Just a little crop talk

[Heroique]

Recently there's been a smattering of crop talk – namely, the amount of cropping on LF film (4x5 and larger) that might push an image outside the realm of LF and make it unreasonable to post in our "Image Sharing (LF)" forum.

Naturally, this might leave one curious, and raise questions about how a well-intentioned poster might judge his or her cropped image before posting it to a suitable forum.

For example, I'd enjoy hearing how you judge whether one of your crops "crosses the line," and might find a better home in, say, the "Image Sharing (Everything Else)" forum. On the other hand, do you believe that any crop from LF film, no matter how big or small the crop is, qualifies as an LF image for posting purposes?

As most here know, our re-freshened guidelines contain no formal rules about where this line exists, but moderators have indicated that we should be thinking about it. To be sure, their (informal) position on the matter appears to be fair and liberal to me, judging by the latest statement I can find about it: "...Ken and I [moderators] agree that we prefer judgment over rules on cropping," Rick says. "If you see a post that you think is unreasonable, please report it rather than policing it." (I'll stick with my "fair and liberal" assessment, but I'll also remark on the potential ambiguity here, or what some might describe as an overly-generous space for interpretation.)

Quick questions I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts about :D:


If you post cropped images here, at what point do you think it becomes "unreasonable" to post them in our LF-centered forums?
Do you arrive at this judgment quantitatively, or only subjectively?
Is there a "transitional" type of crop you think is "reasonable" for LF, but in need of clear identification as a crop, or even how much of a crop it is?
And finally, might your artistic aims for a particular crop change the criteria by which you judge it?

[Vaughn]

Rain is on its way. Most of the local outdoor farmers are harvesting their crops to prevent mold.

[Drew Wiley]

Most opinions about cropping are inherently moldy.

[Heroique]

Glad people caught the farmer's talk in the title!

I wanted the feel of sharing the latest crop news – at the country store.

It's autumn harvest time, after all – but for ideas about photo cropping too. ;^)

[gregmo]

I've cropped at times. Each time it's based on the intended composition. Where as the original film format/ lens combo does not provide the image I'm after.
For instance.. Shooting 4x5 with a 600mm lens & cropping down to a 6cm x 9cm film size. If I had an 800/900mm focal length I would not have needed to crop so dramatically.
Or using 4x5 or 5x7 and cropping down to a 2:1 panoramic ratio.

[Heroique]

I've cropped at times…

Those are good examples, and each would make me consider how much viewers should know about the cropping – either to follow the informal guidelines, or as a simple courtesy.

Here's a crop I posted in the "Grass" thread a while back:

123254

It's a tiny crop of sun-seeking grass blades from a 4x5 negative.

Never would I post this image of grass by itself in an LF-centered forum – never, that is, without stating it's a crop (even when it's obvious, as here). Indeed, this is such an aggressive crop, I decided it would be best to do more when posting it – namely, include the full-frame 4x5 film scan from which it came:

123256

Me, I fall into the camp that any crop from LF film is an LF image for posting purposes; however, when I (subjectively) feel that it gets to be relatively small in relation to the source film, I'll state it's a crop. And in extreme cases like this one, I'll show pictorially how much of a crop it is.

An alternative would be to estimate for viewers what percentage of the film's area it occupies.

Tachi 4x5
Schneider 150mm/9 g-claron
FP4+ (in Rodinal 1:50)
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

[vinny]

Trinity River, California. I've never seen so much weed.

[DannL]

I think it's better "not" to draw arbitrary lines in the sand. This is what can happen when you give silly titles to things . . . Eventually the rules "must be arbitrary" in order to maintain that point of reference, your line in the sand.

I don't see this "Large Format" thing that you all have applied to making prints. None of my photography reference material uses the term. I see "negatives" and "prints", and nothing beyond that. The fact that a print was made with a negative that was exposed on a view camera for example, does not make the print a "view camera print". If I crop the negative to produce an image in print, there are no boundaries at which the print turns into something other than a print. It's simply a "print". Cropping is part of the creative process in making the print (or image) that you desire.

"If you post cropped images here, at what point do you think it becomes "unreasonable" to post them in our LF-centered forums?" My response to this would be "It would never be unreasonable".

[DrTang]

if you stuff 4x5 film into a holder.. it's LF even if you end up using a 16mm frame size of it


that's what I think

just carting the stuff around makes it so

[Michael Clark]

I agree with DannL , it is hard for me to distinguish between a cropped large format neg print and a med or small format neg print on my computer screen, perhaps others can. I believe most people don't crop large format negs much, but that option should be kept open for creative purposes. Perhaps if one had a really nice small format print he would be tempted to post it here hopefully in the appropriate section of this Forum.

Mike

[Michael Clark]

The Good doctor has a point!!


just carting the stuff around makes it so

[Deval]

I think as long as cropping is identified and not egregious, it shouldn't be a big deal. Relative tonality, i think, would be different even on a 4x5 cropped to 6x9 than a natural 6x9 because development/metering usually takes into account the entire frame not just the cropped area(but I'm not 100% sure on that point).

+1 on what Dr. Tang said, large format is a lot more than just about what size film is on the back plate...its about the process involved.

I think it would be helpful sometimes to include a non-cropped version to understand why the photographer left out the rest of the frame so that we can add to often lacked discussion part of Images Sharing and Discussion sub-forum.

[Tin Can]

if you stuff 4x5 film into a holder.. it's LF even if you end up using a 16mm frame size of it


that's what I think

just carting the stuff around makes it so

And didn't scientific users of LF film crop to tiny in order to focus on the important part of an image. Still LF.

Cropping is one reason to use big film or big pixels.

Let the artist decide...

[Peter Lewin]

I think its worth taking a step back, and asking what the point of this forum is. As I understand it, it is to bring together a community of people who enjoy using view cameras, and are involved in the process from image making through presentation. If my understanding is correct, the amount of cropping needed for the final presentation is irrelevant, as long as one has gone through the "large format process."

[Jmarmck]

I agree with DrTang. :cool:
If I had the need to do a 2:1 or greater crop of a 4x5 because it is a much more appealing image, I would hate to have it disqualified from what it really is. Besides, as Randy said, using LF and cropping is part of the point.