Cropping: By Jim

Anybody think he's being a bit too strict? I crop a little, on occasion.

http://www.jimmaginn.fsnet.co.uk/fullframe.htm

 

There are a lot of people who think that there is something more important
than the final image, people who believe that the means is more important
than the end. You'll occasionally even hear circular justifications for such
thought that include comments to the effect that the end, by revealing a
process that the speaker doesn't like, is bad because of the process. There
are endless variations. IMHO, if you focus on the end result and whether you
like what you have produced and whether it serves your purposes you won't
have to worry much about what others think about how you achieved it. Its
just my opinion, but I have come to think that focus on technique versus
focus on the end result is what separates mere technicians from artists. But
maybe its not my place to say, as my meager achievements probably don't
satisfy anyone but me.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

 

Well, for one thing, I hope he's using a camera with a 100% viewfinder, or
he's going to find things he didn't anticipate in his images. And, yes, he
is being too strict. I often leave "croppable" space in most of my images,
so I can get it to an 8X10 size. Funny, I just read something the other day
deriding just such a blindered approach. I think it was in the "Is
Photography Art?" thread.

 

From: (Michael Scarpitti)

He's more full of shit than a Christmas turkey.

 

The argument was already old in 1907...

(I just acquired a copy of "Photographers on Photography", and have been
reading it in chronological order. It seems that the things we've been
agonizing over here of late had already been hashed to death three times
over by WWI.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

Yes, but we are a much more enlightened group than was swapping ideas around
on the net back in 1907........

 

I generally go with the full frame approach. I'm very comfortable with
the proportions of the 35mm frame, and actually like that shape. At
times I'll shoot for the 4x5 aspect ratio, planning on cropping out one
end of the frame, but that's almost in keeping with the full frame idea
anyway. At any rate, I seldom see improvement from attempted crops.
Other people have, at times, suggested crops that they thought worked
better, but I've rarely agreed.

I think this fellow carries the idea too far though. To say "If you
continue to crop you are ignoring the very essence of photography and
good practice.", well, that's a bit extreme. I think that the essence
of photography has something to do with light or images or something

Lisa

 

I agree 100%. Anybody know where I can get some round paper and frames for my
pinhole camera? Actually, for 35, I only shoot people that are standing in
double doors. Hadda dump my Hassy. But I got a good deal on a 4x6 7/8.
Bob Hickey

 

Well...I would say that our equipment is better but
considering the quality of some of their work with their equipment and
the quality of today's with modern equipment, I would not say we were
"enlightened." "Fortunate" would be good.
I always try to look at history from their context (when I
can) and I have been looking through a bunch of my old picture books
lately.
Could I have done what they did with their equipment?
I couldn't have. Even after they explained it all to me. It
took a lot of study and experience to be a good photographic
technician back then.
Could they have used our equipment?
After a day of explanation, I think they could have -- and
very well.
The best thing that can be said about modern photographic art
is that we have the benefit of viewing their work. We do not have to
be photographic technicians now to acquire good photographs.
Of course, I could be wrong about all this. )

Ken Cashion

 

Lisa, I have shot so many slides, I "see" perfectly well in
35mm format, and yet, while taking slides, I have on many occasions,
envisioned the scene as a print on the wall. I might make two
exposures of the same thing, one with a print in mind.
However, now that I am shooting so much negative film, and
because of these group discussions, I have started tightening up my
photos in the view finder. This is for discipline and so I will not
end up doing a lot of digital cropping, resizing, compression changes,
and all the other digital manipulations.
My water shot is tight and full frame, and was more difficult
than one might first think from viewing it.
Again...it is just a disciplining procedure I am using because
I am looking for interest anywhere I can find it.

Ken

 

I've cropped, once or twice. I felt guilty for doing it, too.

 

I cropped, once, but I didn't print.

 

Photography is making images, and the tool used is a camera. Why people
believe that we must make images fit the limitations of a tool is beyond me.

This does not mean, as some have suggested, taking an image and cropping
away 75% of it to get the final image; it means cropping an edge to get
rid of clutter or deadspace and to make the image frame proportion
harmonious with the subject.

I would say that if one cropped a horizontal shot image to convert it to
a vertical shot (or v.v.), then he didn't see the shot when he took
it... but that's about it.

As it happens most of my shooting is slide which I strive to shoot
within the frame for presentation.

Alan.

 

What an absolutely beautiful article

I remain,
(mostly)
full frame,

RP©

 

I'm glad you added the
The article speaks of framing and format and it's absolutely the worst
laid out article I've ever seen. What was he thinking of with all those
tiny columns?

I managed to read a little of it before I felt a headache coming on and
it sounds like religious fervor for the 35mm format. Who ever said that
was best? What about square format cameras, 6 x 7 cm?

IMO, the subject dictates the aspect ratio.
I agree that especially with 35mm you can't afford to crop much due to
resolution, but IMO there's nothing wrong with slight cropping to
balance the proportions of the subject.

 

Well, my camera has only 96% viewfinder coverage of the image that will be
taken, and I always try to get all of what I want in the picture, in the
viewfinder. I just dont trust myself to judge the invisable part. Looks
like I'll have to keep croping (till I get the F4).

I really would like to be good enough and have good enough lenses to never
crop but I need more income, and/or more time.

--
-Keith



Registered Linux user #273320 http://counter.li.org

<remove hates spam to contact by e-mail>

 

For some years it was "in" (arsty, cool whatever) to file negative holders
so the sprocket holes showed on the final print. This proved that the image
wasn't cropped. I think there is a lot of slop that people can fix by
cropping in photoshop. If people paid more attention to what they were
shooting they might not need to work on the computer so hard (assuming film
and not digital capture) But I think the final image is more important than
how you got there. On the other hand I shoot tons of 4x5 and don't have the
luxury of cropping. I am VERY careful to get what I want and no more and no
less, yet allowing the space for the processing "clips" that some use on
4x5's. But in the end I think he's a bit uptight.
Stan
Visual Arts {Photography

 

i think this is all irrelevant out of 35mm photography.
what a bunch of horseshit, especially when alot of the well known
photographers have cropped... while you're at it... you might as well
suggest
printing your prints straight on grade 2 paper.

oh and no dodging and burning. cuz if you are, you're doing something
wrong.

k.

 

Personally, I Crap almost every day.

 

From: "Leicaddict"

Yeah, I've seen your photos.