Do you crop a lot or not so much?

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, evikne said:

The most common reason why I crop an image is to remove something unwanted in one of the outer edges,

That actually happened to me just today. I was out shooting with my Noctilux, which blocks a good portion of the lower right area of the viewfinder. As I was working on one of the images, I noticed a gray blurry object in that corner. All I could do to salvage it was crop out the unwanted area.

[fotografr]

On 7/24/2020 at 2:41 PM, Dr No said:

No. You crop with your camera and you edit with your shutter finger.

I would agree with that if you had added the words, "as much as possible." Absolutes are sheer folly in this business.

Anyone who has ever put a negative into the film holder of an enlarger knows that the edges of the frame get cropped to some extent in order to have straight borders in the print. The easel blades crop even further because the projected image overlaps the edges during exposure on the photo paper. Does this make the image unsuitable for framing and viewing?

The "never crop" mindset assumes 100% viewfinder accuracy. We're closer to that now than in the past, but I'm certain that in the HCB days it was nowhere near that mark.

Edited July 26, 2020 by fotografr

[Pyrogallol]

4 hours ago, fotografr said:

I would agree with that if you had added the words, "as much as possible." Absolutes are sheer folly in this business.

Anyone who has ever put a negative into the film holder of an enlarger knows that the edges of the frame get cropped to some extent in order to have straight borders in the print. The easel blades crop even further because the projected image overlaps the edges during exposure on the photo paper. Does this make the image unsuitable for framing and viewing?

The "never crop" mindset assumes 100% viewfinder accuracy. We're closer to that now than in the past, but I'm certain that in the HCB days it was nowhere near that mark.

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.

Compose the picture in the viewfinder.

[NigelG]

1 hour 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.

Compose the picture in the viewfinder.

I guess Elliott Erwitt should have tried harder then - he only got to use about 20% of a negative sometimes...

https://www.magnumphotos.com/shop/collections/contact-sheet-prints/contact-sheet-print-chihuahua-new-york-elliott-erwitt/

[evikne]

More examples:

https://erickimphotography.com/blog/cropping/

[Mikep996]

Well, in the case of producing a final image,  absent extensive processing, digital sensors of today could no more produce the Ansel Adams photographs he is famous for than the film he used.  The difference is that what took him hours to do in the darkroom can be (more or less) done much faster nowadays but the same level of processing is required.  The fact that the computer or in-camera software can provide it doesn't change what has been done to the "data."

In that regard, "straight out of the camera" is essentially meaningless in digital since most camera's have a variety of settings available for image output - anything from vivid color to monochrome.  Yeah, raw is supposed to be the digital negative but if you shoot raw out of 5 different cameras with the same exposure settings, the "negatives" will all look different.  If you shoot TriX out of 5 different cameras, regardless of the settings, all the negatives till looked like TriX!

So I guess any digital image is already heavily processed.  So now my thinking is, who cares if more is added?  

Edited July 26, 2020 by Mikep996

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, fotografr said:

That actually happened to me just today. I was out shooting with my Noctilux, which blocks a good portion of the lower right area of the viewfinder. As I was working on one of the images, I noticed a gray blurry object in that corner. All I could do to salvage it was crop out the unwanted area.

Yep, been there, done that. The solution is to remove your finger from the lens😁.

[farnz]

12 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

Well, in the case of producing a final image,  absent extensive processing, digital sensors of today could no more produce the Ansel Adams photographs he is famous for than the film he used.  The difference is that what took him hours to do in the darkroom can be (more or less) done much faster nowadays but the same level of processing is required.  The fact that the computer or in-camera software can provide it doesn't change what has been done to the "data."

In that regard, "straight out of the camera" is essentially meaningless in digital since most camera's have a variety of settings available for image output - anything from vivid color to monochrome.  Yeah, raw is supposed to be the digital negative but if you shoot raw out of 5 different cameras with the same exposure settings, the "negatives" will all look different.  If you shoot TriX out of 5 different cameras, regardless of the settings, all the negatives till looked like TriX!

So I guess any digital image is already heavily processed.  So now my thinking is, who cares if more is added?  

Your post seems to be about post-processing generally rather than cropping specifically, which was the original question.

I can't see how anyone could argue against post-processing generally because it started in darkrooms with the first photographs.  That horse has bolted, lived its life pleasantly in lush, green pastures, raised a family and is enjoying its grandchildren's children. 

Pete.

 

[Mikep996]

Yes, you are right, I seem to have gotten my own thread off track!  

[Dr No]

7 hours ago, fotografr said:

I would agree with that if you had added the words, "as much as possible." Absolutes are sheer folly in this business.

Anyone who has ever put a negative into the film holder of an enlarger knows that the edges of the frame get cropped to some extent in order to have straight borders in the print. The easel blades crop even further because the projected image overlaps the edges during exposure on the photo paper. Does this make the image unsuitable for framing and viewing?

The "never crop" mindset assumes 100% viewfinder accuracy. We're closer to that now than in the past, but I'm certain that in the HCB days it was nowhere near that mark.

No it's just a matter of disciplines. But you are free you disagree as you wish.

Not true at all. File your film holders down and project within the easel borders to contain the entire border. That has always been standard practice.

No, it doesn't assume 100% finder accuracies and speaking of HCB he only allowed two of his images to be cropped.

[Dr No]

1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

Well, in the case of producing a final image,  absent extensive processing, digital sensors of today could no more produce the Ansel Adams photographs he is famous for than the film he used.  The difference is that what took him hours to do in the darkroom can be (more or less) done much faster nowadays but the same level of processing is required.  The fact that the computer or in-camera software can provide it doesn't change what has been done to the "data."

In that regard, "straight out of the camera" is essentially meaningless in digital since most camera's have a variety of settings available for image output - anything from vivid color to monochrome.  Yeah, raw is supposed to be the digital negative but if you shoot raw out of 5 different cameras with the same exposure settings, the "negatives" will all look different.  If you shoot TriX out of 5 different cameras, regardless of the settings, all the negatives till looked like TriX!

So I guess any digital image is already heavily processed.  So now my thinking is, who cares if more is added?  

It depends what your aim is.

Skill and craft acquired over a lifetime of work combined with natural talent holds far more value to some than the press of a computer button.

Getting it right in camera is a critical part of development. Not only does it speed up or eliminate production it is the result of knowledge and cultivated talent. You can choose a camera and lens combination for it's DNG rendering just like you choose a film stock.

A more obvious and direct example is that no one takes a photoshop oil painting filter as a replacement for an oil painting.

Anyone is free to use digital for their own means but there comes a point where acquired knowledge & skill, cultivated and/or natural talent will always be judged.

[Guest Nowhereman]

13 minutes ago, Dr No said:

It depends what your aim is...Anyone is free to use digital for their own means but there comes a point where acquired knowledge & skill, cultivated and/or natural talent will always be judged.

Will always be judged? You could have said, "will always be determinant"; but "judged" makes no sense to me. If your aim is to make a good photograph, with "good" being whatever you define for yourself, it is the result that is judged, by yourself or others — not the knowledge, skill or talent that went into it. Like saying: a photograph is only as good as his or her last photograph.
_______________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Tailwagger]

10 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

I like both pictures but much prefer the version that is not cropped,it gives me more information and context.

I would argue somewhere in between.  Every millimeter to the left of the sweep of the arm chair is total waste of real estate. The wall plug at the top also needs to go.  The picture(?) on the wall bisected by the arm of the chair is truly unfortunate, but were it me, as I like the asymmetrical sweep of the chair, I'd retain all of the right side and brush that out.  The face would wind up offset, not smack in the middle of the frame which, coupled to curve of the chair would, for me, inject a little pace into the photo. 

[fotografr]

1 hour ago, Dr No said:

No it's just a matter of disciplines. But you are free you disagree as you wish.

Not true at all. File your film holders down and project within the easel borders to contain the entire border. That has always been standard practice.

No, it doesn't assume 100% finder accuracies and speaking of HCB he only allowed two of his images to be cropped.

Common practice to file film holders down? In 40 years working as a professional photographer, I have never heard of this.**

If photographers routinely projected within the easel borders, you'd never see prints with straight edges. I suppose you're also going to tell us that when matting a photograph for display, it's common practice to not slightly overlap the print. Ridiculous.

**Correction: I have heard of it once, and that was when Pyrogallol mentioned in this thread that he does it. I probably should also have pointed out early on that I'm am not an artist, nor do I have discipline.

Edited July 26, 2020 by fotografr

[fotografr]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Yep, been there, done that. The solution is to remove your finger from the lens😁.

Actually, it was a tree branch this time but, yes, I've done the finger more than once. 😁

[fotografr]

3 hours ago, evikne said:

More examples:

https://erickimphotography.com/blog/cropping/

Precisely!

[T25UFO]

11 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

I like both pictures but much prefer the version that is not cropped,it gives me more information and context.

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

20 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

I would argue somewhere in between.  Every millimeter to the left of the sweep of the arm chair is total waste of real estate. The wall plug at the top also needs to go.  The picture(?) on the wall bisected by the arm of the chair is truly unfortunate, but were it me, as I like the asymmetrical sweep of the chair, I'd retain all of the right side and brush that out.  The face would wind up offset, not smack in the middle of the frame which, coupled to curve of the chair would, for me, inject a little pace into the photo. 

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 . . .

[Dr No]

12 minutes ago, fotografr said:

Common practice to file film holders down? In 40 years working as a professional photographer, I have never heard of this.

If photographers routinely projected within the easel borders, you'd never see prints with straight edges. I suppose you're also going to tell us that when matting a photograph for display, it's common practice to not slightly overlap the print. Ridiculous.

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.

You have referenced Henri Cartier-Bresson, this was his prerequisite for his printers for this reason.

Slightly overlapping the frame while matting is one way of creating a matt but it is also considered, by some, as sloppy. It is also common practice to show a small portion, or all of the border for these reasons. 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.

[pop]

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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[farnz]

Quelle surprise! 

Pete.