Cropping: By Jim

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Michael Scarpitti, Sep 21, 2003.

  1. Michael Scarpitti, Sep 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Michael Scarpitti

    Eric Miller Guest

    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
     
    Eric Miller, Sep 21, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.
     
    Skip Middleton, Sep 21, 2003
    #3
  4. Michael Scarpitti

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Sep 21, 2003
    #4
  5. 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
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 21, 2003
    #5
  6. Yes, but we are a much more enlightened group than was swapping ideas around
    on the net back in 1907........
     
    William Graham, Sep 21, 2003
    #6
  7. Michael Scarpitti

    Lisa Horton Guest

    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
     
    Lisa Horton, Sep 21, 2003
    #7
  8. Michael Scarpitti

    Hickster0711 Guest

    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
     
    Hickster0711, Sep 21, 2003
    #8
  9. Michael Scarpitti

    Ken Cashion Guest

    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. :eek:)

    Ken Cashion
     
    Ken Cashion, Sep 21, 2003
    #9
  10. Michael Scarpitti

    Ken Cashion Guest

    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
     
    Ken Cashion, Sep 21, 2003
    #10
  11. Martin Francis, Sep 21, 2003
    #11
  12. Michael Scarpitti

    John Miller Guest

    I cropped, once, but I didn't print.
     
    John Miller, Sep 21, 2003
    #12
  13. Michael Scarpitti

    Alan Browne Guest


    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.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 21, 2003
    #13
  14. Michael Scarpitti

    Rich Pos Guest

    Rich Pos, Sep 21, 2003
    #14
  15. Michael Scarpitti

    Charlie D Guest

    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.
     
    Charlie D, Sep 21, 2003
    #15
  16. 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>
     
    Rusty Shakleford, Sep 21, 2003
    #16
  17. Michael Scarpitti

    stan Guest

    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
     
    stan, Sep 21, 2003
    #17
  18. 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.
     
    Super Mario Sunshine, Sep 21, 2003
    #18
  19. Michael Scarpitti

    Leicaddict Guest

    Personally, I Crap almost every day.
     
    Leicaddict, Sep 22, 2003
    #19
  20. Michael Scarpitti

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "Leicaddict"
    Yeah, I've seen your photos.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 22, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.