Do you crop?

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

One of the main advantages to LF photography is the big negative. Does that make you compose a little more loosely, knowing that you can crop and still have plenty of negative for a good sized enlargement? I know for those contact printing you have to compose for the full negative. I enlarge from a 4X5 negative/transparency and I hate when I don't use the full thing. I have one shot that will make a nice picture if I crop down to about 6X9. I should be happy about that but instead I beat myself up for not framing it properly in the first place.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/1886545-lg.jpg

[Nick_3536]

I make the best print my skills allow. If that means cropping so be it. Are you using an oversized glass negative carrier to show 100% of the negative?

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I get full scans and then print and/or crop and print digitally. Yes, I start out with the full image. I usually finish with the full image as well - or awfully close to it. When I crop it is usually because something made it into the image that I didn't see and don't want.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/1886558-lg.jpg

This is closer to the full image of the first picture. It is full wide.

[Tim Curry]

This was one of the more interesting questions at the recent LF meet in Monterey. It is similar to the following.

Question: "If a banjo and an accordian are both dropped from the Empire State Building at the same time, which one hits the ground first?"

Answer: "Who cares."

In the answer lies your answer. It depends on who is saying what about croppoing as to the weight the answer carries. Your opinion of their answer is most important as to right and wrong.

[Ernest Purdum]

Don't beat yourself up, acknowledge to yourself that there is no way you can have the exactly correct focal length lens for every scene you want to photograph. Often you can't position your tripod in the exactly correct place. Frequently, filling the frame will mean including a distracting element. Not every scene is arranged in a 4 to 5 ratio. Crop away and be happy.

[John D Gerndt]

To get to the question more directly, the big negative does not make me (or apparently you) much more comfortable with cropping. There is tremendous pride among amateur photographers about their composition. I think professionals must be more realistic; besides, they are not in control as much as their editors. (This is where the black line showing the borders of the negative comes from; Magnum stipulated that images from this organization must be printed full frame to insure the integrity of what their photographers intended ended up on the pages.)

Pride goith… After almost 20 years, I have relaxed my standards. I crop more frequently now. I shoot fewer images. I shoot larger negatives too. I must say all these changes in my shooting are related. I hope this is a full answer to your post.

Cheers,

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

John, that exactly the sort of answer I was looking for.

[Bruce Watson]

Many of us started out in 35mm. I did. My early training was as a photo journalist, and I learned that I needed to fill my frame, both on film (35mm is a small film) and on paper (either I did it or the editors did).

I must say, it's a hard habit to shake. But I'm getting better at it. I'm trying much more to let the scene dictate the aspect ratio. The more I work with LF, the more I think it's silly for me to try to impose an arbitrary aspect ratio on every scene I encounter.

I did try an experiment. I masked off part of the ground glass to impose a different aspect ratio. In this case, the golden ratio (3.1x5). I found that this was just as restrictive as 4x5, and that I could no more will a scene into that ratio than I could will it into 4x5.

After some study and thought, I've concluded that I tend to see things -- to be drawn to scenes to photograph -- that more closely align with the 3:4 ratio. In other words, I tend to crop a little off the top and bottom of the frame.

This isn't bad. It's not good either. It just is. While experimenting with aspect ratios was an interesting study and an interesting learning experience, I am not loosing any sleep over it. One of the joys of LF is that the film area is so large that doing some cropping just doesn't matter. Unless you are into contact printing ;-)

[Bill_1856]

There are damn few photographs which can't be improved with a little judicious cropping.

[Michael A.Smith]

When all is said and done, and your photographs are finished and mounted, no one cares if they are cropped or not. That being said, I have never cropped a photograph and do not advise it. Cropping is an admission of failure to see creatively.

Now, what exactly is cropping? I believe that if what you are photographing either does not fit the format of your ground glass or if for some other reason, such as not having enough of a lens selection, you need to get closer but cannot, and you see, at the time of exposure, that you want to use less than the full negative, then by all means use less than the full negative. I do not consider that cropping.

What I think of as cropping is after you make your first work print you look at it and then decide that it is not very good and would be made better if you, say, cut off the left edge by an inch. In these cases, unless it is one of the greatest and most profound photographs ever made, which will be doubtful for any of us, myself included, that you give yourself a swift kick and vow to see more carefully the next time. After a while, seeing the photograph complete on the ground glass will be second nature. There is a great joy and satisfaction (at least there is for me), when the picture comes together on the ground glass.

It is a also lot easier not to crop--the prints are all the same size; mount board and overmats are always the same size; and printing times, if you are enlarging, can quickly be guessed accurately because the enlarger is always at the same height.

But in the end it really doesn't matter whether you crop or not. Whether you do or not is a function of where you get the greatest excitement in the process of making your photographs.

[CXC]

Theoretically, intellectually, I believe in cropping. The rectangle of the camera is just one arbitrarily selected of an infinitude of possible rectangles, and only occasionally will it correspond ideally to the intended image. Therefore, I crop freely.

But it often feels like failure to *need* to crop. Emotionally, instinctually, the process of taking a picture is the task of creating the best possible image with the tool at hand. The tool hasn't been fully utilized if part of the resulting image is discarded.

Aesthetically, my personal approach is to "make" pictures, rather than to "find" images. Found images come in all shapes, but if you set out to make a picture, you should be able to make it in a particular shape. My best panoramic images were shot with a Widelux, my best square images come out of my Mamiya TLR, and my best large format stuff is printed all the way out to show the edge of the film. The cropped stuff is generally second rate.

I am a mediocre amateur photographer; experts and pros I presume will have different ideas.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hi Edward, I shoot 8x10 and 4x5. I don't have an 8x10 enlarger at the moment so I am forced to frame very carefully and as a result I do not crop these negatives. I do have a 4x5 enlarger and these negatives sometimes get cropped. I have no problem cropping negatives. I usually find a composition or two that I had missed. When I do get my 8x10 enlarger going (it's an old graphics copy camera, just needing a light) I will crop if necessary.

[Leonard Evens]

I have to admit that I have the same reluctance you do to crop, even when it will clearly improve the picture. As you do, I feel I should have framed the picture properly in the first place. And it seems such a waste to cut out any part of that glorious negative. However, in reality, one can't always choose the best possible vantage point and the best possible focal length for proper framing. So I have taken to thinking beforehand during my visualization about how I might want to crop in such circumstances, making it part of the creative process.

Of course, extreme cropping reduces the quality of the image, so it makes sense to avoid that, particularly if you plan to scan the results.

[scott jones]

"Crop til you drop" is my moto. I refuse to let a manufacturer's arbitrary format get in the way of expressing myself through images and the joy of seeing. Recently I have been printing square out of my 4x5 negs. Sunday night in a critique group I presented a print shot with 6x7 camera as a panoramic because I thought the subject matter was so much better presented in this cropping. The shot I was taking and seeing in my eye would have been impossible to achieve without this cropping. Was I just supposed to walk away because the image I wanted to make would not fit the camera's format? Seems weird to me to restrict yourself this way. If one is interested in art, I think it is more powerful to create freely with as few restrictions as possible as long as one's behavior is ethical.





Fun post and discussion.





ScottJonesPhoto.com (http://www.scottjonesphoto.com" target="_blank)

[Henry Ambrose]

I'll add my .02 about cropping - all scenes are not 4X5 or 8X10 or 6X7 or 6X9 or 6X12. When you see a picture that does not fit your format it is no sin to record it and know that you're going to leave some of what is on the film not printed and unseen by the viewer. And its OK! Not only OK, it is a GOOD THING you have done!

My version is to get the picture I visualized and pass that on to the viewer in the print. That the camera or back that I had with me at that moment does not fit with its full frame the scene that I see is of no consequence. It is YOUR picture so make it.

[tribby]

dearest michael a smif,

'In these cases, unless it is one of the greatest and most profound photographs ever made, which will be doubtful for any of us, MYSELF INCLUDED, that you give yourself a swift kick and vow to see more carefully the next time.'

thhhhhhhhpppppppppbbbbbbbrrrrrrrrrt!

good jeebus man, get a grip.

cuddles,

trib

p.s. it's a tool, like a lens or a paper trimmer... use it or lose it.

[Bill_1856]

Troibby, don't be so hard on Michael. He crops by using 4x5, or 5x7, or 8x10 backs on his Kodak MasterViews. If he needs to crop vertically, he can always switch to his 8x20 camera. See -- just like the rest of us, only at an earlier point of the workflow.

[michael waldron]

I try not to crop, because I like to have consistency within a series. Many photographers that I like, such as Misrach or Friedlander end up with uncropped photos, but a nice portfolio with images of the same proportions. However, I try to move around a lot to get the right framing!

[domenico Foschi]

Conform nature to your creativity not viceversa...

[Graeme Hird]

As Bill noted. All photographers crop, it's just a matter of when we do it.

Interesting thread, boring subject. How did that happen?

[Christian Olivet]

I have many times walked away from a scene, even after spending a good half hour in the perceiving and the setting of camera and not seeing it come together on the ground glass. In the beginning (I am still a beginner), I felt that maybe there was an anxiety in me that would pump me up to get the image. This didn't work for me very well, and on top of that, it is no fun to go throught the process of developing the film and printing the negative to just be dissapointed. I feel now so much more relaxed in my way about getting the picture. I has to come to me. I only have to be open. "If you build it they will come" comes to my mind. I guess you guessed that I don't do any post cropping of my 8x10 negatives, even though I have felt that thought run in my mind more than once. I feel it is ok to save a negative by cropping it, but I don't do it. I would probably wouldn't hang that print on my wall. The print that hangs on my wall was a gift of mother nature as she gave herself to me. It is beautiful because it was given to me by something much much bigger than myself. The experience got imprinted in my soul forever. I wouldn't want to edit that.

[Kirk Gittings]

"There are damn few photographs which can't be improved with a little judicious cropping."

In addition to my b&w fine art work (with which I would rip anyone's lungs out if they cropped them in an article about my work or me). I do substantial amounts of color commercial architectural photography primarily for magazines. Magazine art directors often use the above quoted approach much to the deficite of the image. I submit my commercial work visually complete with the intention of it being used full frame and usually it is. I agree with Michael "there is a great joy and satisfaction (at least there is for me), when the picture comes together on the ground glass".

"Cropping" is best done before the exposure is made. It is called composition.

[Graeme Hird]

So I guess the question is now:



"Does a real photographer crop in the woods?"

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Thankyou for all the insight and opinion. I have really enjoyed reading these replies. I will continue to do my best at composing the image in the ground glass but I won't be afraid to print from part of the negative. I certainly shouldn't beat myself up for making a good image just because it wasn't exactly what I planned.

[Scott Walton]

I was weined on shooting chromes and try, when ever I can shoot full frame... but there are times when a different crop looks better in the darkroom. A little trick I was taught years ago, after you make a work print, turn it upside down. This forces you not to look at the content but the composition. It works on B/W and color nicely.

[Greg Miller]

I agree with Henry A. Does it make sense to strictly adhere to the aspect ration of the camera you happen to have at the moment? If there is a good shot available that demands a different aspect ration then why not take the shot with the camera you have and then crop later? What if you were out with a 4x5 camera but saw an image that is better with a 6x12 aspect ratio? Who cares which camera you happen to have at the time - just take the shot!

[Henry Ambrose]

Kirk wrote: "Cropping" is best done before the exposure is made. It is called composition." Absolutley! As for other people cropping my finished work - thats something that I wish would never happen.

Which leads me to start a new thread titled "Perversions of Process"

[Chad Jarvis]

How about Processions of the Pervers instead?

[Chuck Pratt]

I think cropping is fine. The only "straight" prints of my own that I ever see are rough contacts.

I started out many [say no more] years ago with film and chemicals, and photojournalism. Black and white, color slides. Eventually I stopped that and worked in cinema and video, which absolutely have an aspect ratio and are not "cropped". Working with slides, cinema, and video was good rigorous training in "seeing"; it made me work harder to compose in the frame I was given.

Now I've come back to still images, MF and starting LF. No more photo-j, more "Art" (put your finger on the tip of your nose and lift it up) and I don't make a living from it but I do make a living from design. I still prefer using film, but I now very much prefer scanning the film, working with it in Photoshop, then printing the digital image. HEY! I tweak colors (did that in film and video, too), crop, clone.... It's MY picture, y'know? There's very little of my life that doesn't get edited somehow. Every paper I write goes through revisions. Every design I work on has umpteen iterations.

"Do you crop?" Do you breathe? the answer to both questions is yes. Using the full image is a wonderful way to work. There are lots of great images and series based on that. But you're still only looking at a small part of the world around you, so big deal.

I thoroughly enjoy photography, making my own pictures or looking at others' pictures. I think that pretty much sums it up.

[Leonard Metcalf]

Vary rarely, as I do most of my cropping in the camera...

As a philosophy I try to crop in camera with lens selection and camera positioning and camera movements (isn't that one of the reasons we love laarge format - the shifts, drops and rises - well it is for me)..

But am occasionally forced to when I have included a footprint I didn't see, or the lens shade has turned up in the image, or the quickload wasn't fully removed...

Then again, sometimes I let my hair down and go wild and crop and crop and crop...

Does it really matter when you do it, the final photograph is the important thing... Mind you those of us who love contact prints have no choice...