Do you crop a lot or not so much?

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jmahto said:

(IMHO) it looks like a crop only after he showed the full pic. If only crop is shown then one will never know it is a crop. 

It's possible to make an educated guess if a picture is trying too hard, you see elements perfectly close to the edge of the frame, composition that perfectly fills the frame, and armed with the knowledge that it was a 21mm lens another clue would be that it doesn't look like a 21mm lens shot anymore. Also given the grey area over framing with a Leica, it's never going to be as perfect as an SLR, when these elements align it becomes increasingly unlikely that the picture isn't cropped, but not impossible. With a wide angle lens these thing are more noticeable. Nothing wrong of course with a bit of cropping but being observant can help understand the image. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest BlackBarn]

There may be a misconception that as photographers we are capturing a real moment. We forget our moments are determined by the specification of our kit, our focus and the direction we are facing. Photographers  are storytellers, forgers of reality and all our ‘real’ moments start at the point of cropping reality.

[lct]

Misconception or different philosophy? 

[Kwesi]

On 7/28/2020 at 5:35 AM, BlackBarn said:

There may be a misconception that as photographers we are capturing a real moment. We forget our moments are determined by the specification of our kit, our focus and the direction we are facing. Photographers  are storytellers, forgers of reality and all our ‘real’ moments start at the point of cropping reality.

Not sure I agree completely with you here (section in bold). From a given vantage point, our kit determines how much of a moment we capture. Cropping, as discussed here, happens after the image has been captured.

[Kwesi]

On 7/26/2020 at 12:19 PM, Dennis said:

I believe the crop is legitimate, is the last labor of love you are doing for your photos. It's also accepted by the code of ethics of photojournalism. In my case, I crop a little (as pixels), but I do crop almost all my photos. One extra pixel, a distraction in a corner, can make a huge difference. Huge. But wait: it's not about to compensate a mistake I did when I composed. It's about to have already a great image already, and make it better.  

After the crop, the picture story and context remain the same, but you have two significant advantages:
First, the final picture looks exactly as you want, and this is essential. It's your way to express a particular reality, and this is your own art, your POV, your perspective. Second, it's about respect. Once you pressed the shutter and you made the first magic step, whatever is film or crop, the next part is to refine (and indeed to improve) what you already did.
Personally, my indisputable and favorite part is and always will be shooting. It's where the wonder happens. But after that, culling and crops are really enjoyable for me. Then, in the end, a slight Post Process. IMHO to crop, is to recognize what you already did and bring it to its best. It's a legitimate and lovely process. Essential.

 

Hi Dennis,

Even though I personally think of cropping as a measure of last resort, I think your explanation of why cropping is important is the most articulate, passionate and succinct I've ever heard.

Thank you.

[Dennis]

1 hour ago, Kwesi said:

Hi Dennis,

Even though I personally think of cropping as a measure of last resort, I think your explanation of why cropping is important is the most articulate, passionate and succinct I've ever heard.

Thank you.

Thank you Kwesi. I don't see cropping as PP. I see it as extension of the shot, an improvement of the shot w/o altering its reality. After that, it's when the PP starts.

Yes, there are changes before and after crop, of course. But I really believe it's an optical change, not electronic. A non aggressive crop changes the photo, yes, but IMHO it doesn't change its essence. It's another world when for example you change the exposure, or add shadows etc. Do you know what I mean?

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Dennis said:

Thank you Kwesi. I don't see cropping as PP. I see it as extension of the shot, an improvement of the shot w/o altering its reality. After that, it's when the PP starts.

Yes, there are changes before and after crop, of course. But I really believe it's an optical change, not electronic. A non aggressive crop changes the photo, yes, but IMHO it doesn't change its essence. It's another world when for example you change the exposure, or add shadows etc. Do you know what I mean?

A crop is more akin to sensor size change than to an optical change.

[lct]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

A crop is more akin to sensor size change than to an optical change.

A sensor size after the photo then. But what for if the photo is taken?

 

[Dennis]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

A crop is more akin to sensor size change than to an optical change.

yes and not, but I get what your point is. And it makes sense

[Rockrug]

I almost never crop. I frame very intentionally, and any cropping is usually the unintended result of needed to straighten an image.

BC

[Guest BlackBarn]

7 hours ago, Kwesi said:

Cropping, as discussed here, happens after the image has been captured.

Cropping was happening prior to the image being captured so I was not certain why it was an issue post image capturing. 

I was stepping back to a point of the photographers intent to capture an image which is where  the major cropping  occurs and which may have been overlooked in the discussion.  
 

 

 

[Kwesi]

I think it comes down to semantics. What you are describing is the selection process which happens during image capture. At that point we are deciding how much of the view in front of us we want to exclude from the frame. This is not cropping.  Cropping happens after the image is captured. 

[Guest BlackBarn]

1 hour ago, Kwesi said:

comes down to semantics

No not really. When I take photos I don’t put a boundary governed by the constraints of the camera and lens.....’what  goes in must come out’ type of thing. I retain the flexibility to compose to the edges of the lens or be attracted to an element within the lenses parameters which I will explore later within PP.

What I can’t do is extend the parameters of the lens so I appreciate I am only capturing (cropping) an element of what I am seeing and sensing and so my ‘cropping’  starts well prior to the photo being taken. When I select the crop then I compose the photograph.
 

Some photographers prefer a tighter boundary and use the term ‘cropping’ to apply to the image once stored in the camera.  I consider the same techniques and skills are required for both but one just gives far more creative options. 

[rramesh]

I wonder what the Q users have to say. Cropping is perfectly fine so long as you don't crop your spouse out. What could be worse would be to try photoshopping. 😀

[lct]

3 hours ago, rramesh said:

I wonder what the Q users have to say. Cropping is perfectly fine so long as you don't crop your spouse out. What could be worse would be to try photoshopping. 😀

Sure if you compose in your arm chair .

[IkarusJohn]

I’m a non-cropper, just like Gordon 😁

I see this two ways - coming from film, I try hard to get the exposure settings, ISO and composition right in the frame.  Most of the time, I’m happy with the composition, but sometimes the unexpected happens - the horizon is wrong, I need to crop or clone something out.  I’ve just returned from Wanaka, and found to my disgust a horrible big black blob in the centre of my sensor - I’ll have to clone it out.  Generally, though, I like to select the lens and move my feet to get the composition I want, with the right tension between the elements of the image.  They need balance, and sometimes that needs a little correction.

Generally, I prefer to stick with how the image was framed and composed, if I can.

What I’m not about to do is get a high MP camera with a zoom and machine gun images, with the ISO set at base and aperture and shutter speed largely ignored on the basis that I can extract an image out of a larger image (because of the high MP) and correct white balance and exposure in post, utilising the improved dynamic range and flexibility of the files.  I seem to recall someone talking about doing this with the SL2 - I find it very unappealing.

I must be getting old.

Edited August 1, 2020 by IkarusJohn

[farnz]

14 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

... with the right tension between the elements of the image ...

Interesting to hear you put it that way, John.  I like to think about it as the right harmony between the elements of the image.  But it probably all boils down to the same thing.

Pete.

[IkarusJohn]

10 minutes ago, farnz said:

Interesting to hear you put it that way, John.  I like to think about it as the right harmony between the elements of the image.  But it probably all boils down to the same thing.

Pete.

Hi Pete,

I think they’re the same concept, but I prefer “tension”.

The M rangefinder does get one (me?) into the dreadful habit of having the subject dead centre - I find this very boring.  Similarly, the rules of golden triangles and 2/3 are there to be broken - but when you break them, the image has to work in that context - much like Mapplethorpe’s image of a warship on a grey day.  “Balance” is okay, but it doesn’t capture the idea that there is a rule, and you’ve broken it.  The view needs to feel unsettled, but reassured.  The Bath image failed to please Steve, I suspect because the rules were broken with no apparent rationale - the subject was just too close to the frame ...

You will recall Lars’ enthusiasm for the 21 SEM, I’m sure.  He used to talk about the 2D effect this lens gave him, like Chinese and Japanese art, with a number of subjects, in the same plane, spread across the frame.

John

Edited August 1, 2020 by IkarusJohn

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[farnz]

2 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

You will recall Lars’ enthusiasm for the 21 SEM, I’m sure.

Yes I do.  And I miss 'the old man who helped everyone'.

Pete.

[Dr No]

4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I’m a non-cropper, just like Gordon 😁

I see this two ways - coming from film, I try hard to get the exposure settings, ISO and composition right in the frame.  Most of the time, I’m happy with the composition, but sometimes the unexpected happens - the horizon is wrong, I need to crop or clone something out.  I’ve just returned from Wanaka, and found to my disgust a horrible big black blob in the centre of my sensor - I’ll have to clone it out.  Generally, though, I like to select the lens and move my feet to get the composition I want, with the right tension between the elements of the image.  They need balance, and sometimes that needs a little correction.

Generally, I prefer to stick with how the image was framed and composed, if I can.

What I’m not about to do is get a high MP camera with a zoom and machine gun images, with the ISO set at base and aperture and shutter speed largely ignored on the basis that I can extract an image out of a larger image (because of the high MP) and correct white balance and exposure in post, utilising the improved dynamic range and flexibility of the files.  I seem to recall someone talking about doing this with the SL2 - I find it very unappealing.

I must be getting old.

Yes, this machine gunning you describe, with no care of exposure, framing, or what it's being pointed at is awful. It isn't photography.

It comes back to the decisive moment, doesn't it? Everything that surrounds it is distilled in the photographers photos.. Everything leading up to that moment of pressing the shutter, the individuals history, their point of view, their sensitivity, their emotions, combined with the technical aspects, the choice of camera, lens, exposure, composition and through to what the photographer chooses to point the camera at and the moment, carefully selected to represent all that. It's a combination of everything inward and outward and the relationship between them.

There comes a point where digital can do a great disservice to photography because being limitless brings indecision, that is the opposite of what photography really is. This is why film is so highly respected. Putting the aesthetics aside, what it represents: Aquired skill, knowledge, care, personality, sensitivity, carefully selected moments. People easily understand the value because it has to be right in camera. The aesthetic too, becomes desirable but perhaps because of what it physically represents.

If someone wants to learn photography, put down the digital camera and pick up a film camera. 10 frames a roll, $2.50 a photo; it teaches a lot more about what photography actually is.

Edited August 1, 2020 by Dr No