Do you crop a lot or not so much?

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, Dr No said:

It is common practice and has always been. I can not understand how you haven't heard of this. The university I attended had all their negative carriers filed down for this purpose.

 

As I stated, I am neither an artist nor do I have discipline. I simply practiced photography for 40 years as my livelyhood. Fortunately, the people I worked for and sold images to were also dopes with no sense of artistry or discipline.

The university I attended and where I majored in photojournalism had none of their negative carriers filed down.

[Dr No]

7 minutes ago, pop said:

Oh well, it appears that there are members of the never-crop-your-pictures-for-any-reason-whatsoever club, and there are people who are not members of that club. And they have wildly divergent opinions. And never the twain shall meet.

They do often meet, actually.

[LocalHero1953]

24 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

Yes, I see where you're coming from and was just about to reply when I read @Tailwagger post below . . .

The bottom right is a power socket - this bisects the arm of the chair and should definitely go - easy in Photoshop.  To the top left is a room thermometer on the wall - again easily removed.  When I have more time I will edit and re-compose as you suggested.  Interesting discussion . . .

Since we're into camera club critique (😉) I immediately noticed the second image had been processed - the tops of the shoulders just look wrong, and I can see this is due to editing out the inside of the sleeve on the left, and the chair top on the right. I would leave them untouched. If I was dealing with this image for printing (even as a family snap) I would have removed the socket/thermostat, though, and cropped a bit from top and left, as Tailwagger suggests. Thanks, T25UFO, for hearing all this advice with good nature!

Edited July 26, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[TomB_tx]

2 minutes ago, fotografr said:

As I stated, I am neither an artist nor do I have discipline. I simply practiced photography for 40 years as my livelyhood. Fortunately, the people I worked for and sold images to were also dopes with no sense of artistry or discipline.

The university I attended and where I majored in photojournalism had none of their negative carriers filed down.

+1

Getting lazy in my old(er) age I now often keep a 35 on my M10 and crop to equivalent 50 or even 90 FOV for snapshots. Wouldn’t have dreamed of that years ago.

[fotografr]

25 minutes ago, Dr No said:

However, hiding the borders as an aesthetics choice and slightly overlapping the frame does not change authenticity when the print underneath displays the border for provenance purposes and can be easily viewed with a hinged mount.

And if the matted print has also been framed and is behind glass, as in a gallery? I'll have to remember to take my screwdriver next time I go to a photo exhibit.

 

Edited July 26, 2020 by fotografr

[Dr No]

6 minutes ago, fotografr said:

And if the matted print has also been framed and is behind glass, as in a gallery? I'll have to remember to take my screwdriver next time I go to a photo exhibit.

 

If you're not the owner, who already knows about the borders, you might have a little trouble doing that.

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

+1

Getting lazy in my old(er) age I now often keep a 35 on my M10 and crop to equivalent 50 or even 90 FOV for snapshots. Wouldn’t have dreamed of that years ago.

I believe it is entirely possible to "see" an image in your mind but for any of a number of reasons not be able to get close enough with the equipment at hand to crop in camera. With today's high megapixel cameras we can shoot loosely and crop to attain the image we envisioned. This is perfectly valid and no one will convince me otherwise. We are able to crop this way now, whereas when shooting film we'd never have been able to pull it off. Some people insist on applying all of the old rules to the new technology and in my opinion this does nothing to further the art of photography. If anything, it impedes progress.

Edited July 26, 2020 by fotografr

[fotografr]

5 minutes ago, Dr No said:

If you're not the owner, who already knows about the borders, you might have a little trouble doing that.

How else am I to judge whether the exhibitor is a truly disciplined artist? Using your rigid yardstick, I need to see the whole image in all its purity.

[pop]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb fotografr:

How else am I to judge whether the exhibitor is a truly disciplined artist? Using your rigid yardstick, I need to see the whole image in all its purity.

No, you don't. You need to see the original negative. Nothing less will do.

[Dr No]

7 minutes ago, fotografr said:

How else am I to judge whether the exhibitor is a truly disciplined artist? Using your rigid yardstick, I need to see the whole image in all its purity.

There is no need to be so abrasive. Wether you have been aware of it or not, it is a common practice. Surely you have seen borders displayed at some point.

Borders in full, or part thereof, are usually printed for this reason when it is of importance to the author. If they are not it has been chosen that way for aesthetic purposes. If you are the owner of the print you will know and usually the average person viewing will not care. If you would like to know, ask the gallery, read the notes, or research the artist. If you intend on buying the $2million print then I can be sure someone will give the provenance you require.

All serious collectors items have marks of authenticity, sometimes hidden. They don't need to be displayed for the item to be enjoyed. What your asking is like going to a serious car collection and asking them to show all receipts and unbolt the cylinder head to prove it has original parts.

Provenance in art is one of the most important things.

The only thing rigid in this is yardstick is the requirement to shoot a full frame, the rest you are making, it seems, simply to argue.

 

[fotografr]

28 minutes ago, pop said:

No, you don't. You need to see the original negative. Nothing less will do.

Pop, that was tongue in cheek.

[fotografr]

18 minutes ago, Dr No said:

There is no need to be so abrasive. Wether you have been aware of it or not, it is a common practice. Surely you have seen borders displayed at some point.

Borders in full, or part thereof, are usually printed for this reason when it is of importance to the author. If they are not it has been chosen that way for aesthetic purposes. If you are the owner of the print you will know and usually the average person viewing will not care. If you would like to know, ask the gallery, read the notes, or research the artist. If you intend on buying the $2million print then I can be sure someone will give the provenance you require.

All serious collectors items have marks of authenticity, sometimes hidden. They don't need to be displayed for the item to be enjoyed. What your asking is like going to a serious car collection and asking them to show all receipts and unbolt the cylinder head to prove it has original parts.

Provenance in art is one of the most important things.

The only thing rigid in this is yardstick is the requirement to shoot a full frame, the rest you are making, it seems, simply to argue.

 

I'm not trying to be abrasive. I'm simply reacting to what I view as a rather absurd rigidity. I've already said I agree in principle that images should be cropped in camera, as much as practicable. I make exceptions, however, when circumstances dictate not being able to get close enough. I'm sure this happens more in photojournalism than in art photography, but it does happen. I've been in many situations where there was no choice whatever other than to shoot my longest lens, then crop in the darkroom to make an effective image. In my very first year of working as a photojournalist I was in a situation where there was a standoff between police and someone in a vehicle who had murdered two people and taken a hostage. The longest lens I had with me was 300mm and the police wouldn't allow me to get close enough to get images with impact. When it was all over, I ended up with two front page photos that had both been heavily cropped. They needed to be. To have someone tell me this is somehow a violation of photographic purity wrankles me. Absolute rigidity in any discipline is unacceptable to me. There's always a different way.

Edited July 26, 2020 by fotografr

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, fotografr said:

Fortunately, the people I worked for and sold images to were also dopes with no sense of artistry or discipline.

😀🤣😂😁😆 

[Dr No]

10 minutes ago, fotografr said:

I'm not trying to be abrasive. I'm simply reacting to what I view as a rather absurd rigidity. I've already said I agree in principle that images should be cropped in camera, as much as practicable. I make exceptions, however, when circumstances dictate not being able to get close enough. I'm sure this happens more in photojournalism than in art photography, but it does happen. I've been in many situations where there was no choice whatever other than to shoot my longest lens, then crop in the darkroom to make an effective image. In my very first year of working as a photojournalist I was in a situation where there was a standoff between police and someone in a vehicle who had murdered two people and taken a hostage. The longest lens I had with me was 300mm and the police wouldn't allow me to get close enough to get images with impact. When it was all over, I ended up with two front page photos that had both been heavily cropped. They needed to be. To have someone tell me this is somehow a violation of photographic purity wrankles me. Absolute rigidity in any discipline is unacceptable to me. There's always a different way.

Many argue that it holds just as much relevance in journalism given cropping can be used to manipulate and hide the truth.

I don't think it is absurd in the slightest and the sentiment of it is clear and straight forward.

You are free to believe and do as you wish, though it is different in certain circles—don't shoot the messenger.

[pippy]

8 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

I use a filed out negative holder so that I can print the whole negative with the rebates showing as a black border on the prints...

I always had a pair of over-sized - c. 38mmx26mm - cut-out masks* (which were kept taped onto the inside cover of my neg. file) with me when printing so that if I considered that the image would benefit from being shown complete with borders then it could duly be printed as such. If not then the image would be printed cropped to suit.

I can clearly see the attraction and merits of both viewpoints. Neither one is more valid than the other. Being able to decide on a print-by-print basis is (IMO) the only sensible approach. I don't feel the need to don a hair-shirt in the pursuit of my pleasure.

Professionally speaking, of course, things have always been totally different and, usually, a client will have a certain area to 'fill' so they would crop as they choose.

Philip.

* FWIW the masks were shaped so as to sit neatly inside either a 6x6 or a 6x7 neg-carrier. They worked well. In fact I still have them inside the same neg. files...

Edited July 26, 2020 by pippy

[scott kirkpatrick]

I filed out the negative holder for 35mm on my Omega D enlarger when I had a darkroom.  Of course I could crop on the easel, but it made it more tempting to go for the whole frame with the black border, so I would try to see things that way.  Now with digital high resolution I tend to trim things at the edge a little, but I don't try to turn a 28 mm focal length shot into a 50.  I think it is very rare that that works.

[Dr No]

1 minute ago, pippy said:

I always had a pair of over-sized - c. 38mmx26mm - cut-out masks* (which was kept taped onto the inside cover of my neg. file) with me when printing so that if I considered that the image would benefit from being shown complete with borders then it could duly be printed as such. If not then the image would be printed cropped to suit.

I can clearly see the attraction and merits of both viewpoints. Neither one is more valid than the other. Being able to decide on a print-by-print basis is (IMO) the only sensible approach. I don't feel the need to don a hair-shirt in the pursuit of my pleasure.

Philip.

* FWIW the masks were shaped so as to sit neatly inside either a 6x6 or a 6x7 neg-carrier. They worked well.

A sound approach. Also, Filed carriers are useful in that they are permanent and each one unique like a finger print.

The idea this is that the purity in the act of photography can be preserved and the competence, skill, talent, sensitivity of the photographer can be measured in their ability to capture with the every part of the frame, the 'canvas' that is a fixed physical property of the apparatus. It's the result of a mental and physical performance, timing, luck, decision and the gift of the moment, by a well practiced, highly skilled and talented artist. All that at the very moment of capture, preserved into celluloid, is rare thing indeed and anything after that is something else.

 

[Pyrogallol]

This is all getting a bit too serious. I could say that I print this way because it’s a lazy way of getting a black border, and the whole 35mm negative suits A4 paper (Ilford Multigrade).

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!

[fotografr]

8 minutes ago, Dr No said:

A sound approach. Also, Filed carriers are useful in that they are permanent and each one unique like a finger print.

The idea this is that the purity in the act of photography can be preserved and the competence, skill, talent, sensitivity of the photographer can be measured in their ability to capture with the every part of the frame, the 'canvas' that is a fixed physical property of the apparatus. It's the result of a mental and physical performance, timing, luck, decision and the gift of the moment, by a well practiced, highly skilled and talented artist. All that at the very moment of capture, preserved into celluloid, is rare thing indeed and anything after that is something else.

 

My problem with your point of view as stated here and throughout this thread is that you are applying standards with which to judge other photographer's work. If this religious adherence to using every millimeter of an image is how you want to judge your own work, that's fine. But do not apply this to the work of other photographers and suggest that because they might occasionally crop am image to suit their taste, they are failing to achieve your high artistic standards.

I would defy you to go through the vast number of images posted on this forum and determine which have been cropped. You can't tell here anymore than you can when you go to a gallery. Yet you still view images and respond to them intellectually and emotionally based on content--not on whether you think the photographer used the entire original image. In the end, it simply doesn't matter.

My reply to the question posed by the OP would be to just please yourself. If you think an image would be improved by cropping, do it. If, on the other hand, you feel this violates some artistic discipline, then leave it as is. To each their own.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Dr No said:

A sound approach. Also, Filed carriers are useful in that they are permanent and each one unique like a finger print.

The idea this is that the purity in the act of photography can be preserved and the competence, skill, talent, sensitivity of the photographer can be measured in their ability to capture with the every part of the frame, the 'canvas' that is a fixed physical property of the apparatus. It's the result of a mental and physical performance, timing, luck, decision and the gift of the moment, by a well practiced, highly skilled and talented artist. All that at the very moment of capture, preserved into celluloid, is rare thing indeed and anything after that is something else.

I do, absolutely, understand and appreciate where you are coming from and can also empathise with the feeling of a certain 'achievement' (for want of a better word) when everything aligns in the instant and nothing done subsequently could improve on what has been captured in that fleeting fraction of a second. It can be a deeply satisfying experience.

At the same time; when I was still a student we were also lectured about "when, how and why" we should sometimes use a cropped image. The end-usage was usually the determining factor here although aesthetic concerns were also at play from time to time.

On the subject of filed-carriers and fingerprints; I can easily tell those films (and full-frame-bordered prints) shot on my M2 from those shot on my Nikon F2 as the latter had a 'notch' (accidentally?) indent at the lower left-hand-edge of the film-plane aperture much in the manner of the 'double-v' system adopted by Hasselblad.

Philip.

Edited July 26, 2020 by pippy