Do you crop a lot or not so much?

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

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!

Beautiful prints. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Galleries would love them. Publications generally wouldn't print them that way. I would point out that you're doing this with film based images. Try it with a digital image. 😉

[pippy]

2 hours ago, Dr No said:

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

With the greatest respect and splitting hairs for a mo', Dr. No, it is not always necessary to crop an image to do so. The mere act of the photographer choosing which particular part of any 'reality' to snap is in itself a 'Crop' of that reality and the particular part of the reality snapped can be chosen in order to reflect the views of one side or another as may be the case. Just ask Don McCullin about why he wasn't given accreditation to go to the Falklands...

But I know what you mean...

Philip.

Edited July 26, 2020 by pippy

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Dr No said:

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.

I agree with Susan Sontag who wrote that "photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and drawings are". 

[Dr No]

4 minutes ago, fotografr said:

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.

You are offended with the discussion of a concept that has been in place longer than you or I have been alive. It has been, and is, practiced and adhered to by many of the greatest masters of the medium.

Wether I determine which image has or has not been cropped does not change wether the image has or has not been cropped. I can react to an images content independently of its technical attributes and authenticity. In the end, I'm sorry to say, in certain circles it does matter.

Wether something fails an established standard only makes a difference to the individual. A viewer can judge an image in any way or with any criteria they like. You can either accept it or reject it, it is your choice and if you have spent a career in photography you will already know this to be true because your clients, editors, buyers, or whomever either accept your work or don't—it is based on their standards and requirements.

 

[fotografr]

19 minutes ago, Dr No said:

You are offended with the discussion of a concept that has been in place longer than you or I have been alive. It has been, and is, practiced and adhered to by many of the greatest masters of the medium.

 

 

 

I'm not at all offended by the discussion. I am only offended by the way you apply these rigid standards to my work and the work of others who might have a different way of doing things.

I have no doubt that there are many great masters of photography who adhere to the no crop rule. I also have no doubt there are at least as many who crop to suit their vision. I say, to each their own. You are unwilling to allow others that freedom without making judgements about their craft and that's where we will not come to agreement.

Now I think this horse carcass has flies buzzing around it so let's stop kicking it.

Edited July 26, 2020 by fotografr

[Dr No]

18 minutes ago, pippy said:

With the greatest respect and splitting hairs for a mo', Dr. No, it is not always necessary to crop an image to do so. The mere act of the photographer choosing which particular part of any 'reality' to snap is in itself a 'Crop' of that reality and the particular part of the reality snapped can be chosen in order to reflect the views of one side or another as may be the case. Just ask Don McCullin about why he wasn't given accreditation to go to the Falklands...

But I know what you mean...

Philip.

This is true. And while it throws a spanner the works for photojournalism and does create argument, it also underlines the meaning for the rest of photography. That is, You crop with your camera; what you choose to frame, the format shape, and lens that you choose all contributes to the crop of your image what photography is.

But as he is often references and certainly has been in this conversation already, Henri Cartier-Bresson did not crop his journalism works for the same reasons. It's as much truth and authenticity as you can show.

[Robert Blanko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Dr No:

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.

 

This would seem to imply that in the era of digital photography without borders prints of photos would never be collectors‘ items?

Edited July 26, 2020 by Robert Blanko

[Guest]

Relax and donate a free Coke to the king of animals.
If anybody thinks about arguments on cropping or not cropping, the image content might not fascinate him enough.
Today you can add easily any frame with or without film transport holes.
Only Tri-X should never be read around a color photo ...😀

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!

[pippy]

On 7/25/2020 at 12:14 PM, Tailwagger said:

...First, since when is 2x3 God's holy ratio?...

In 35mm terms? Possibly 1948 / '49. But it wasn't God who decided...

Purely as a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun and out of academic interest  / information;

As we all know Herr Barnack made the Ur-Leica with a 24 x 36 frame-size but I found this following tid-bit of information, regarding the early Nikon rangefinder cameras, rather interesting;

"...(for)...the original Nikon 1, as introduced in 1948, the factory chose the 24 × 32 mm frame size, known as the Nippon format, which yielded more frames per length of film, and matched more closely the common paper sizes. However, the camera never caught on, because the US administration in Tokyo did not permit export to the US due to the non standard format, incompatible with the Kodak slide mounts...."

Philip.

[Dr No]

4 minutes ago, fotografr said:

I'm not at all offended by the discussion. I am only offended by the way you apply these rigid standards to my work and the work of others who might have a different way of doing things.

I have no doubt that there are many great masters of photography who adhere to the no crop rule. I also have no doubt there are at least as many who crop to suit their vision. I say, to each their own. You are unwilling to allow others that freedom without making judgements about their craft and that's where we will not come to agreement.

Now I think this horse carcass has flies buzzing around it so let's stop kicking it.

Everyday my work has other peoples standards applied to it, I accept that because that is the way people perceive. It rarely makes any difference to me because I don't take pictures for them and if I feel it's something of value then I take it on board or at least consider it in part. If you are offended by other people's reactions then you will have a very hard time being a photographer because this is an everyday occurrence. Yes, I agree all there is to be said has been said.

[Jeff S]

40 minutes ago, fotografr said:

Beautiful prints. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Galleries would love them. Publications generally wouldn't print them that way. I would point out that you're doing this with film based images. Try it with a digital image. 😉

Many software programs have action(s) to create black borders around photos, including Adobe.  Ironic, as the early film practice was commonly done to show an uncropped negative; now it’s an aesthetic choice, proving nothing in terms of cropping.

HCB was the preeminent example, but he was hardly alone. He instructed his printer to include a black border around his prints to demonstrate that the picture was uncropped. Various exhibits of his work are displayed just that way, with prints floated or matted to reveal the entire print.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/henri-cartier-bresson-india-in-full-frame-review-the-subcontinent-uncropped-1493671020

Some contemporary photographers, including Peter Turnley (Pulitzer Prize winner) emulate the practice (he shoots Leica film and digital). Here you can see how Mike Johnston of TOP matted and framed one of Peter’s Paris prints.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/02/qa-how-should-you-frame-a-photograph-part-i.html
 

I’m firmly in the Walker Evans camp; whatever it takes to get the final result, cropped or otherwise.  But there is a long history of changing practices regarding cropping, printing, matting and framing, including contact prints revealing edges, dry mounting prints, floating prints, etc.  Filing negative carriers came about to mimic some of the greats like HCB (although I believe his printer used more elegant ‘full frame’ carriers). 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/02/17/how-to-file-out-your-own-negative-holder/amp/

I’ve custom matted my own prints for decades, but my practices have evolved.  I now cut to overlap my prints, but that wasn’t always the case. Since the 80’s,  I have also collected vintage silver prints from many masters (from early 20th century on) and amateurs alike, and have prints on my walls demonstrating a variety of approaches.  No right or wrong. History often repeats itself.

Jeff

 

 

[Dr No]

5 minutes ago, Robert Blanko said:

This would seem to imply that in the era of digital photography without borders prints of photos would never be collectors‘ items?

Not really it can be easily proven. But there are many who choose to remain shooting film for this reason.

[SrMi]

9 minutes ago, Dr No said:

This is true. And while it throws a spanner the works for photojournalism and does create argument, it also underlines the meaning for the rest of photography. That is, You crop with your camera; what you choose to frame, the format shape, and lens that you choose all contributes to the crop of your image what photography is.

But as he is often references and certainly has been in this conversation already, Henri Cartier-Bresson did not crop his journalism works for the same reasons. It's as much truth and authenticity as you can show.

Walker Evans on cropping (link)

" Stieglitz wouldn’t cut a quarter of an inch off a frame. I would cut any number of inches off my frames in order to get a better picture."

HCB did (very rarely) crop as well: Derriere la Gare Saint-Lazare

Edited July 26, 2020 by SrMi

[Dr No]

31 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I agree with Susan Sontag who wrote that "photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and drawings are". 

I do wholly agree with this.

Of course there are the exceptions.

[fotografr]

11 minutes ago, Dr No said:

If you are offended by other people's reactions then you will have a very hard time being a photographer because this is an everyday occurrence.

You have made an incorrect assumption. I've never had any problem with other people's reactions to my work. That's part of the business when one does work that gets displayed in public. On the other hand, I have never been asked by someone looking at one of my images whether I cropped it or not. Admittedly, I've never tried to sell one for $2 million.

[Dr No]

Just now, fotografr said:

You have made an incorrect assumption. I've never had any problem with other people's reactions to my work. That's part of the business when one does work that gets displayed in public. On the other hand, I have never been asked by someone looking at one of my images whether I cropped it or not. Admittedly, I've never tried to sell one for $2 million.

It's not an incorrect assumption. You just said you're offended by "how i apply these rigid standards to my work". That is a reaction to your work.

Also, I never did comment or even see your work. You applied my standards to your work and said that I did and that I shouldn't! 😆

 

[Dr No]

5 minutes ago, fotografr said:

Admittedly, I've never tried to sell one for $2 million.

Well that is the point in the end. These prints are worth 2 million for reasons the buyers care about.

[fotografr]

4 minutes ago, Dr No said:

Well that is the point in the end. These prints are worth 2 million for reasons the buyers care about.

I guess that leaves Walker Evans out.

[Ko.Fe.]

I took first fifty thousands images digitally to learn. One thing I was able to learn is to compose within the frame. So, I rarely need to crop. Printing different aspect ratio on paper is not a problem. 

DR print:

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!

M4-2 with 35mm lens.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[fotografr]

7 minutes ago, Dr No said:

It's not an incorrect assumption. You just said you're offended by "how i apply these rigid standards to my work". That is a reaction to your work.

Also, I never did comment or even see your work. You applied my standards to your work and said that I did and that I shouldn't! 😆

 

I'd never show you my work. Since I've admitted that I crop as I see fit, your stated standards have already prejudged my images.