Uncropped Leica images - rot or reality?

[jonathan_reynolds]

I didn't like to ask this before I'd clocked up at least a year's

probation with a Leica M6. This is not a troll, cos I'm VERY happy

with what I've got. But...

 

HCB and others are famous for having their photos printed full-

frame, no cropping. The Leica M framelines are notorious for

showing less than is captured on film, and for this being variable

with distance. There exist folk-loric workarounds allowing one to

judge film capture better at different distances, and I use some

suggested here by the late Jay, besides consciously filling the

frame with the image. Nevertheless, I often/usually find myself

having to crop off unwanted marginal material. I sometimes even

wonder why I took a particular shot until I've moved the masking

easel frames in a bit (NB: while preserving the format proportions).

 

So I ask, can anyone really predict accurately what will end up on a

Leica M negative, or did the micrometric compositional skill of HCB

and others owe just a tad to luck? Do you regularly trim the edges

of your shots?

[richard_milner2]

HCB did crop his images but he insisted that they should not be re-cropped by another editor.

[douglas k.]

If the viewfinder image closely approximates the on-film image, I can usually get what I want without cropping, and prefer to shoot that way. One reason for dumping the Leica M was that its framelines gave such a poor approximation of what would actually appear on the neg.

[andy m.]

"HCB did crop his images"

 

How so (other than "in camera") if he didn't do his own darkroom work?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Cartier-Bresson did not crop his images except perhaps very early on. He inisited thatthey

be printed full frame and reproduced full frame. He was (and his estate & foundation

remain) extremely insistent on this point. On the other hand I think he would think the cult

of printing black "frame verification" borders along with the image was very idiotic.

 

Cartier-Bresson had a much more trained eye for composition (he studied with the painter

Andre Lhote for two years as opposed to the three days he spent learning to use his first

real camera, and had grown up with family members who were artists.) and he practiced

constantly. He also had the benefit of getting direct feedback from

his peers which included more artists than photographers. the combination of these four

factors. Another misconception is that he precalculated his framing before pressing the

shutter release. He once said studying his contcxt sheets would reveal that he was like a

carpenter driving a nail "a few light taps to establish the rhythm and then driving the nail

home with one or two solid blows."

 

Another thing to consider is that the rest of us are following in H C-B's footsteps

concerning composition and framing. And a lstthing; composition and framing are two

different aesthetic issues. Composition is more like the visual rhythm of the photo while

framing is a matter of deciding what to leave in and what to leave out.

[andy m.]

Maybe he directed his printer. I would be interested to know.

[jean_.]

<h3>My personal top 5 of frequently discussed non-issues</h3>

 

<h4>Number 1: Frameline accuracy</h4>

This is one of the most discussed non-issues IMHO. The frameline fetish seems as irrational to me as a megapixel or zoomrange count.. But in these discussions everybody seems to carefully compose their images through fences and make full frame reproductions of valuable documents, and get frustrated by parallax and framing errors.

 

<h4>Number 2: DOF preview</h4>

Next in line is DOF preview. If I believe what people say in discussion forums, this is the most vital feature of an slr, (and I presume the folks have a night sight device handy to check DOF at f22). And not the humblest pet, sunset or child pic can seriously be taken without carefully checking DOF.

 

<h4>Number 3: Film loading.</h4>

Oh yes, these japanese camera backs are more convenient. And no leica owner ever entered the top100 of the yearly "fastest to put 25 rolls through his camera" contest. Manual film transport and backwinding, however, are not mentioned as much.

 

<h4>Number 4: Rangefinder patch flare</h4>

Unfortunately, this happens. And irritates. Never lost a pic because of it, however.

 

<h4>Number 5: My Leica is more rugged than your XY</h4>

No, it isn't.

<p>

Have a happy life, and don't fret over features you don't need. If you need them, then get the tool that offers it - it's that easy :o)

And whenever a neg needs cropping, then crop it. Never understood that fetish, either.</p>

[scott_eaton]

Back when I was taking photo classes in college our instructor insisted we file out the neg holders in our enlargers to show full frame to the sprocket holes, and didn't allow us to crop images at all. During critique, any student that didn't show the muddy overlap of a full frame printed images was had their image down graded.

 

I guess in retrospect this taught good fundamentals and how to give full respect to the 35mm frame. In later years I tempered this with the reality that the 35mm frame is so pathetically small you need as much of it as you can. Still, full frame shooting does teach good fundamentals, and it's not something intrinsic to just rangefinders.

[Robin Smith]

A great deal in photography is down to luck - so in this sense HCB was lucky - but then he knew what he was after which is the key - and he had good taste.

 

I sort of applaud Jean's comment - these are commonly aired obsessions - I would add the "how low can you handhold" type macho contest. These obviously have some bearing on taking pictures, but when looked at in the long term seem to me to very insignificant. As someone who takes slides I actually do find the lack of precise framing on an M irritating at times, but that is because I project them full frame. Despite this I do not consider this a great flaw and it only affects say one or 2 shots a roll if that - and these ones may not have been any good anyway. The interesting thing about framing is that I think there is a case to be made that what appears great when you take the shot can look less good when you see it in the end - so leaving yourself framing flexibility is often a good thing - its a bit like taking many slightly different shots to get the right one which is the same principle. If you are a zoom lens user then I always assume that "correct framing" is more of an obsession too.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Maybe he directed his printer. I would be interested to know.</I><P>He directed his

printer, Victor Gassman, and his lab, not to crop his images. Gassman thinks that H C-B

had a natural sense of the "Golden Mean".

[dean_g]

Ellis, great post. I think one can develop a feel and intuition about their equipment also. I'm sure after so much practice HCB and others had extremely good feel for what they were getting even if it wasn't precisely represented by the viewfinder. Also, there are art forms such as ceramics that accept an extremely high degree of uncertainty and in fact embrace it. I think intuition and the 'hunch' figure equal to calculated precision, and in terms of artistic technique often are more valuable. The person who presses the shutter is who took the picture and creates the final composition whether or not they're even looking through the viewfinder at all.

[al_kaplan1]

Robin you make a good point bringing up the color slide comparison. So many younger photographers don't remember back when Color+Leica meant SLIDES, not prints. In the 70's when filed out carriers and black line prints became fashionable it may have been a way of saying that "I can frame accurately even when shooting B&W". Now, of course, the digital crowd of youngsters (and some old timers) think nothing of shooting fast and loose, cropping after the fact, even removing and adding things to the picture. Their pride is one of computer skills, not camera handling. I suppose there's nothing really wrong with that, but if you can maximize useage of the image area, whether film or digital, you'll have better quality photographs. Myself, even if I made the Great Digital Switch, I can't imagine shooting a 2 hour assignment and machine gunning 500 to 1,000 exposures just because there's no film cost involved.

[furcafe]

Doesn't it come down to one's abilty to previsualize? If a photographer shoots often enough & tends to stick to 1 focal length, as HC-B did, I don't think it's exceedingly difficult to acquire the ability to accurately predict what the camera will capture.

[cameron_sawyer]

Jean's comment probably deserves its own thread.

 

If I may be permitted to chime in, I would agree with him heartily about his comments 3 and 5. As to loading -- I found it initially fumblesome, but soon grow to love it. It works like a charm! As to ruggedness -- just read the threads in the archives about multitudinous problems.

 

However, I would like to respectfully disagree about the other comments. It is indeed hard to compose when you don't know for sure where the edges of the frames are. If you compose carefully, as opposed to just pointing in the general direction of the subject and blasting away, this is a real challenge. I find that with experience you start to intuit the edges of the frame (without much help from the framelines in the VF), but come on -- we certainly crop a lot more than we would if we were using say a Nikon F3 with its 100% finder. And I think HCB has been exposed as being a closet cropper, notwithstanding his frequent statements to the contrary.

 

As to DOF preview: It is true that at small apertures this SLR feature loses its value. At larger and medium apertures, however, it is really useful. And the biggest drawback concerning visualizing DOF is that you can't see the plane of focus in the VF at all with an RF camera. Of course this is a disadvantage.

 

Patch flare: speak for yourself. I have certainly lost shots. I have high hopes for the VF upgrade, however.

[bobtodrick]

I'll second (or third?!) Jean's comment. At most its a 5 or 10% discrency...if this is going to make or break you image...or you're ability to make the image...hmmmmm.

[cameron_sawyer]

Bob, it depends on your style and how tightly you frame your shots. If you're shooting with essential elements of your composition near the edges of the frame, that 10% is a big deal.

[btmuir]

I dont own a Leica but occasionaly will break out my Koni-Omega.can someone please explain "patch flare". Is this when the rangefinder patch disappears at certain angles or something to do with the mirrors in the rangefinder.Thanks, and by the way the Koni has different frames for the focal length in use and these are fairly accurate except at close distance of course.

[ben z]

Johnathan, to help answer your specific question, which was how HCB dealt with the framing at different distances using a Leica. First, he shot with a 50mm almost if not exclusively and until the mid 50s he worked with a screw mount Leica whose 50mm viewfinder frames for infinity, so he did not ordinarily have the problem with extra things showing up since most of his shots were not right up close. Also, if you look at pictures of HCB holding his camera, you usually will see the accessory finder VIOOH/Imarect or occasionally SBOOI (5cm bright line finder) mounted in the shoe, even on his M3. The VIOOH has 2 positions for each focal length, one for close-up framing and one for infinity (in addition to the tilting parallax correction feature). And the SBOOI bright lines are correct at far distances, with little marks inside the frame for both frame size and parallax at close distances.

[stuart_whatling]

I have a special accessory (hand-made by Montechristi in Ecuador) to avoid patch-flare. It's called a Panama hat - the model with the fedora-style brim is the most effective. Mind you, I do have to remove it when using the CV 15mm as it causes vignetting along one side of the frame.

[william_john_smith]

For another Leica non-cropper see Robert Frank - spocket holes and all.

[melvin_bressler1]

I think Ben Z is on to something. Early on, before Ms, I used (still do) a IIIa, but

couldn't stand the tiny VF, so I routinely used an accessory finder, and found it

much more convenient . When I finally got an M3, I often reverted to the clip

on VF, and generally found it much easier to properly compose and frame

shots. However, whenever I use the built in VF, I find myself unconsciously

using about 85% of the frame to make sure nothing gets cut off.

 

Happy snaps.

[jorge]

If I may be allowed to put my two pesos to the bowl, I am a rather new rangefinder user. Eight years with a Retina IIIc, five with a IIIf, and less than four with an M. While being a SLR user, I had more load failures with my Nikon F90x than with my M6, took more time to load my FM2 than the M6 and had more focusing goofs due to focusing screen mismatch or AF sensor misplacement than to RF flare. As a matter of fact, I have only experienced it twice in situations where I could absolutely not use it, and then I managed to get the picture by means of scale and distance estimating. Ditto the DOF preview thing. Even with a view camera and 10x magnifier, I trust more the DOF calculator in my Palm organizer than the groundglass (who can see what's there at f/22, anyway?).

[jorge]

BTW, I think that printing the film rebate is an affectation, a pose and an empty statement. I've been guilty to that but erring is human and retcifying is wise.

[lee_shively]

After awhile, you pretty much know what you will get on the film. You learn to shoot loose. You also learn that cropping can help some images more than leaving a black line around them.

[matt_l.1]

RE: Robert Frank as a non-cropper ... I had a History of Photography teacher relay an

anecdote about one of his photography instructors who idolized Frank's work, and

assuming Frank did not crop, the photog, for better or worse, did not crop his own images

and became quite proficient at getting what he wanted in-camera. But my teacher related

that they have both found out post facto that Frank DID crop ... just along the same 2:3

proportion. <p>

I can't verify or provide evidence, but this was an anecdote I was told ;)

(I will admit I am guilty of the same vanity in relation to both Frank and HCB ... and have

come to the conclusion of 'allowing myself' to crop on the same proportion, as I very much

enjoy and visualize in the 2:3).