PDA

View Full Version : Why Crop?



Bernice Loui
29-Jun-2019, 07:49
Inspired by the, "Do you use 100% of a LF negative."
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152987-Do-you-use-100-of-a-LF-negative

Reason(s) for cropping any image during the print making process?


Bernice

Pieter
29-Jun-2019, 09:19
Why not?

Vaughn
29-Jun-2019, 09:50
Why not?
Why not not? :cool:

To crop or not to crop is a personal aesthetic decision, depending on the photographer's needs and desires. There is no right or wrong here -- just, does the image work. Why do you crop?

faberryman
29-Jun-2019, 09:55
There are only two reasons to crop:

1. You composition does not fit the aspect ratio of the camera, or
2. You could not or did not frame your composition properly at the time you made the image.

Pieter
29-Jun-2019, 10:05
So after the shutter click, everything is set in stone? I feel I can revisit the work whenever and however I wish.

Vaughn
29-Jun-2019, 10:08
So after the shutter click, everything is set in stone?

Yes, if that is the way an artist wishes to work. In my case, yes, and also no burning/dodging/masking -- in 99% of my work.

Other reasons for cropping would be (and not limited to) to be in the habit of including a little more than the desired composition to allow for; 1) the negative carrier cropping the edges of the image area, and 2) precise decisions of what is on the edges of the image area.

Heroique
29-Jun-2019, 10:48
My longest lens for my Tachi 4x5 is 240mm, so when my composition requires a longer lens, cropping is part of my visualization. The poor man's telephoto!

More often, I'm cropping to rid my frame edges of pesky branch boughs that I couldn't tie-back with my handy ball of twine.

Larry Gebhardt
29-Jun-2019, 10:56
There are only two reasons to crop:

1. You composition does not fit the aspect ratio of the camera, or
2. You could not or did not frame your composition properly at the time you made the image.

3. You float mount your prints and need a clean cut in the image area, so at least a very slight crop.
4. You use a viewfinder based camera like a crown graphic or travelwide and shoot a bit loose in exchange for speed.

I take issue with the word "properly" as it implies there is a correct way of doing something.

invisibleflash
29-Jun-2019, 11:02
If it improves photo.

Jac@stafford.net
29-Jun-2019, 11:07
No deity declared film format ratios. Get over it.

Vaughn
29-Jun-2019, 11:15
...More often, I'm cropping to rid my frame edges of pesky branch boughs that I couldn't tie-back with my handy ball of twine.
I had that problem in Yosemite on my last visit (April) while photographing my favorite waterfall (only exists during high creek flows). Next spring I'll take a longer, stronger rope (and an assistant, perhaps!) if the flows are high enough again.

Thanks for the reminder -- I still have those Yosemite negatives to process (5x7 and 11x14). I have had a couple of photo-trips since then and still have the Yosemite film in boxes waiting patiently for me!

The falls (4x5 carbon print):

BrianShaw
29-Jun-2019, 11:16
No diety declare cropping or not-cropping to be sinful, or vice versa.

BrianShaw
29-Jun-2019, 11:17
No diety declared painters and their methods to be more righteous than any other form of visual arts.

Vaughn
29-Jun-2019, 11:22
No diety declared painters and their methods to be more righteous than any other form of visual arts.
What do you have against fat painters?:cool:

But painters do have a historic advantage...but I did appreciate someone's comment about being careful and not looking at just European/western painters use of compostion.

Drew Wiley
29-Jun-2019, 11:22
The world was created in exactly eight discrete zones of illumination; and if some people still believe in a flat earth, it logically must be an 8x10 rectangle.

Bruce Watson
29-Jun-2019, 11:45
Reason(s) for cropping any image during the print making process?

Short answer: Because I want to.

Longer answer: I don't tend to see many compositions in the 5:4 ratio. I mostly see more rectangular images. Perhaps my favorite ratio is the Golden Ratio 1:1.618. But the thing is, I can't really control it. Nature (my main subject) is what it is. All I can do is try to capture it the way I think it wants to be captured. I've found exactly one composition that wants to be square. I've found a number that want to be 1:sqrt(5). But most are somewhere in between. All my film however, has been 5x4. Which means that mostly I'm trying to push a rectangular peg into a square-ish hole. And the only reasonable answer to that problem is to crop. So I do.

Drew Wiley
29-Jun-2019, 12:19
The golden mean is something exactly between barely cooked and outright burnt. But whether it comes out greasy or not, all depends. I presume the Greeks who first described it used olive oil. Somebody like Vaughn probably uses bear fat instead, and wouldn't even call it a carbon print if it wasn't thoroughly carbonized.

Jim Jones
29-Jun-2019, 12:35
There are only two reasons to crop:

1. You composition does not fit the aspect ratio of the camera, or
2. You could not or did not frame your composition properly at the time you made the image.

There are many more reasons for a reasonable photographer. I usually crop exhibition images to fit pre-cut window mats which are sized to fit standard frames which are selected to be easy to transport. This system also makes an exhibit coherent. A few other exhibitors howl at such heresy. To each of us our own OCD.

LabRat
29-Jun-2019, 12:47
Hmmm... Where do I post, cropping or 100% neg usage???
I'll try here...

First, when enlarging we have much freedom to use the neg, so not too much issue to crop a little or a lot so no big deal...
I think where it gets "insincere" is when one does not compose the image the first time shooting, and has to make sense of the composition later, but most people are past that quandary (like major composing on the easel)...

As a commercial photographer, we would routinely use a proportion scale on the gg or draw on a mylar gg overlay the proportions the shot that would fit on the ad page, so that was the new norm beyond the camera proportions, so that's ok... (That was one of the main reasons to use LF, was the look of the image didn't change much at all with cropping...)

Now, I still might compose a panoramic on the gg, and only expect to enlarge the center 1/3rd of the image, but at least planned that beforehand...

But my biggest challenge now is that I compose in my head first, then look at the gg for the first time, and the image is pretty composed, but spend about 90% of composing time just working the edges to figure where the composition begins and ends, as dynamics can be building outside (into)the frame, or stuff in the frame can be building or coming to rest...
That's where I spend my time, but digital LCD screens have really taught me to study this area closely...

But mainly, I don't trust the cut off areas at the edges of some cameras/film holders to give me a true edge, so for enlarging I try to leave a sliver over the edge, and slightly crop into it later, for a safe zone...

Contact printing is different if you print all of the recess, so you really have to nail those edges!!!

Steve K

Pieter
29-Jun-2019, 13:06
No diety declared painters and their methods to be more righteous than any other form of visual arts.

Painters have the advantage of being able to move (or remove) objects as they see fit for their compositions. Photographers have to use other methods (cropping, dodging, burning) it improve theirs. Painters are not restricted (unless they are painting a mural or ceiling) to certain fixed proportions or sizes, either.

Luis-F-S
29-Jun-2019, 15:09
To crop you have to print first. Most are to busy posting on line to print or crop!

BrianShaw
29-Jun-2019, 15:58
Pre-visualize; pre-crop...

Ted R
29-Jun-2019, 16:40
Some things happen pretty quickly and "properly" does not always get top billing when picture making, it is more a case of grab the shot and straighten things out later if need be. Heck sometimes I don't even want "a frame" at all. Crop away :-)

Vaughn
29-Jun-2019, 16:49
...Painters are not restricted (unless they are painting a mural or ceiling) to certain fixed proportions or sizes, either.

Yes and no. I imagine some/many painters use a standard size canvas (or perhaps standard for them) and fill it -- which is not too unlike taking a 8x10 GG and filling it with an image. Just thought of that and rather like it -- it expresses what I do more accurately. Instead of feeling restricted by a format's size and proportions, I totally love filling it with light.

Pieter
29-Jun-2019, 17:03
Yes and no. I imagine some/many painters use a standard size canvas (or perhaps standard for them) and fill it -- which is not too unlike taking a 8x10 GG and filling it with an image. Just thought of that and rather like it -- it expresses what I do more accurately. Instead of feeling restricted by a format's size and proportions, I totally love filling it with light.

Except the painter can arrange the elements within the frame a bit more easily. de Kooning would fiddle with elements sketched on tracing paper, moving them constantly, trying out arrangements--even as he painted--until he was satisfied. And sometimes he'd just destroy the canvas if he wasn't happy.

Ken Lee
29-Jun-2019, 17:25
Short answer: Because I want to.

Longer answer: I don't tend to see many compositions in the 5:4 ratio. I mostly see more rectangular images. Perhaps my favorite ratio is the Golden Ratio 1:1.618. But the thing is, I can't really control it. Nature (my main subject) is what it is. All I can do is try to capture it the way I think it wants to be captured. I've found exactly one composition that wants to be square. I've found a number that want to be 1:sqrt(5). But most are somewhere in between. All my film however, has been 5x4. Which means that mostly I'm trying to push a rectangular peg into a square-ish hole. And the only reasonable answer to that problem is to crop. So I do.

Bravo !

...and ditto :cool:

Bernice Loui
30-Jun-2019, 07:15
Moment an image is made using some form of 2D image recorder of any image ratio cropping is involved.


Bernice

Pfsor
30-Jun-2019, 07:52
No deity declared film format ratios. Get over it.

+ 1.

Alan Klein
30-Jun-2019, 20:52
Yes and no. I imagine some/many painters use a standard size canvas (or perhaps standard for them) and fill it -- which is not too unlike taking a 8x10 GG and filling it with an image. Just thought of that and rather like it -- it expresses what I do more accurately. Instead of feeling restricted by a format's size and proportions, I totally love filling it with light.

Here's a picture I took of a guy painting at Monument Valley. You can see how he squished in the monuments in the background which were much further apart in reality. You painters are lucky. :)

Doremus Scudder
1-Jul-2019, 12:44
From another thread, but relevant here:

I try to determine my compositions precisely before I even set up the camera. I work with the elements, shapes, lines, spaces (negative and positive), tones and perspective in the scene to build an image I think will be expressive. The camera position, print borders, and whether movements will be needed or desired have all been decided when I start to unpack. Often, I'll meter a scene before setting up as well. Call it planning, pre-composition (or previsualization if you prefer) or whatever you like; the ground glass for me is just for checking borders and focusing, the construction of the image is separate. My compositions arise organically from the subject being photographed. This determines the placement of the borders and the aspect ratio as well. If the aspect ratio doesn't match that of the film I'm carrying, I plan to crop.

Also, there are sometimes situations that force me to crop: bad weather, changing light or whatever that spur me to set up quickly, grab a lens that I know will cover the scene I want and shoot quickly. Many of these shots fail, but the ones that don't usually require cropping to get the image that inspired me to try in the first place. So, I crop.

If I have time, however, I work with the technical aspects of the photograph: setting up the tripod in exactly the right spot at exactly the right height (chin on camera plate, one eye closed, then checking later), mounting the camera and choosing the lens, applying movements, filtration, focusing, etc. If the exact image I want doesn't match exactly the angle of view of one of the lenses I have, I'm forced to use the next widest one I have, and I plan to crop.

At this point I make the negative, process and examine it. Often (most often) my diligence in planning the image is adequate and I don't need to re-imagine the final image at all (don't misunderstand: most well-planned images usually don't make it to the printing stage at all for one reason or another; it's just that the image came out as planned, not that it was worth attempting to print). But sometimes, "the best laid plans of mice and men" aren't enough and the image as planned is flawed. The majority of these are simply failures, but occasionally a good print can be made by re-evaluating and re-thinking the composition of the scene included in the negative. This, necessarily, involves cropping, so I crop.

I just love it when everything comes together and I can use 100% of the image on the negative, but that seldom happens.

One of the reasons I work with 4x5 and enlarge is to have the flexibility to crop what is on the negative to match the image I imagined before setting up (or re-imagined after the negative was made). My images are rarely in a 4:5 aspect ratio, even though that is what my film is. I try to use as much film area as I can for my images, but anything outside the planned (or re-imagined) image is just waste; printing it would make the image weaker and less expressive. I don't feel obligated to include it.

Some hold that cropping is indicative of sloppy craftsmanship or bad planning. I beg to differ. For those that wish to work within the constraints of a certain aspect ratio, for whatever reason, cropping is contrary to what they are trying to express. I respect that way of working. I have an opposite approach: cropping is essential to what I am trying to express. I'll leave it to the viewer to decide if I have been successful.

Best,

Doremus

Pieter
1-Jul-2019, 13:02
From another thread, but relevant here:

I try to determine my compositions precisely before I even set up the camera. I work with the elements, shapes, lines, spaces (negative and positive), tones and perspective in the scene to build an image I think will be expressive. The camera position, print borders, and whether movements will be needed or desired have all been decided when I start to unpack. Often, I'll meter a scene before setting up as well. Call it planning, pre-composition (or previsualization if you prefer) or whatever you like; the ground glass for me is just for checking borders and focusing, the construction of the image is separate. My compositions arise organically from the subject being photographed. This determines the placement of the borders and the aspect ratio as well. If the aspect ratio doesn't match that of the film I'm carrying, I plan to crop.

Also, there are sometimes situations that force me to crop: bad weather, changing light or whatever that spur me to set up quickly, grab a lens that I know will cover the scene I want and shoot quickly. Many of these shots fail, but the ones that don't usually require cropping to get the image that inspired me to try in the first place. So, I crop.

If I have time, however, I work with the technical aspects of the photograph: setting up the tripod in exactly the right spot at exactly the right height (chin on camera plate, one eye closed, then checking later), mounting the camera and choosing the lens, applying movements, filtration, focusing, etc. If the exact image I want doesn't match exactly the angle of view of one of the lenses I have, I'm forced to use the next widest one I have, and I plan to crop.

At this point I make the negative, process and examine it. Often (most often) my diligence in planning the image is adequate and I don't need to re-imagine the final image at all (don't misunderstand: most well-planned images usually don't make it to the printing stage at all for one reason or another; it's just that the image came out as planned, not that it was worth attempting to print). But sometimes, "the best laid plans of mice and men" aren't enough and the image as planned is flawed. The majority of these are simply failures, but occasionally a good print can be made by re-evaluating and re-thinking the composition of the scene included in the negative. This, necessarily, involves cropping, so I crop.

I just love it when everything comes together and I can use 100% of the image on the negative, but that seldom happens.

One of the reasons I work with 4x5 and enlarge is to have the flexibility to crop what is on the negative to match the image I imagined before setting up (or re-imagined after the negative was made). My images are rarely in a 4:5 aspect ratio, even though that is what my film is. I try to use as much film area as I can for my images, but anything outside the planned (or re-imagined) image is just waste; printing it would make the image weaker and less expressive. I don't feel obligated to include it.

Some hold that cropping is indicative of sloppy craftsmanship or bad planning. I beg to differ. For those that wish to work within the constraints of a certain aspect ratio, for whatever reason, cropping is contrary to what they are trying to express. I respect that way of working. I have an opposite approach: cropping is essential to what I am trying to express. I'll leave it to the viewer to decide if I have been successful.

Best,

Doremus
I try not to overthink my photos. A lot of what I shoot is what appeals to me without analysis, trying to some extent to tap what the unconscious might be drawn to. After examining the photo, I am sometimes delighted by elements that were not obvious at first glance. As a result, I find that I have a body of work that is unified by an aesthetic rather than theme.

Doremus Scudder
1-Jul-2019, 13:28
I try not to overthink my photos. A lot of what I shoot is what appeals to me without analysis, trying to some extent to tap what the unconscious might be drawn to. After examining the photo, I am sometimes delighted by elements that were not obvious at first glance. As a result, I find that I have a body of work that is unified by an aesthetic rather than theme.

Don't get me wrong Pieter. I am driven by the subconscious. I don't analyze why I want a border here or there; it goes where it feels right. The same with aspect rations, etc. And, I too am often unaware of exactly what entices me to make a photograph of this or that scene. My training and awareness of composition, expression, aesthetics and their associated tools are what I consider "pre-programming." I let all that work in the background when searching for a scene to photograph. Still, I plan, or maybe better, arrange how I want the image to be, often not understanding or even trying to understand exactly why. Certainly, however, I'm not shooting randomly.

Best,

Doremus

Vaughn
1-Jul-2019, 13:33
I usually do not need to move the tripod once I set up the camera on it.

What does that mean? -- probably nothing of significance. :cool:

Heroique
1-Jul-2019, 13:46
It occurs to me that my 4x5 viewing card crops almost every landscape I shoot.

Call me a 99% cropper.

That's 99% of the time, not 99% of the film image!

Drew Wiley
1-Jul-2019, 15:04
If there were no crops, there would be no corn flakes, no corn syrup, no wheat bread, no asparagus, no nuthin.

BrianShaw
1-Jul-2019, 16:39
If there were no crops, there would be no corn flakes, no corn syrup, no wheat bread, no asparagus, no nuthin.

Finally... the answer.

... and there would not be digestion for birds and some invertebrates.

Nor would their be bare tummies on some young girls...

Pieter
1-Jul-2019, 16:40
Or short shorts or navel-revealing tops.

If there were no crops, there would be no corn flakes, no corn syrup, no wheat bread, no asparagus, no nuthin.

BrianShaw
1-Jul-2019, 16:48
... or prancing horses beneath equestrians in dressage

BrianShaw
1-Jul-2019, 16:50
... or prancing horses beneath equestrians in dressage

Don’t go there... I know what else you’re thinking!

Alan Klein
1-Jul-2019, 18:43
Doremus. But you spend a lot of time setting up the shot and crop only to help. That's a lot more planning and effort than someone shooting from the hip expecting that the crop will save the picture.

Vaughn
1-Jul-2019, 20:59
"I only crop in circles", it said.

Heroique
1-Jul-2019, 22:14
"I only crop in circles", it said.

Did you ask it, Why crop? :confused:

Vaughn
1-Jul-2019, 22:17
It said I would not understand...I wasn't pure enough.

Heroique
1-Jul-2019, 22:27
I hope it returns some day when our cropping is more advanced. :cool:

Peter Collins
2-Jul-2019, 09:06
Everyone has said it all already.

BrianShaw
2-Jul-2019, 11:25
Everyone has said it all already.

I knew that sentiment would crop up eventually.

Alan Klein
2-Jul-2019, 16:56
It's all a lot of crop.

Drew Wiley
2-Jul-2019, 17:12
Join the Marines. The first thing they do is crop your hair. Aliens don't have hair. That's why the make crop circles. They're harvesting corn silk to make wigs.