Cropping vs Framing

This quote is an excerpt from Mike Johnston's "Sunday Morning

Photographer" column (last Sunday's, actually, but just posted on this

site today.)

 

"On the site I visited, people are encouraged to write "critiques" of

each other's pictures. This is a good idea, and sometimes it's even

helpful. Only rarely, however. For the most part, the comments I read

over and over again just illustrate how difficult it is for most

people to say anything remotely intelligent about a photograph. "Nice

shot," "good colors," "I find the ------ distracting," "I would have

cropped it differently." Especially the cropping comment. Crop this

way, crop that way. Crop this out, don't crop that out. It's not

uncommon for somebody to suggest cropping out there very thing that

for me makes the picture work. No wonder photography teachers for

years insisted that students just print the whole frame and live with it!

 

Improving photographs has nothing at all to do with cropping

differently, of course. Not even remotely."

 

 

He seems to be saying that precise composition is unimportant. I

would agree that while a shot that will be published with

the anticipation of being cropped to fit available space should leave

room around the subject to allow for that kind of flexibility,

other images are presented as final framed art and should be composed

that way. Factor in the various aspect ratios of different formats

and whether or not the camera should predermine the final aspect

ratio, especially given that the viewfinder doesn't even show you the

whole scene in most cameras,

and you conclude, at least I do, that considering how to frame

initially or crop after the fact can be quite important. I'm not

saying there's only one way to frame or crop a given scene. Just that

some compositions clearly work better than others, and that precision

really does matter.

Hmmmm... odd comment. Unless he is saying something more along the lines of when you take a picture compose it before you take it - cropping an ill-conceived picture after the fact is misguided (which would fit well with his "photography teachers" comment of live with it - and hopefully learn).

<p>

Because obviously composition matters.

Cropping a picture is no different from editting text. Saying don't do it is like saying text is sacred and can't be editted.

 

It's better to frame the picture and not crop it, but if people had posted comments like "Frame it with X out of shot" would he have said the same ?

 

To me, cropping is a way to end up with more permutations of the shot than the camera recorded. Much like editting a movie.

If you re-read the entire piece, you will see that what he is saying is that the photos he was looking at, on the unnamed photo website, were fairly ordinary - and no amount of cropping, or "fixing" post exposure was going to make them interesting.

 

I really don't think he was making any explicit commentary on the practice of cropping, but was addressing the bent of people who attempt to make pretty photos in lieu of making interesting photos; and the people who, through comments, try to help make the photo better by suggesting that cropping is the answer.

 

He's also making the observation about most on-line comments about photos being superficiacial and in some cases inane along the lines of, "another nice one Bob..."

On cameras that have less than 100% coverage in the viewfinder, it is common to shoot more than you actually need with the idea of cropping later.

many a famous photo has been cropped....do what you gotta do, the final image is what counts....

I agree with your observations about the point of the article, but the line quoted above is clearly intended to be sweeping and he gives it its' own paragraph for emphasis.

 

(Do I remember seeing an image of a street sign on the edge of a field that included tree branches on the right edge? I could have sworn I remember seeing his supporting image on luminous-landscape or on his site as part of this column. My mind must be playing tricks again.)

 

It's quite possible he's referring to this site (since it is a large one and the suggestions for improvement are more common than on some of the other ones.) It isn't hard to find images uploaded here that are potentially quite good yet fall flat because of questionable framing. Even if the subject is boring, especially to more experienced viewers, that doesn't mean critics shouldn't try to offer suggestions for improvement even though we might wish for images that are more interesting and challenging.

Wow! I read his column last week and felt the same way. I now question the validity of Mikes comments as it relates to composition. I can only echo that which you have written. As a student of photography for more that 20 years I would say flatly, this line, "Improving photographs has nothing at all to do with cropping differently, of course. Not even remotely." , is WRONG....;)....J

This forum posting was brought to my attention by Carl. I recently contributed a couple of comments to <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2435055&size=lg"> this thread,</a> which, for me, sums up the whole argument of Cropping vs Framing.<br> I'm not afraid of cropping at all and support the view that cropping off less than 10% of the original frame is quite acceptable. Anything above this, though, indicates a shortcoming in the process of composing (framing) the shot.

There was a famous photography teacher, it may have been Minor White, who routinely took photographs and cut them down bit by bit. Sometimes only a tiny square of the original print was left. The teacher would then declare that what was left was what made the photograph work. Maybe it's a myth, I don't know.

 

I have a book by Magnum photographre Ferdinando Scianna in which the same photograph appears twice, once in what I assume is its entirety and also in a very small crop (with very large grain.) Both photographs work, and have completely different feelings. It is possible to make a significant change in a photograph by cropping. Whether that change is necessary or not depends on what one wants from the image.

In my study of complex compositions I easily find multiple images that stand alone outside the original frame. Any "rule" about cropping means absolutely nothing to me. ....J

There must be an alignment of the planets but I agree with Grant. You do

whatever it takes to make the photo work, if that means cropping so be it.

<i>I'm not afraid of cropping at all and support the view that cropping off less than 10% of the original frame is quite acceptable. Anything above this, though, indicates a shortcoming in the process of composing (framing) the shot.</i>

<p>

If I'm only carrying a 6x6 camera, and I find a shot that would frame perfectly in a 6x4.5 ratio, your advice would be to pass up the shot because I'd have to crop 25% instead of 10%? What if my zoom lens doesn't quite bring me in close enough? What if I have only a second or two to compose and shoot? What if I change my mind about the composition while I'm printing?

<p>

Can you tell by looking at a print whether the photographer cropped it, or by how much? Can anyone tell me why it matters?

You have made a valid point, Don. I admit that the medium format example you mention does not agree with my statement, which you quoted above. My answer should have been more specific about cropping the original frame in relation to the aspect ratio of the final image. Always a danger in making generalizing statements, I guess...

OK, bad jokes aside... I also agree with Grant and Brian... so there really must be an alignment of the planets, either in our solar system or some other one, somewhere (at some time in the past, present, or future)...

Arnold Newman cropped.... a lot. I've never heard or read a compelling argument against cropping. Those who passionately renounce it are often trying to distinguish themselves by arguing that they don't NEED to crop, because their vision is so precise. I don't think that it requires precise composition to live with what's on the negative, and most times, cropping probably wouldn't help anyway. If avoiding cropping makes one feel better about one's work, then by all means, avoid it, but in the end, there is no extra credit for it.

Thanks for the link to Andy's image and the lengthy discussion. Your 'more than 10%' idea makes sense in that if you want a tighter crop, then shoot another frame . . . assuming everything in the viewfinder remains otherwise unchanged. . . . it all depends, doesn't it.

I prefer to print full frame images. I mainly shoot 8x10 & 5x7 & contact print. At times the image I see doesn't fit the film format & I decide at the time of shooting that it will be 'cropped' to fit what I envision. I think this works for me. At times I am surprised to find a stronger image by cropping that I had not seen at the time I exposed the film. A failure in my vision & usually(in retrospect) due to time or other constraints that don't allow me to fully explore the process as I set up the image.

I don't believe cropping or not is subject to rules & formulas. I do believe strongly that the photographer is responsible for every square millimetre of the image: top to bottom, side to side, corner to corner. A failure in vision is often evidenced by the need to crop after the image has been committed to film. If it keeps happening you aren't paying attention at the time you make the negative.

There are limitations that force the planned crop. Can't get close enough for various reasons... such as a nest of rattlesnakes in the way, a cliff or drop off or some such. Not having every lens made to carry with you - which is often good as all that weight means you won't go far to get the image because you will be too tired. Or, having too many lenses & not learning to work with minimal equipment so your vision & creativity take over rather than trying to get it from a bag of lenses & a set of 'rules' on how to use them.

 

Crop if it is needed but only if it is really needed. Much better for me to get what I want on film in the first place as it reinforces what I believe(having read it many times) in that "composition is the strongest way of seeing".

 

So crop all you want. Use it as a learning tool as you seek to get better, tighter & stronger composition in your images. As you get better you most likely won't find the need to crop as much.

Mike Johnston must also prefer zoom lenses.

 

With prime lenses, sometimes the only way to match your vision is to crop. If the

perspective you want doesn't match the framing, then what are you supposed to do?

just forget about the cropping stuff and don't, one less thing to worry about.

I'd like to think of crops as rephotographing, as in this instance.

<P>

Well, in this instance I didn't tarry, or take as many close-ups as I might have-late morning sun and the corpse of one dead armadilla make for quite a mix. (Why did I take it in the first place...I don't know...I'd never quite seen an armadilla killed like that before...so I took then and thought later...

<P>

I like to frame, and hit the bullseye of my desire in a photograph, but sometimes, just sometimes in relooking, I find something I missed the first time, when I no longer have the model available. So, I could say I use it as a kind of "second chance" for the photo I didn't see. (Not that anyone even really needed a first chance for this photo-but it's a good example of what I mean.....<div></div>

this......

Somewhere buried under a pile of junk in a closet that we rarely open lies the family slide projector, that cruel instrument that showed everyone the tilted horizon, distracting power lines, and poor exposure -- exactly what you accomplished with the camera, no more or less. Ahh... Those were the days. It felt great when you managed to get everything right and the camera recorded a work of art.

 

Still today, I feel a sense of pride when I open a new RAW digital file and the image looks great in its pristine state. But to have a great original image or a great negative only makes getting a good print -- my real goal -- easier.

 

Frankly, I have fun with Photoshop. Before taking a shot, I will usually zoom out a little from the image I think I want just to give me additional creative latitude in PS.

 

Please answer this question: Is there an assumption among better street photographers that the image is uncropped unless the photographer states so? This debate about using cropping instead of framing implies that to crop without admitting to it is to take credit for a better original image that you actually have. Is that the root issue in this discussion? -- Joe

You just do what you need to do. It's about making it work; it's really that simple. Use the tools to hand.

There's something called the sharpness chain.

 

I assume everyone has severly cropped an image and printed it large, only to see an obvious degrading in the quality of the print compared to others printed from a full frame capture. If you're shooting strictly for internet uploads, you can get away with a lot, since you're looking at 72 dpi rather than 300.

 

One of the reasons I bought a scanner is because too many of my images at the time needed cropping and I assumed this would be an unavoidable part of my work flow, regardless of the the purpose of the image. I learned eventually to commit to composing in the viewfinder, and I can now say that only rarely do keepers need cropping prior to printing. Now if you're shooting a subject that changes - birds in flight, street shooting, etc. - then I can see how capturing the moment would be more important than perfect framing.

 

For many of us, it's a matter of making a commitment to the image. Don't dismiss your subject as merely a grab shot. Someone may want it for a magazine cover or a large print. Do the best job you can under the circumstances. I shoot everything as if it was going to part of a slide show.