rigorously his rule. I crop to fix minor mistakes, but only slightly. Perhaps to straighten a vertical or eliminate a minor distraction at the picture's edge.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Michael Hiles

[wilfredo]

If HCB had been shooting with an M8 he would have to crop. He is one of my favorite photographers and he managed to master his craft with a Leica M3 rangefinder but at the end of the day, as someone else has stated, his ideas about cropping were his, not a steadfast rule for the rest of us. Some of his pictures would benefit from cropping IMHO, nevertheless he remains the master.

[thompsonkirk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a religious issue, not a technical one.

 

I grew up in the church of black borders. One filed out the carrier of one's Focomat & printed the full frame.

 

I became an apostate in midlife, when I realized color images didn't look as good with black borders.

 

Then in later life I was lured by the Photoshop Satan to use the Ruler tool to straighten horizons, & then the Perspective Crop to overcome at least some of my wide-angle distortion.

 

But I have vowed never to lose my faith by departing from the 2:3 image ratio. When Barnack came down from the mountain, God had dictated right there on his tablet that this is The True Ratio for small-format photography.

 

I believe in God & Barnack because to perfect our previsualizing souls, we must forever pursue the path of seeing the world not as mortal flesh would, but as cameras do. Salvation lies in seeing the whole composition that the camera will record. Otherwise we might as well just go to hell by the fool's path of cropping.

 

Beware also of zoom lenses; they too will render your efforts at composition imperfect in the eyes of the apostle HCB, because you will never learn the Dance of Life that places you in the path of the Decisive Moment.

 

There are of course other faiths. The 666 people – excuse me, 6X6 – previsualize in squares. I do not judge them, but pray that they too will find the Way.

 

Amen.

[Guest ccmsosse]

For me, the fun is getting out to make photographs, but the ultimate joy is the final print. If it moves someone, they won't care a twit about how you got it.

 

So true - who cares whether a crop was applied - some pictures benefit from post processing - cropping is part of that.

[!Nomad64]

I'm an old school dinosaur who still believes that a shot must come out perfect from the camera. Therefore I still treat my M8 as if it just had a sensor instead of the film, but never crop nor enhance colors.

The only things I allow myself to do are just B/W conversions and the things that replicate the results that came from film/developer/paper combinations. But that's just me and everyone else should enjoy shooting their way without any criticism.

If I were ever a pro, my approach would be obviously different.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[arminw]

I do whatever it takes to get the picture I want ... whether cropping or digital enhancement in Photoshop ... it's the final result that matters. Having said that, I would prefer to just shoot my picture and leave it as it is ... The rule is, the aren't any !!

 

Armin

[jaapv]

I previsualize the image I want, and then treat the output of my camera as basic material. I don't care what tool I need to use to get the image as I want it. Often it does not need too much, especially with the M8/9, but whatever it takes...

Edited April 26, 2010 by jaapv

[57andrew]

This is a religious issue, not a technical one.......

 

Love this reply and many others. Thanks for the comments. I asked not just because of the HCB quote but because I had spent some time in the morning trying to take photographs of a lion dance and dragon parade at the local Tin Hau temple, celebrating its renovation. I did not know the ceremony was on so there were crowds of people and I was stuck at the back. I took my shots and when I looked at them later they were simply too confused - so many things going on in the full frame. Mostly I hit the delete button and kept one cropped image - see The temple dragon photo - Andrew Hardacre photos at pbase.com

 

I have never used a full frame sensor before and its 30 years since I used a rangefinder. This type of photography is alien to me - I'm more used to shooting birds with an 800mm f5.6 .

 

Andrew

[yanidel]

I try not to crop so the pictures stay as close as possible to my initial vision.

Nevertheless, given that the framelines system is not fully accurate and there is no integrated horizon leveling system , I do crop my picture a little when needed.

 

Strangely whenever I tried to crop heavily a picture, I do not identify to it anymore. It feels a bit like the crop compensates my lack of skills or lack of boldness in getting closer to the scene. Therefore I usually end up deleting the picture, so it forces me to do better next time. It is so rewarding when you get a shot where your own action resulted in a perfectly framed and timed shot from start.

[250swb]

I think its worth remembering that HCB came from an era in miniature photography where the 100% accurate viewfinder didn't really exist. So either the camera defined the frame in the case of a Leica, or as would be usual, the photographer defined the frame as the one in his head when he pressed the shutter.

 

I think if HCB meant literally what he is supposed to have said (no croppoing), he equally couldn't possibly know the exact area the framelines of his Leica covered. So rather than take 'crop' to mean something that tightens the image up, he wanted the happy accidents at the frame edges to remain. And this was the revolution, not his undoubted ability to frame a great photograph, but the acceptance of other things going on around the frame and not always in the centre of the frame. Its a more painterly attitude compared to many photographers of the period, and HCB was a painter.

 

Steve

[ismon]

Do what you need to do (to satisfy the paying client). Keep in mind the inherent limitations of your camera format--don't waste a millimeter. Crop in camera. That's why Leitz gave us interchangeable lenses.

[Fotomiguel]

HCB knew the exact frame of his 50mm. The framelines are not important when one use this method. What is really important is that you have the exact frame of the 50mm always in your eyes and you compose placing your body. The framelines will help you to point the subject. With the 50mm you can be really precise. With wide lenses and telelenses is much more difficult.

HCB trainned a lot his technique and he was really precise.

The good thing of trying not to crop is that you learn much more and with time and training you get more precise. Then when you need to crop is just a bit.

[holmes]

This would depend on what you are shooting. I spent years as a forensic crime scene photographer, developer and printer. That specialized field was shot using a 50mm and then the 60mm, for 1:1 reproduction. That was the only size courts would allow. Cropping was on a select basis. Would it remove any relevant element. Cropping was done through the viewfinder when shooting the scene. I had an overall requirement, a mid-range and then the extreme closeups. I had the opportunity some years ago to meet the great Arnold Newman in Santa Fe. He said that I was the first forensic photographer he had ever met in all of his years making photographs. He said that he could only imagine the difficulties presented in trying to take photos that would be acceptable to all the attorney's and the court. Unlike the studio, where you have absolute control, Mr Newman found it difficult to conceive of shooting outdoors, at 0300, with snow coming down. I digress but frame your shot in the viewfinder so you do not have to crop. Shooting editorial photography I used my old principle; what the photo editor did was his business. Today I use both M 6TTl and M7s. In R I use my two R 6.2 and an R 7.

[alun]

A purist, I'm afraid. I have never cropped a frame that I haven't subsequently come to regard as a salvage job rather than what I intended. There are always more photographs out there: if one doesn't work then for me it just joins the thirty-odd others on the roll that don't work and I move on. Yes, it's very personal but I do find a personal no cropping rule makes me work harder at getting pictures as right as possible in the camera and also helps me let the weak ones die without too many qualms on my part.

 

To each their own.

[alun]

I think its worth remembering that HCB came from an era in miniature photography where the 100% accurate viewfinder didn't really exist. So either the camera defined the frame in the case of a Leica, or as would be usual, the photographer defined the frame as the one in his head when he pressed the shutter.

 

I think if HCB meant literally what he is supposed to have said (no croppoing), he equally couldn't possibly know the exact area the framelines of his Leica covered. So rather than take 'crop' to mean something that tightens the image up, he wanted the happy accidents at the frame edges to remain. And this was the revolution, not his undoubted ability to frame a great photograph, but the acceptance of other things going on around the frame and not always in the centre of the frame. Its a more painterly attitude compared to many photographers of the period, and HCB was a painter.

 

Steve -- I think that may be stretching interpretation a bit too far. I think HC-B was very clear about what 'no cropping' meant, as were other photogs who subsequently adopted the same protocol. It meant:

 

'The content of the negative should be the content of the print. It doesn't matter how or why that content got there, it's there, and I accept the legitimacy or accident of the choices I made when I pressed the shutter... And that's what I want to see printed....'

 

Personally, I find that oddly liberating.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[microview]

 

As an aside, no cropping would mean every image would have a 2:3 aspect ratio. Who said that´s the only legitimate way to perceive the world?

 

Just visited the wonderful Christen Kobke exhibition at the National Gallery London. Hardly any two canvases have the same width/height ratio. Why should a photograph be any different?