Too many pictures could be better if cropped

Hello, I am quite new to photo.net, but have looked at a lot of pictures. Many

are very good, but there is a large number that could be (often substantially)

improved if they were cropped to eliminate insignificant elements. <p>Having a

35mm background of 50 years of color slide photography, I am so pleased that

digital photography finally frees me from the tyranny of a rigid 3x2 format. I

personally found that square formats, with the main object in the center of the

picture can be very pleasing. Landscape pictures would also often be much better

if cropped to a cinemascope format. Too much sky or foreground can distract the

eye from the main subject. (Of course this wouldn't make sense for sunsets, or

where the sky is the object.) For some examples review my portfolio at

<p>

<center>

http://www.photo.net/photos/karl.jahr

</center><p>

Comments are welcome.<div></div>

<p>I don't mind a little chaos. Rigid structure makes my short ride up.</p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/414322929_c49211fea8.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="Forever Baby Forever" /></a>

And here is a picture in cinemascope format:<div></div>

I am not advocating rigidity, actually quite the contrary. 35mm format was the ultimate form of rigidity . Here is another example of cinemascope.<div></div>

And here is one in portrait "cinemascope". I hope with these examples I have made my point.<div></div>

Karl,

 

While I am glad that you have found a tool that fits your expectations, the proper forum for this type of post would be the casual conversations forum...

 

- Randy

I am going to go ahead and disagree with you there.. Cropping is good, but should be used in moderation. Your image "Thai women on the way to the floating market in Bangkok" is a good example of cropping being abused. It just feels so claustrophobic to me, and there is no way an image like that could come out of a camera. I just prefer images that were thought out and composed in the camera.

Thanks for your reply. What would a discussion be if everybody was of the same opinion.

I, too, think many photos are overcropped and I don't mind what most people consider to be

"extraneous" material being in the frame. I don't usually find that a distraction, I find it an

enhancement.

<cite>

there is no way an image like that could come out of a camera. I just prefer images that were thought out and composed in the camera.</cite>

<p>

Our tastes differ.

<p>

You can compose and previsualize an image at shooting time that doesn't match your camera's format. Thinking out and composing in camera doesn't mean the final photo has to have the same aspect ratio as the camera's viewfinder.

<p>

<center>

<img WIDTH=600 HEIGHT=270 src="http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/prettypics/ggbridgepano.jpg" border=10>

</center>

<p>

I took the above image with a square format (6x6) camera. as I was taking the picture, I pre-visualized and composed how I was planning to crop the image. It's something that a lot of folks do when shooting with a square format camera, and some people do it with various rectangular formats, too.

<p>

I say, fit the aspect ratio to your subject; don't artificially constrain yourself to your camera's aspect ratio, or the aspect ratio of some format of frame or matting.

Karl, I agree to the point that if I could use only one function in Photoshop, it would be

the ability to crop. Looking at the thousands of pictures in magazines and newspapers,

you would have a hard time finding a 35mm format ratio there, or for that matter, the

MF ratios. I recall seeing a book of Arnold Newman's BW portraits that had his contact

sheet from his shoot of a famous concert pianist. The chosen picture showed his

cropping instruction. If you frame too tight you can't add anything back, but

if you give yourself some breathing room you can crop for a more pleasing composition.

 

--Roger

Fred says "I, too, think many photos are overcropped and I don't mind what most people consider to be "extraneous" material being in the frame. I don't usually find that a distraction, I find it an enhancement."

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. I believe, and think my portfolio bears this out, that everything in the frame must contribute to the picture. Anything that doesn't contribute distracts.

 

My $0.02 worth

 

<Chas>

I have no problem cropping but struggle with it often. For some reason (for me anyway) it's difficult for me, using a monitor and Photoshop, to find what my eye likes. I'll often hold my hands up to block out parts of the image to see what looks good on my screen.

 

I suspect that in some cases, the resolution of a digital image can come into play. For example if one shoots with a 6 megapixel DSLR and crops away a third of it, there's not much left for a decent sized print. This wasn't a problem with large or medium-format film.

 

That's one reason I bought the camera I did. A 1Ds II image can take quite a bit of cropping and still have plenty of pixels left.

 

It's nice when one gets it right in-camera but often that doesn't happen. I agree with you though; many shots can go from ho-hum to very good with quite a bit of extraneous bits left out.

I am a cropper myself. I shoot nearly everything in the telephoto range. But once I have my composition worked out, it really irks me to have to crop to fit one constraint or another. Some nice images are ruined that way. I agree that digital is a huge help in the cropping process when needed, especially with living and elusive subjects. Cropping can be really important when you reach the limit of a macro lens. Checked out your portfolio. Pretty striking and stylistic. Almost a hybridization between B&W and color. Thanks for inviting me over.

"Too much sky or foreground can distract the eye from the main subject."

 

This assumes the entire frame is not the subject.

Charles, I'm glad you disagree with me. I checked out your portfolio and find many of your

photos quite compelling, partly because they are so different from my own. I love variety and

am thrilled to have found a web site with such diversity of thoughtful opinions and esthetic

sensibilbities.

Most people overcrop. I used to follow that famous saying ("if your pictures aren't good, you're not close enough...") - now I think it's complete garbage. A photo needs to tell a story which consists of some details. Cropping details voids the story.

</P>

<i>"...square formats, with the main object in the center of the picture can be very pleasing..."</i>

</P>

Also preferred by people who know nothing about composition.

</P>

<i>"...Landscape pictures would also often be much better if cropped to a cinemascope format..."</i>

</P>

I'd better sell my wide angle lenses then, they must be useless.

Nothing should be rigid in the way of art. Neither size, colors, shape, nor any other aspect. Cropping takes care of one potential problem if done with skill and feeling. (Personally, I think that there should be more "air" at the top of your photo of the flowers. the petal is much to near the border for my taste.)

 

Mostly, however, the shape and order of the image should be up to the artist, if in fact it is to be art. For some uses, things like calendar art must be a set dimension. No question there. Otherwise anything goes.

 

Willie the Cropper

"I hope with these examples I have made my point."

 

The point you have made is that you take far too literally the advice to get close as you can to the "main subject". Your aesthetic won't work for photographers who do not compose around a "main subject".

Consider it this way. You are attempting to take your photos with a "main subject", then post crop the entire frame into the "main subject". If you had thought this out ahead of time you would have composed the frame as the subject. This does not mean you would have gotten closer to the "main subject". It means there is no "main" subject, just the subject. If you'd rather not, then don't crop so tight, is good advice, if you want it.

I want to make it clear: All I wanted, is to start people thinking about this possibility. And, honestly, if you go through some of the pictures that have been submitted, you will find many that would have become better by cropping them (sometimes by just taking a sliver off, sometimes more). I am <b>not</b> for cropping <b>every</b> picture. But the typical 3x2 ratio of 35mm and digital SLR cameras in my opinion often captures things that do not add to the story or even distract. In the old days people would work in the dark room and get rid of this stuff and that's what cropping does. But one thing is certain: The individual photographer and his or her skill and taste is king/queen. <p>

Ronaldo, please don't throw your wide angle lenses away. They are not useless if used properly, as I am sure you do. I have good uses for my wide angle zoom where it makes sense and would not want to miss it.

The trouble with cropping is that it can become a habit and this in turn leads one to simply not consider what's in the frame as the photographer presses the shutter. Cropping becomes a crutch. I find a lot more enjoyment in my own work when I pay attention to what's on my ground glass. Of course the type of photography one does plays a major role. I can see where a landscape photographer might need to crop as he/she may be limited to where they can shoot from. I do mostly street stuff so I have room to move around in and I do so until I like what I'm seeing in my ground glass. I have nothing against cropping; one of my favorite photographers Lisette Model cropped many of her prints but I would suggest that anyone having to crop a significant number of images look at why this is so and to look for ways to crop in the camera.

Karl, your comment about the 3:2 aspect ratio is a good one. Actually, 3:2 is pretty good if there is a strong horizontal component in an image. But I find 3:2 as awkward as heck for shooting verticals most of the time. Someone should produce a variable aspect ratio finder camera.

I agree with both schools -- some photos I've seen have been over-cropped, some aren't cropped nearly enough. To me, the best photos emphasize the subject through somewhat tight crops, but at the same time give the subject at least a little room to breathe. And if you've got a subject that's looking or leading toward the edge of the frame, that side needs to have a smidge more room (to give the subject something to look at or somewhere to go).

 

BTW, if you're cropping the height and the width of your photos on a regular basis, it's safe to say you aren't doing your job very well taking the photo in the first place. For the most part, cropping should be reserved for shaping the photo only, the bulk of the "cropping" should be done by zooming in (or physically moving closer) and filling the viewfinder with the subject as much as possible. There's no point having a 10MP camera if you're going to whack 5MP off the picture through cropping after the fact.

I agree with David's BTW. Fill the available space with as much of what makes up your object. Then crop one or two parallel edges and leave the others untouched. <p>

I found one exception to this: I wanted to make stealth pictures inside a famous castle in Germany where photography was not permitted. So I put on the widest wide angle on my camera and snapped pictures without flash and without looking through the viewfinder. Later on I straightened the pics with Photoshop Elements 2 and cropped to taste. But this approach would be the exception.