Cropping Negatives

[faberryman]

Why are we discussing this again. All that can be said on both sides of the issue has been said ad nauseam.

[Michael R]

Why are we discussing this again. All than can be said on both sides of the issue has been said ad nauseam.

So has everything else. Might as well start over.

[faberryman]

So has everything else. Might as well start over.

Knock yourself out.

[Alan Klein]

So has everything else. Might as well start over.

If we didn't have things to argue about, we'd have to go out and shoot pictures.

[Vaughn]

Why are we discussing this again. All that can be said on both sides of the issue has been said ad nauseam.

So...do you read and post onto threads such as these just to experience nausea?

[Alan Townsend]

My 2 cents,

I do not crop my digital pictures, since I have very wide zoom lens coverage, and can always crop in camera directly. Gives fixed pixel size in prints of the same size.

I also do not crop my 35mm photographs for the same reason. The philosophy is the old "decisive moment" thing when I push the shutter release. Also gives fixed grain relation in prints.

In my 4x5 photography, where I have fixed focus 90, 136, 240, and 480, I crop to values in between and slightly beyond since I can afford to lose a little real-estate and print from enlarged negatives. So, I crop only when I "previsualized" before pushing the shutter release.

[Fred L]

Agreed! I find it a little strange to raise someone's artistic decisions on how they use their materials and equipment to the level of ethos.

yeah, workflow might have been a better term I have a foot in each camp, so feel both sides haha

[Vaughn]

On top of that, you don't crop OR burn/dodge. Shame!

And alas, I also show the rebate...and I have showed the brush marks a few times, but even I have my limits.

For shame, for shame!!

But thinking about it. If I spend thirty minutes under the darkcloth living with the image on the GG and manipulating the composition, paying close attention to the corners and edges as they define what is happening in the rest of the scene. Studying and working with the forms created by the light reflecting off the landscape. After all that...what are the chances there is a "better" composition within my frame to crop to? Very little at this point in my work.

But I understand the reasons and desires, all equally valid, to create images in other than the format proportion of the camera. Both deliberitly and as good finds on a proof sheet. Most of my first images were square negs cropped to fill an 11x14 sheet...until I discovered the wonders of the square. Getting into 4x5, after a few years I found a panoramic image within one of my 4x5s on a proof sheet. Forty years later I still love that type of proportion...4x10, 5,5x14. And I have the Rollei when I get the joneses for the square.

There are various 'exercises' or challenges one can do to create change in one's work, if one wishes to explore change. Not cropping has always been an important one. One lens is another. Going to studio or macro for awhile perhaps, or changing to night photography. Tearing up your prints and reassembling them. Whatever. Keep things fresh.

[Alan Klein]

When I started to make slide shows to present on monitors, YouTube, and 4k TVs, I started to crop pictures to the 16:9 format of these displays. That way the entire screen would be filled. There would be no black bars on each side. Then I found that converting 3:2 or 4:5 or 6:7 to 16:9 doesn't always work. You start cutting off feet the removing important parts of the original layout that was shot in camera. So, if I'm shooting digital, I'll switch the settings to shoot 16:9 originally in the camera and compose to that format. With film, I'm just stuck with the black bars.

[Tin Can]

I look at a lot of film prints! on tv

turn off the room lights, close the curtains

We can also watch flicker

the box or frame disappears

I used to use digi projectore from flicker in a wheel chair

good old days!