To crop or not to crop.....

[microview]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm more used to shooting birds with an 800mm f5.6.

 

...especially when the regulations allow them to go topless!

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

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...

The true reason, if any, is more profound than that i think. It is linked to surrealism and related notions like 'automatic writing' or 'intuitive action'. HCB used to warn against mannerism in his living but his famous 'decisive moment' is not free from affectation and became a somewhat religious banner for a lot of mediocre photogs favoring uncropped craps over good cropped photos. Now HCB's great photogaphs speak for themselves are are far more inspiring that his somewhat pompous statements IMHO.

[SJP]

The main point of contention seems to be that cropping is defined as an afterthought. This is not always true.

 

How about taking a picture with a 28 mm lens but with a 90 mm frame in mind, i.e. the cropping was intended from the outset. Then it is not cropping but it is restoring the image to the original intent "uncropping & restoring" or whatever takes your fancy. I prefer not to do this but a moderns digital camera does allow considerable cropping without anyone complaining too much (esp. the cell phone types) so if you do not feel like changing the lens or if it is a fleeting moment, why not?

 

How about rotation to get the horizon to match? The intention was to have a level horizon presumably.

 

I do no really see the problem as rotation and cropping was a standard procedure in a profesional printing environment in the days of chemical photography. Of course it is good if the desired effect is obtained without any postprocessing, purely for your (= and my) own satisfaction.

[250swb]

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.

 

Damn me, I thought thats what I said in the first place?

 

Steve

[michali]

Very interesting thread with a great diversity of responses.

 

I keep post processing to a bare minimum, if a picture's not good enough, it's not good enough = delete.

 

As for the main topic here, I try and keep cropping to a minimum, but that's not cast in stone and not always possible. We live in a far busier and more crowded world than HCB's world, there's far more visual interference in photographs than there was even 30 years ago. As an example take the number of cars lining village streets even in rural France, Italy and Greece and the number of photographs ruined by the presence of these cars.

 

I find that with the M9 I'm doing even less cropping than I did with the M8, still haven't really figured out why yet; relationship between lens FOV & sensor size? Possibly.

[Ed_K]

I too belong to the old school and try to "frame" all i need at the moment of shooting, especially in those days with slide film. However i too can't help cropping now and then, when it is just a mouse click away in post-processing

[Michael Hiles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Personally, I find that oddly liberating.

 

I agree. Reducing cropping to a bare minimum (fixing obvious errors like horizontals etc.) requires a special discipline when making the exposure. There is nothing wrong with cropping, and those who do so - enjoy. But I like making the image when I press the button. Then comes the art of printing. That's the performance.

 

BTW - someone above called Cartier pompous. I think that based on his writing and the few interviews and films available, this is a tough sell. He was gracious and shy and self effacing, a man that exuded civilization and culture from his pores. He was the antithesis of pompous.

[Gentleman Villain]

Do as Though Wilt

 

I don't care if people crop or not. However, I do have a personal prejudice against anything other than very minor cropping. Extreme crops often create a sense of distorted perspective. An example of this phenomena might be a photographer that shoots a tight headshot where the center of the camera lens is pointed towards the center of the subject's face. But then the photographer crops in close to only show only half of the subject's face in the final print. The perspective often "feels" skewed as if the subject is falling outside of the frame. The latter is an extreme example but this skewed feeling is often present in many heavily cropped photos. Of course, sometimes that feeling might actually work well if the photographer is trying to create a strange sense in the viewer. But most of the time it doesn't work.

 

Another aspect that I don't like about cropping is the way it looks when viewed within a series of photographs created by a single photographer. For example, a fashion photographer might shoot an editorial consisting of 6-10 photographs on his 35mm camera. Each picture in the series will usually have a similar look in terms of resolution since they were all shot with the same camera. However, if the photographer finds the need to crop heavily into one or more images within the editorial then he breaks the momentum of the resolution of the series and the cropped photos can start to look out of place when viewed next to their un-cropped counterparts.

[Jeff S]

Extreme crops often create a sense of distorted perspective.

 

I sometimes crop more than a bit to improve perspective. When attempting to photograph buildings without converging verticals, I will deliberately mount a wide lens on my M8.2, move back, hold the camera without tilt, and then crop the foreground in PP. This avoids having to use another camera with a shift lens, or correcting perspective with software, which I do not like (and which would require shooting wider than normal anyway). I love the fact that the M8 has good enough files to afford this allowance without significant image deterioration.

 

Jeff

[Gentleman Villain]

I sometimes crop more than a bit to improve perspective. When attempting to photograph buildings without converging verticals, I will deliberately mount a wide lens on my M8.2, move back, hold the camera without tilt, and then crop the foreground in PP. This avoids having to use another camera with a shift lens, or correcting perspective with software, which I do not like (and which would require shooting wider than normal anyway). I love the fact that the M8 has good enough files to afford this allowance without significant image deterioration.

 

Jeff

 

Yes, it's true that a lot of people will choose the above described method to correct for converging lines, especially if they don't have access to view camera type of movements and/or don't want to use software. However, there is more to perspective than just the correction of converging lines. The position of the lens axis in relation to the subject can have a psychological effect on the way that the subject's relationship to the frame is percieved by the viewer. For example, a lot of architectural photographers that shoot extreme wide angles lenses will often get a sense that their images feel "top heavy." This uneasy feeling is often created by the position of the axis of the lens to subject and isn't necessarily related to the correction of converging horizontal/vertical lines.

 

My guess is that many photographers that use the above described crop method for perspective control of converging lines will neverthreless still feel a sense that the subject is skewed or perhaps falling towards a particular portion of the frame.

[cheewai_m6]

i haven't read every response to this topic so it's possible what i say has been said.

 

i don't crop, i think if you need to crop, it means you didn't take the shot right. tough. i apply to my own photos. i don't make a living from my photos either. however, if i worked for a magazine, say F1 racing, there isn't a photo in those magazines that aren't cropped, so in that situation, crop till the cows come home. however, if you were to do an exhibition, then i think cropping is not right. if i was to look at an enthusiast's or photo journalists work, and they cropped, then i pay that no credit.

 

enthusiast showing people his nice photos - cropping unacceptable

photographer who's photos on gallery exhib - cropping unacceptable

photographer for magazines (sports, architecture, fashion) - cropping acceptable. almost way of life.

not long enough zoom and need to englarge - cropping acceptable

 

my thoughts and opinions that i go by. i don't force them anyone, just my thoughts.

[Fotomiguel]

When I change to a M camera, I didn't know how difficult and demanding was going to be the learning of the new skills to use properly the camera. For me, HBC represents the complete mastery of a M camera and its incredible technique. I own a book that if you analize, you realize how good he was: The scrap book of HBC. In this book you can see and analize a bit better his technique. When you see photos that were not important and famous. When you see some of his contact sheets. The control of the frame was incredible and prodigious. Even the not so good shots are well framed and always well leveled. But the incredible thing is that he could do it in a fraction of a second.

Photos well leveled have been always difficultd for me. I think that I'm a bit better now since I use the rigth eye. But still a long way.

My goal as a photographer is to improve my techinque shooting a M camera. With a M camera small details are so important. To frame, focus, metering light, compose is not difficult at all but to do it all together in a fraction of second is incredible. For this reason the emotional valeu of a good shot is priceless. I have good pictures that were not good shots but when good picture was a perfect shot will keep me proud of it forever.

How less I have to modifie my pictures, I improve as a photographer. If not I will improve as postprocessing expert. Nowadays with photoshop all is possible.Whatever that makes you happy is fine. To enjoy is what really matters!

 

HBC was incredible!!!!!!!!!!

[yanidel]

I think HCB was one of the greatest but nevertheless let's not forget that :

- we only see his best shots. He probably also had thousands of crappy ones that remain unpublished.

- his technique was certainly excellent but I guess like any photographer that would use the same camera and 50mm frames for 70 years.

But most important, HCB was a painter before he was a photographer. He was trained in a school whose master (André Lhote) put a huge emphasis on geometry and organization of shapes and space. This is probably what most influenced his photography, much more than pure technique. I also think that with the limitations of his early times (aperture, film speed), HCB used a few settings in his camera (wide open or stopped down) and basically concentrated on the frame. Nowadays with camera blinking everywhere, maybe we get more distracted

By the way, for these interested by HCB, his biography by Pierre Assouline is a must read.

[250swb]

if i was to look at an enthusiast's or photo journalists work, and they cropped, then i pay that no credit.

 

.

 

You've not really said why it is that you are against cropping, but perhaps your quote gives a clue in that you think cropping is somehow dishonest and doesn't reflect the truth of the event or scene?

 

If this is so you come up against a gigantic problem. The photographer just by being there and making a photograph is editing reality and this is exactly the same as further editing/cropping in the darkroom or on the PC. The very act of pointing the camera is a decision the photographer makes where he decides to include or exclude all the other things around him. He may leave out the trash can in a view of the Grand Canyon, or he may show the body of a suicide bomber without showing the people he has killed. Neither photo encompass's the true reality of the situation, they are crops from life.

 

Indeed the photographers very presense can affect the reality of the situation. In 1971 Horst Faas photographed Bangladeshi soldiers bayoneting Pakistani sympathizers in his iconic set of pictures. But it is widely believed that the whole thing was staged for the cameras and most photographers left before the killing started. So if those photographs are not cropped, do they still reflect the truth, other than showing people being killed?

 

Its a difficult high ground to defend if the moral imperative in not cropping an image is because it messes with the truth.

 

Steve

[LuxBob]

HCB was in a different era and things have changed, not least the wide availability of alternative lenses and the availability of post processing. Yes other lenses were available in HCB's day but was it the fashion to change them round so often?

Also what was HCB's attitude to developing, enlarging and printing? Did he consider it an important part of the process or just an add on for an artisan to do his bidding - I suspect the latter.

These days the artistic promise and possibilities of post processing mean that those interetsed in developing the image have to be involved in the process. For me it is by far the most interesting and fulfilling part of the process. Clicking the button is but a fraction of a second compared to the hours and sometimes days that I can spend on an image.

I can see and understand the genre of the purist but I see it as the start not the end of the process.

[Fotomiguel]

By the way, for these interested by HCB, his biography by Pierre Assouline is a must read.

Thank you very much!

I'll do

[Fotomiguel]

;)If you are happy cropping, with the M9 you should be very happy and with the M8 may be a bit less happy. May be with the M10 you will be much better photographer than HBC.

When I have to crop, I do it (no big crops at all) but my goal and my satisfaction is not to do it. What is really important is to improve and to get the most of your shots without the need of cropping.

[Manolo Laguillo]

IMHO HC-B statement "I never crop" must be understood in the context of his whole writing. For him photography is sort of instinctive reacting ("if you think you lose the picture") to something that happens there and at the same is constructed/recorded by the photographer. Cropping would mean introducing a procedure from the outside, interrupting the flow afterwards: printing can never be an afterthought!

H C-B was very in the mood of oriental thinking. For instance, his reading of Eugen Herrigel's "Zen und die Kunst des Bogenschiessens" (Zen and the Art of Archery, written in german in the 20's, translated after WWII) has to be considered in this context. Have you seen how japanese calligraphers write on big papers in a quick and decided series of strokes? Erasing and retouching afterwards would be equivalent to cropping!

What Miguel says must be true: HC-B had the frames in the eye! His work from the 30's (in my opinion those photopraphs are the best part of his whole body of work) was made with the screwmount Leica, with that small viewfinder!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Gentleman Villain]

Bresson is worshipped in these forums as if he were a Demi-God

[250swb]

I don't think HCB is worshipped as a demigod here, its just that he is the most widely known photographer anyway, by any person who knows anything about art or the 20th century. So he gets talked about most. If more people knew about other photographers the situation would change.

 

Steve