How much do you crop your photographs?

[Adarsha]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just wondering how often regular Leica photographer shooters use the 'crop' tool to accentuate their composition.

 

I have this thing about NOT cropping whenever possible and do my best to set up the photograph I want when shooting.

 

It is said Cartier-Bresson preferred not to crop. With digital post-processing though so much is possible.

[aesop]

Just wondering how often regular Leica photographer shooters use the 'crop' tool to accentuate their composition.

 

I have this thing about NOT cropping whenever possible and do my best to set up the photograph I want when shooting.

 

It is said Cartier-Bresson preferred not to crop. With digital post-processing though so much is possible.

 

 

...I really don't care for Cartier-Bresson, Adarsha, but I find that "seeing" and capturing full frame is a very rigid discipline. It requires an altogether more considered approach to image-capturing.

 

If you have the talent and the willpower to develop said talent further, then consider yourself lucky, for you are in a gifted minority. With digital photography, apart from the hardware, time is probably your most valuable resource. With full frame photography, you really get to know your equipment - one of my MPs has a 35 Summilux permanently attached to it (less is more in this case). It is my "go-to" combo, and I am beginning to reap the rewards. Once you start "cooking", the good news is that the results are very rewarding - the bad news is there are no shortcuts. You simply have to put in the time and learn from your mistakes.

 

I am still on the journey, and I don't do digital. Full frame is good fun, I can assure you. So go forth and enjoy.

[earleygallery]

Oh dear, the last time this topic was raised the thread descended into an almighty bun fight between the croppers and non-croppers.

 

Basically there's no right or wrong. With the rangefinder I tend to shoot a bit 'loose' especially for street photography, and will often crop - or rather trim - the image a little in the final stage. Sometimes I just want a different format, square for example, or need to fit the image within a particular frame size.

 

And contrary to popular belief HCB did crop (or rather his printer did).

[Adarsha]

...I really don't care for Cartier-Bresson, Adarsha, but I find that "seeing" and capturing full frame is a very rigid discipline. It requires an altogether more considered approach to image-capturing.

 

.... Once you start "cooking", the good news is that the results are very rewarding - the bad news is there are no shortcuts. You simply have to put in the time and learn from your mistakes.

 

I am still on the journey, and I don't do digital. Full frame is good fun, I can assure you. So go forth and enjoy.

 

If you are shooting full frame film then you work from 35mm negatives I can't help wondering if you use an enlarger and dark room to make your own prints, dodging, burning, cropping? Of course 35mm film is often given back from printers with a disc of images for post-production, so using film does not exclude digital manipulation.

 

It's fair to say that so much can be manipulated whether the capture is in film or digital, the capacity to 'cook' has always been there.

 

One thing about shooting digitally over film is that there is always the temptation to take many extra shots if you shoot for safety. Personally, I believe less is more, and considered framing in camera makes editing and post-production time less.

 

Photography IS a discipline of mind, body, soul and capturing what you see as opposed to what someone else might see. Put two photographers next to one another in the same spot with the same camera setup and you will no doubt get very different photographs.

 

I agree this is a never ending journey and one to be enjoyed.

[aesop]

Oh dear, the last time this topic was raised the thread descended into an almighty bun fight between the croppers and non-croppers.

 

Basically there's no right or wrong. With the rangefinder I tend to shoot a bit 'loose' especially for street photography, and will often crop - or rather trim - the image a little in the final stage. Sometimes I just want a different format, square for example, or need to fit the image within a particular frame size.

 

And contrary to popular belief HCB did crop (or rather his printer did).

 

 

...not entirely sure the OP enquired as to whether it was right or wrong, James - he just wondered how prevalent cropping was amongst Leica shooters. There shouldn't be any conflict with this particular thread. If you crop, so be it. If you don't all is well.

[aesop]

If you are shooting full frame film then you work from 35mm negatives I can't help wondering if you use an enlarger and dark room to make your own prints, dodging, burning, cropping? Of course 35mm film is often given back from printers with a disc of images for post-production, so using film does not exclude digital manipulation.

 

It's fair to say that so much can be manipulated whether the capture is in film or digital, the capacity to 'cook' has always been there.

 

One thing about shooting digitally over film is that there is always the temptation to take many extra shots if you shoot for safety. Personally, I believe less is more, and considered framing in camera makes editing and post-production time less.

 

Photography IS a discipline of mind, body, soul and capturing what you see as opposed to what someone else might see. Put two photographers next to one another in the same spot with the same camera setup and you will no doubt get very different photographs.

 

I agree this is a never ending journey and one to be enjoyed.

 

 

...yes, Adarsha, I insist on controlling the entire process from releasing the shutter to the final print. For me, absolute control is critical - but I am also cognisant of the fact that not everyone is in a same position. I also have the added luxury of being a rank amateur, so I shoot, process and print at my own pace.

 

Having said that, if I earned my crust through photography, I doubt that this mindset would be applicable when dealing with clients.

[Adarsha]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for your comments, nice to know that you do your own processing Aesop, not everyone is able to do that.

 

I suppose my main err.. question is not whether it's ok to crop or not. I concede slight crops can sometimes be beneficial overall, but major crops?? now that is something else and doesn't really encourage anyone to improve their skills.

 

Enjoy...

[bill]

Hi Adarsha,

 

James is right, the last time this was debated, it turned into a bunfight but that is because many regard the subject with a fervour that a TV Evangelist would envy.

 

Whether digital or film, the answer is basically the same.

 

Use the right tool for the job.

 

In this case that means using the right focal length (or thereabouts) for the image you are capturing. Anything else is - quite literally - a waste, of either emulsion or sensor real estate.

 

It is good practice to learn to frame appropriately at the time of taking the picture. It is bad practice to leave it all to Photoshop.

 

All that said, a crop is just another tool. I find myself cropping when I straighten (I appear, judging from my photography, to have one leg shorter than the other to the extent that I have a .6% CCW rotation set up as an action in PS:D) I will also "trim" to improve composition or to get rid of extraneous bits, particularly, like James, in street photography. However, if I find myself losing more than 10% of the image in this way I will usually abandon it and move on.

 

Like your website, by the way, in terms of content. Hate the fact that you are using Flash!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

I agree with Bill, a crop is sometimes needed, get rid of something at the edge (frameline inaccuracy being the perfect excuse ) , straightening the horizon. Unlike Bill my legs are the same length, but I found the mechanism of flood and ebb works through tilting of the sea surface. Sometimes even a tighter crop might be needed as the nature of a rangefinder will cause one to run out of focal length from time to time. In the end, imo, the aim should be to conserve as much image acreage as possible but not at the cost of the image.

[luigi bertolotti]

I see the issue this way, without assertions by principle :

 

- Small crops for adjusting horizon, cut away small intrusions etc. are welcome, and a big advantage of digital.

- Larger, but not big, crops to obtain a "better" frame can be acceptable if picture really earns something

- When, processing an image, one finds a rectangular "cut away" 50% (or less) that turns out to be a fine frame, and you had, say, 35+75 or 50+90... it means that your photographer's eye has missed an opportunity (it happens to me, not so rare... )

 

Of course... can be I post a fine pic of two wild chamois I spotted this summer in high mountains... with 90 only on my M8: cropped to a (about) 1200x800 pixel image,and the print (18x24 cm about) is even not too bad...

[wstotler]

Just wondering how often regular Leica photographer shooters use the 'crop' tool to accentuate their composition. I have this thing about NOT cropping whenever possible and do my best to set up the photograph I want when shooting. It is said Cartier-Bresson preferred not to crop. With digital post-processing though so much is possible.

 

When I started I spent a lot of time in post "finding" the composition with the crop tool. Finding a portrait orientation image in a landscape shot, etc. I think this is natural.

 

I've changed my position on this and have taken "finding" the composition forward to the moment of shooting.

 

My current goal is to never crop, which is unrealistic, but a goal.

 

The main reasons for this goal are:

* I consider it good photography to get the composition framed the way I want it at time of shoot.

* I don't want to reduce pixel count in an image in case I want to print an image very large.

 

Lately I've been cropping slightly (less than 5%) on some shots around the edges of the frame to remove spurious objects that wandered in.

 

Less frequently I'll crop in to improve framing on a subject to eliminate a problem where I should have probably been shooting with a different focal length--I shot with the 35mm but probably should have stepped back one step and shot with the 50mm, for example.

 

But I'm not "finding the composition" in post as a strategy--cropping in post supports the composition I wanted to get through the viewfinder.

 

Cheers!

Will

[Adarsha]

Sometimes the crop factor can inform the viewer in a way that changes the meaning of a scene completely.

 

I'm led to recall the photograph by Nick Ut taken of the infamous Nepalm Girl running away from the bomb site. The most used and better known photograph is of her with her clothes burned away, the cropped in version. However, the full perspective shows a nonchalant gallery of troops almost casually strolling alongside the screaming girl. Thus giving the viewer a completely different feeling when looking at it.

 

So, clearly cropping can significantly change a photograph. It's not only about what you see when you press the shutter it's how it changes meaning, about how it is later interpreted.

 

There is a world of difference between a little 'tidying up' and a harsh crop, surely? I'm sure we would all admit to a little tidying up here and there, but relying on the crop to make the photograph work? mmm... not sure about that.

 

Another bun fight anyone?? lol

[Jeff S]

Another bun fight anyone?? lol

 

One was enough, thanks...http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/123673-crop-not-crop.html Proceed with caution.

 

Jeff

[Adarsha]

@ Jeff S: thank you, I shall proceed with caution and take a peek at the link you gave me for the okay coral 'bun-fight'

[Adarsha]

Humble apologies fellow Forum members, it seems this topic has been done to death already.

 

In future I shall do a thread search before posting any new thread/query. Shame on me .. lol

[earleygallery]

OK here's an example that will get some peoples blood boiling!

 

I was asked a while back to take some photos of a band, for their website and potentially for a CD cover.

 

CD covers are usually square, and I was using a 35mm camera. Thankfully I wasn't bound by some irrational 'one must never crop' rule so was able to frame some 'square' images within the 35mm format.

 

As Bill pointed out, to routinely shoot with a view to cropping later is wasting film/pixels and ultimately quality, so the ideal stance is to frame as correctly as you can within the camera.

 

Now how about a cup of tea with those buns

[luigi bertolotti]

Of course... can be I post a fine pic of two wild chamois I spotted this summer in high mountains... with 90 only on my M8: cropped to a (about) 1200x800 pixel image,and the print (18x24 cm about) is even not too bad...

 

The above supercrop : M8 sensor reduced to a 1MP camera of digital stone age... ... doesn't worth the photo section...

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!

[stunsworth]

Everyone who shot 35mm and printed full bleed on 10x8 or 20x16 paper cropped the negative. That's a lot of photographers.

 

As James said, there's no right or wrong, just personal preference. Same with filters, same with bags, same with 35mm or 50mm lenses.

[daveleo]

Lucky for everyone in the room . . . I have an opinion on this topic, and it is . . . .

 

There are no rules.

 

It's your image and you may do as you desire - crop, burn, dodge, grayscale, curves, layers, whatever . . . . and you should not be shy about doing it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[bill]

Aaaargh! I find myself in complete agreement with Bill! Even the short leg!

 

:D:D:D

 

Regards,

 

Bill