How much do you crop your photographs?

[Guest nafpie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I tried to took 'full frame' photographs all the time.

 

However, I crop as much as its nesseccary that the image meets my expectations. Because with (one or two) fixed focus lens(es), sometimes there is no chance to work 'full framed' without missing the best moment.

 

Conclusions:

 

I prefer a cropped picture, which is well composed and framed, over an uncropped, but boring one.

 

For me, an interesting, but 4 megapixel image (because of crop) is better than a 18 megapixel meaningless snapshot.

 

Stefan

[Advertisement]

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

[Fotomiguel]

A bit of pepper!

Have you think about which lenses makes you crop more?

Wide lenses?

I love my 50mm. It permet me to crop less than ever.

Wide lenses are more difficult! May be easy if you like to crop.

[250swb]

Considering the approximate nature of the M's viewfinder I don't feel careful framing is fully rewarded anyway, so if the image isn't what I saw I do often crop to make it conform. The edge of the frame is very important to my mind, and I'm not going to be lulled into thinking there is some mystical sanctity about Leica's version of the frame edge over my own judgement. I crop far less with a DSLR with a 100% accurate viewfinder for instance.

 

And for more radical crops from either a M or DSLR if I see a square image I'm not going to beat myself up about not having a TLR or Hassy with me, I compose and make the exposure with the square crop in mind. It's a nice ambition to try and frame the image as accurately as you can, but lifes to short to make rules about it when you are using an M camera and not a DSLR, because the M is the wrong tool for the job.

 

Steve

[Venkman]

Short answer to the original question: from not at all to severe, depending on what serves the idea of the shot.

[jlancasterd]

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.

 

I agree entirely.

 

One of the great advantages of digital photography is the degree of control that it gives the photographer when it comes to deciding the final form that the image will take. This is much greater than most photographers ever had using 'conventional', 'wet' or 'analogue' (choose your preferred description!) methods - especially if, like me, they spent their lives moving from country to country, and rented property to rented property, perpetually unable to create a proper dark room.

 

Since retiring and becoming editor of a magazine for a special-interest group, I've come to appreciate even more the convenience of being able to crop to fit the space available, or to emphasise a particular element of an image.

 

Some images also cry out for a particular shape - I've been more than a little surprised recently to find how many of the shots I take seem to need a square format - especially as I never really got on with this format when I (briefly) had a Hasselblad 30 years ago...

[sanyasi]

+100

[Adarsha]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Considering the approximate nature of the M's viewfinder I don't feel careful framing is fully rewarded anyway, so if the image isn't what I saw I do often crop to make it conform. The edge of the frame is very important to my mind, and I'm not going to be lulled into thinking there is some mystical sanctity about Leica's version of the frame edge over my own judgement. I crop far less with a DSLR with a 100% accurate viewfinder for instance.

 

And for more radical crops from either a M or DSLR if I see a square image I'm not going to beat myself up about not having a TLR or Hassy with me, I compose and make the exposure with the square crop in mind. It's a nice ambition to try and frame the image as accurately as you can, but lifes to short to make rules about it when you are using an M camera and not a DSLR, because the M is the wrong tool for the job.

 

Steve

 

Well, I agree it is definitely easier to frame, autofocus and reframe using a DSLR with less cropping needed for many photographs.

 

I'm still going through the learning curve of the M9, new to rangefinders, and wanting to get some good street photographs. I'm going to have to get well out of my personal comfort zone and get in close to my subjects.

 

I shot street with a 50mm prime on my DSLR but not full frame, so that is also having an effect. I just need to practice practice practice with the M9 and get in close! I can see that many of the shots I've taken so far would definitely be improved by a crop, whether it be square, rectangle or letter box crop!

 

Bring it on and yes, my thoughts are shifting and I'm not being so rigid in my outlook, or as tough on myself if I need to do a hard crop. I suppose it still depends what the photograph is going to be used for though, as hard crops do affect the pixel count.

[Julian Thompson]

Wide lenses are more difficult!

 

This is interesting - I too have noticed it, but in a different sense. The wider the lens, the greater the 'story' you are often telling, and so it is certainly more difficult to frame the desired parts of the story only until you get used to the level of proximity it takes to create dramatic close up photographs using a wider lens.

 

I found this a real challenge with my 21mm Elmarit, but after I have worked and worked with it I now find it to be almost my favourite lens.

 

So, I suppose my comment on it would be that cropping to correct framing errors is analogous to a darkroom operative cropping to correct film that didn't enlarge flat or whatever around the edges, but that cropping to wish you had used a different lens is less desirable.

 

Of course, the only thing that matters to the outside world is the image, but secretly this isn't true because for photographers who are striving to be as good as possible we would always regret that focal length choice and wish we had been better or more selective.

[ptarmigan]

You'd have to crazy not to shoot as near to what you want in the finished image. You lose 10, 20, maybe even 50% of the resolution if you don't. I come from a 35mm slide background where there was almost no margin for error on exposure and little that you could do PP wise to crop. It's a good discipline IMHO.

 

Having said that I do crop for composition of effect and a little more often with the RF than with an SLR as I can't judge the viewfinder accurately enough to be spot on but we're mostly talking of small tweaks.

 

One final caveat though. Rolo from the forum showed me a heavily cropped rework of what he would have suggested was a poor photograph and I think I'd have to agree - the original didn't work at all. The image after cropping to maybe 25% or so of the original was fantastic. If Rolo see's this he my recall the portrait in question and he may want to share it.

[Julian Thompson]

Yes Ian I remember that - the one of the old black guy we saw in Manchester. To be honest, if Gary posted that up it'd ignite a whole new level of arguments about the level of PP that one should be applying!!!

 

Having said all that - the final image was stunning and the initial capture was, well, crap.

 

So maybe, yes, the final image is probably all that counts!

 

[george +]

I have a tremendous respect for those of you who can do it cropless. Really.

 

Though how you print 2 x 3 ratio originals on borderless 8.5 x 11inch paper remains a mystery for me.

 

But all this aside, I have always cropped, including slides (by masking), am cropping now and intend to go on cropping as long as I am into photography.

 

Life gets just too complicated, for me anyway, having to look out for all the variables that need to be controlled at the time of exposure. Like general composition, light and shade, postures, facial expressions, exposure, angles, etc.

 

Cropping I can do (and much better at that) later. For me it is the end result that counts.

[JanCderidder]

Very few digital photogs don't crop.... even if it's a mm or two. Digital is there for cropping and not to do so when needed, well .... Even the die hard anti croppers, crop sometime making their "die" not so "hard"....

 

Wouldn't it be great not to be able to say that you never crop, always take the right images at the right place at the right time .... mmmmm

[delander †]

Just recently I've gone back to shooting more with film and I like to present my film photos like this.

 

Leica MP HP5

 

Jeff

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!

[elansprint72]

Just recently I've gone back to shooting more with film and I like to present my film photos like this.

 

Leica MP HP5

 

Jeff

 

Why could you not record exactly the same shot with digital?

[delander †]

Why could you not record exactly the same shot with digital?

 

I could have shot the same scene with digital but with film you can show the film borders, thus emphasizing that it is the full frame.

 

Jeff

[SJP]

adding a border to a digital file should not be very complicated

[pop]

adding a border to a digital file should not be very complicated

 

neither is pixelating a "real" photograph.

[basa]

I personally like to frame and shoot without the extra hassle of post processing and judging how your photo looks best. Equally I think cropping is totally acceptable and I dont see the difference between cropping and using a big telezoom lens. As we m users don't have the luxury of the latter, cropping might be the only solution to get to the end result you had in mind when shooting.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear