Do you use 100% of a LF negative?

[Daniel Stone]

I crop as needed. Even with young eyes, the ground glass sometimes doesnt show things a finished print (or digital scan) will post-exposure.

Lately, my exposures have been much less frequent, but the quality has gone WAY up. Staring at the ground glass longer allows me to be more choosy with what I spend my hard earned money on when TMY costs $10/sheet. I don't mind, it means less waste, both in terms of time, but in materials.

Right now I'm shooting shots of mountain ridges with haze/dust in the late of the day. Surrealism sorta stuff. Each one has it's own ratio, but it gets shot on a 4x5/8x10 ratio camera to start.

-Dan

[faberryman]

If you aren't going to use all of the negative, why not just shoot MF?

[BrianShaw]

If you aren't going to use all of the negative, why not just shoot MF?

People crop MF? Why not just shoot 35mm? Ha ha ha.

[Vaughn]

If you aren't going to use all of the negative, why not just shoot MF?

Image management -- swings/tilts and other benefits of a LF camera, obviously.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I am guilty of not using the non-emulsion side.

[BrianShaw]

I am guilty of not using the non-emulsion side.

Shame on you. What waste...

[Drew Wiley]

Don't forget film stretchers; it's a good alternative to cropping.

[Mick Fagan]

I don't think I have ever used 100% of any large format negative I have exposed.

I started my photographic journey in the early 1950's with my grandfather and everything was a contact print using a printing frame, he used dark paper to hide things and people he didn't wish to print. So right from the get go as a youngster, I was involved with using parts of a negative to hopefully make an image either more suitable or better, according to the photographer.

One day I ended up working in a huge industrial photographic studio/lab environment, I don't ever remember seeing the whole negative/transparency used; ever.

I've always thought of Arnold Newman and his image of Igor Stravinsky, if it wasn't cropped the way it was, it would never have become as well known.

https://www.google.com/search?q=arno...XzOEttM:&vet=1

https://www.google.com/search?q=arno...ZXsxvDM:&vet=1


Mick.

[Tin Can]

What about emulations?

Sandro

Malkovich, Malkovich, Malkovich: Homage to Photographic Masters
Signed, titled, dated & editioned verso in pencil by the artist

[Doremus Scudder]

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