Is Photography a Crop Shoot?

[orourke]

<p>No, it's not a typo and my question isn't agricultural in nature. I was simply wondering how many of you frame or compose your images with eventual cropping in mind. Do you allow yourselves an addition buffer zone to either reframe in post, or crop edit to highlight individual subjects within the original composition. Lately I've been experimenting with old negatives, taking original shots and cropping them to change the focus or feel. Here's an example.</p><div></div>

[orourke]

<p>First crop and b&w conversion.</p><div></div>

[orourke]

<p>Finally, the composition I settled on, giving the image an entirely different flavor.</p><div></div>

[johne37179]

<p>When I shoot, particularly on location I want to make sure I capture everything I can from the location without requiring a return to meet the current goal. <br>

I usually have a shooting plan and final image or images in mind. That may mean capturing dozens for a stitching in a panorama, covering the full range of exposure levels that may be combined in an HDR merge and enabling sufficient image for cropping.<br>

I usually do not see my final image with the same proportions as the camera captures -- this was true of film and is true today of digital. In my mind each subject should have its own proportional framing, whether rectangular, oval, round, or some other shape.<br>

It is purely arbitrary to let the fixed framing of the camera determine for you the shape of the final image. I think that is the province of the artist/photographer. That compels some degree of cropping.<br>

I will have a vision of that crop when I trip the shutter, but I always try to ensure that I capture enough image to change my mind later.</p>

[orourke]

<p>Thanks for the response, John. The original image above was exposed back in the mid 70's. A couple of years later, in a photo class, I printed it in b&w as originally composed. I even framed it. Over the years I've always looked at the photo wondering how it would look if I had focused more on the boat and dock rather than the peripheral contents, which to me grew more and more distracting. I often find myself taking time to compose, maybe too much, to try and get the framing right the first time. This shot was with film. It seems with the advent of digital and the increase in resolution that brings with it, the original composition is less important than it was. Certainly basics would still apply but I'm beginning to think about changing my approach to capturing the moment, focusing more on exposure and depth of field over framing with limiting image borders.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>FWIW, One of the all time greats of photography, Alfred Stieglitz used small format cameras for a time. According to William Crawford in <em>The Keepers of Light</em>, 1979:106</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Because the hand camera produced a small<br />negative, Stieglitz made enlarged negatives for<br />contact-printing or enlarged positive transparencies<br />from which photogravure plates were produced.<br /><strong>He rarely composed his hand-camera pictures</strong><br /><strong>using the entire negative; the final image was</strong><br /><strong>almost always cropped. </strong>[<em>emphasis added, JDM</em>] The enlarging procedure<br />caused a certain loss of sharpness and of tonal<br />separation.ln later years, as he became more concerned<br />with retaining the subtleties in his<br />negatives, whether made by the view or by the<br />hand camera, Stieglitz printed only by contact<br />from original negatives.</p>

</blockquote>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Hi Bill,</p>

<p>That's pretty typical of me, leaving just a little bit of "fudge factor" to the image so I can perform some creative cropping if I want to. Heck, I even cropped an image in half one time, creating two individual photos that stood independent of each other. I have 16mp available to me, and I shoot in raw, so I'm able to do just what you did above, catch one image then decide later that only certain aspects of that original is what you want to show in your final image, with enough room to hopefully crop it right.</p>

<p>In regard to cropping, a couple months ago I was at a talk given by a pro and he was asked about the topic of cropping. He is not bashful about cropping at all. He said plainly- "they're my images, and I'll crop them any way I want to [in an effort to make the best possible final image]." I mean, in the end, who is going to know, other than you, that you cropped an original image like you did above? If all you showed us was the final image without the discussion of cropping, I would have never known it came from a much larger scene other than maybe some minor cropping to create the slightly panoramic view of the scene.</p>

<p>I like your final image a lot- simple and elegant, to the point. No ambiguity as to what the subject matter is supposed to be. And I know that something is in the background because the far shoreline is subtly alluded to (without distracting detail) in the reflections off the water. And that reflection is in harmony with the main lines of the boat and the dock- the reflective edge of the treeline runs parallel to the boat and to the dock. The minor details of the ripples in the water create perpendicular lines that also are parallel to the minor detail lines of the seats in the boat and the boards on the dock. I see harmony in the details of the final image. I really do like that final version better than your original. The original shows a pleasant, relaxing snapshot scene but it's packed with lots of individual details, there doesn't seem to be a strong, singular subject like the last image shows. Lastly, I'm glad you went with the modest sepia monotone, removing the coloring of that old image which I don't think adds anything to the original photo. Well done.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Bill, I like what you arrived at in the one you settled on. For me, it's more intimate and feels quite a bit more internal. </p><p>I tend to work in a variety of ways. Sometimes I frame and don't crop and will just get a nice sense of having what I want at the time. Often I do crop. Sometimes I know I am probably going to crop because, as John suggests, I just want to be sure to get more than I need so I can decide later what I want to do with what I've got. Sometimes, I think I have what I want as framed and when I get home I realize I've got a much better picture if I do crop.</p><p>I guess what I'm getting it is that I work different ways and try to be flexible about it. I get a very unique sense of satisfaction from framing just what I want with the camera and not cropping later. It's like there's a harmony right there in the moment. I get a different kind of feeling but an equally rewarding sense of satisfaction when I surprise myself as Bill did above with a good crop of a larger image that creates a strong photo. And when I include more than I need I get an equal sense of satisfaction knowing that I have started what will be a process toward the photo I want to achieve.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I tend to crop in camera whenever possible. That comes from decades of using slide film. This means I make a lot of variants if there is time unless there isn't, or I am confident I've got it. I am not above cropping in PP if I have to, but I never "shoot loose" with cropping in mind later.</p>

[orourke]

<p>JDM,<br>

After reading your insert it would appear I'm marching in the opposite direction. I suppose as we get older the logical path would be to follow Steiglitz. Not being a master of lighting I'm becoming more prone to focus (work) more on that aspect of an image than to relagate myself to getting the composition right the first time. After all, without the proper exposure, good composition is irrelevant.<br>

Steve,<br>

I have taken presentable images cropped with nothing more than the viewfinder, as we all have. I have been the proverbial blind squirrel in that regard, lucky at times. But I agree with you and, as I stated, I am gravitating toward a looser style of capturing an image than what I have done over the years. Hopefully, it will produce more photographic inventory from which to extract more succint images. Thank you, by the way, for your kind synopsis of my example above. Very much. It's appreciated.</p>

[orourke]

<p>Thank you for your input Fred and Louis.<br>

Yes Louis, I suppose shooting slide film gives one a more regimented approach to composition. I have rarely shot slide, maybe 20 rolls in my lifetime, so it's an easier habit for me to break.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

[stp]

I look very intently at whatever I see in the viewfinder, and nearly all of my cropping is done in-camera.

The exceptions are when there are additional decidedly different compositions within the one I

photographed, which happens but is rare; when the aspect ratio of my camera just doesn't fit the

composition I want (I often like 2:1); and when I can't get the DOF I need and know that I'll be cropping the

OOF areas at the top and/or bottom.

[David_Cavan]

<p>I find that cropping often comes days or weeks after I first see the photo - the composition does not always come together for me through viewfinder, and if at all possible I add some on the edges. Every once in a while I wish I had added more - those are the photos I can't fix with all the post-processing in the world.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I often crop but like Luis, after years of shooting slides, I have the habit of framing the final composition in the camera thinking that's the best shot. Of course, my viewfinders also only saw 90-95% of what the film captured back then, so I guess there was some slop in there anyway. It seems like I should practice pulling back a little to give me room to crop later. But when I'm shooting, I only "see" what's in the viewfinder or LCD and I try to make it look the best to my eye at the time I'm shooting. It's then that I'm having this relationship with the subject and its' then I want the picture to "work". Otherwise I think I would not really be paying attention to the composition and perspective.</p>

[sfcole]

I'm curious as to why one would need or want to avoid cropping slide film vs any other type of film.

[Mike D]

<p>I don't normally shoot to crop but I welcome the new higher MP sensor DSLRs. I can crop images taken with my 16 MP D7000 much more successfully than my 10 MP D200. It's just an extra option. When I previously worked at an industrial facility about 10 years ago, the home office in Chicago sent a professional photographer to shoot the industrial facility in Los Angeles for an annual report. He used a Mamiya 6 with a wide angle lens. He was shooting at a distance so I asked him why he wasn't shooting closer. He advised that he needed to get everything in every image. The post production team in Chicago would then take his images and decide on what to crop out of the image. The art director was calling the shots and decided how the images were used and placed in the annual report. The final result was a very high quality, high gloss, professional product. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Not everyone wants a 2:3 ratio, or, with a different format, what that format gives. As a result, some people shoot knowing they will crop in post. There's nothing particularly noteworthy about "cropping in the camera".</p>

[orourke]

<p>Scott,<br>

Not having shot alot of slide film, or been around many who have, I can only suggest that, at least for me, slide film represented more of a finished product. It's been years, but I can remember taking extra time composing with the assumption that whatever I shot would be slide mounted as is and popped into a projector. I know that isn't the case for pros or advanced amateurs, it just was for me. I might add that almost all of the slide film I shot I previewed through one of those cheap hand held viewers with 2 C batteries and a scratched up screen, which didn't lend itself well to visualizing a crop.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>I use to always print full frame, all of my black and white negatives were printed with the border of the negatives, I would say "Cropping is for Farmers" . Now with Digital imagery, I will often Crop to gain a different format. I still compose for full frame printing, perhaps a habit from the old days.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Jeff- "</strong>There's nothing particularly noteworthy about "cropping in the camera".</p>

<p>No, there is not, or about routinely croppping, and I did not suggest there was. It's just habit with me, though as I remarked, I do crop on occasion.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I try to keep my cropping minimal by shooting a variety of framings and later selecting the closest to what I decide should be the final composition.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Depends on circumstances. If I'm shooting quickly, such as candids, I typically shoot loose and crop later. If it's landscapes or almost anything from a tripod I'll tend to compose more carefully and am less likely to crop later.</p>

<p>Years ago, when shooting slide film, I'd heard the advice to compose carefully in the camera to avoid cropping. The problem was that the then-popular cardboard slide mounts tended to intrude farther than I'd expected into the frame. Later I'd have to compose differently for Kodachrome, which was still mounted in cardboard, and E6 slide films, which were typically provided in plastic mounts that didn't cut off as much of the frame.</p>

<p>And each camera viewfinder was slightly different from what the film actually recorded - even the 100% finder on the Nikon F3 is just a few nths of a fraction off from the recorded frame. Same with the D2H's 100% finder - it's just a few pixel widths different from the actual recorded image. So I tend to compose a little loosely with slide film and digital to avoid awkward looking crops.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>I fill the frame with the composition as I want it, accepting that some will need cropping to non-standard format in post. I don't generally allow any leeway, as I know my viewfinder doesn't give me 100%. As far as I'm concerned I want as many pixels as I can get allocated to the subject. </p>

[orourke]

<p>Thank you for all your responses, it's been an interesting read. It seems the answer isn't as black and white as I may have expected. With reasons that include displayed viewfinder percentage, pixels, shooting speed, film types, formats, and others being considered before personal artistic composition enters the equation, I feel less like I am somehow cheating than I did yesterday. I guess it's safe to say that a very large percentage of final images on display here are cropped to some extent.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Bill, generally speaking, whenever I think of an act as cheating in photography or art (outside things like lying to a gallery about the authenticity of a work, falsifying supposedly journalistic photographs, taking responsibility for a photo you didn't take), I figure it's more likely some sort of creative move. There's nothing wrong with setting your own standards for how you want to work and there's nothing wrong with sometimes limiting yourself for certain creative inspiration or effect (I'm only going to use Lens X for this project, only going to use a square crop for this project, etc.). But photography itself, like painting and sculpture impose very, very, very few limits, especially not limits like whether or not you can crop, post process, shoot in color or black and white (though many people have their own preferences for a variety of valid reasons). Seeing limits as somehow imposed by the world or by a medium itself or by others using that medium, rather than as a personal choice (often a temporary one and a purposeful one), is usually disastrous to photographers and artists. It's antithetical to the creative spirit, IMO, of course.</p>