To Crop or Not to Crop. That is the question.

[Gary Naka]

When I shot film I had to remember what film I was shooting with.

With slides I HAD to crop to final in the camera.

With B&W, anything goes. BUT, I still had to deal with the effects of cropping in the darkroom. If I forgot and shot to full frame, then I could not print 8x10, as the image was too long on one axis to fit the paper. This was way back in the early days, when I did not mount, so I had to print to standard sizes to fit the frames. So I had to remember to leave space on the ends of the long axis to crop off in the darkroom.

 

And there was the times when I did not know better, and I did a tight head and shoulder in the camera, with the camera maybe 30 inches from the face. UGH. Talk about being "in your face." Later I learned about "personal space," and I backed up the camera and cropped in the darkroom.

[DavidTriplett]

Shooting a lot of Ektachrome back in the day forced me to shoot it like I wanted it

Shooting a 36 mp D810 has the same effect, only after the fact.

Also, if shooting architectural subjects I always try to leave room for distortion and perspective corrections, even when using my PC lens or otherwise think I got it right in camera. I can almost always find something to adjust for a more correct view once I can examine the image on a large screen, and the large prints we often do for advertising or publicity purposes demand the fewest aberrations possible.

 

If I see potential for multiple interpretations of a scene, then I leave room to crop. If I hope to enter in a contest, then I allow room to crop to the specified aspect ratio and print size(s). If I want the most pixels possible for the highest resolution, then I get in tight an make sure to get it right. If I'm using a lens with a lot of distortion I leave room to crop after adjustments/corrections. If in doubt, I'll expand the framing and later crop out or clone out spurious items, since most of my images are made in places and with subjects I don't control and where a second chance is not in the cards. If I can, I make multiple exposures with various framing, DoF, and exposure settings, and then see which get's me what I want most. There are as many right answers as there are situations.

Edited June 27, 2019 by DavidTriplett

[steve_gallimore1]

To add an afterthought; wearing glasses, precise framing in camera can be difficult, better to shoot wide and crop afterwards. Easier now with digital cameras with live view, but most viewfinders still suck

[William Michael]

The problem with shooting wide and cropping later, is that you may have missed the best angle that can only be captured by moving the camera. Cropping afterwards will not change the perspective. Also, if you shoot wide, you're probably not paying attention to the aspects of what makes the shot better. So you may leave out that very thing that makes the picture work by moving the camera a half an inch over to the side. If you want your photos to improve, start framing in the camera.

 

Supposition; generalization; non sequitur.

 

'Shoot wide and crop in the darkroom' was one (common, popular, and warranted) method for covering (especially) the candid aspects of weddings and was adopted by many very successful and sought after wedding photographers.

 

Attaining the best Camera Viewpoint to capture the moment, (i.e. 'getting the best camera angle') is not linked to 'shooting wide'.

 

Additionally 'shooting wide and cropping in post' allows for one to assess and implement the best Aspect Ratio for the final image and not necessarily be forced to use an AR within the bounds of the short side of originating camera.

 

WW

[AlanKlein]

Supposition; generalization; non sequitur.

 

'Shoot wide and crop in the darkroom' was one (common, popular, and warranted) method for covering (especially) the candid aspects of weddings and was adopted by many very successful and sought after wedding photographers.

 

Attaining the best Camera Viewpoint to capture the moment, (i.e. 'getting the best camera angle') is not linked to 'shooting wide'.

 

Additionally 'shooting wide and cropping in post' allows for one to assess and implement the best Aspect Ratio for the final image and not necessarily be forced to use an AR within the bounds of the short side of originating camera.

 

WW

Bill, I was addressing the OP's comments who didn't seem like they were interested in framing a picture in camera or trying to see the best at the time they took the shot. They just shoot wide, hoping for the best in what they can get from cropping in post. If they're sloppy about framing, then they're also sloppy about lightning and everything else. That's a formula for ho-hum results. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

[samstevens]

That's a formula for ho-hum results.

What if it turns out that a lot of beautifully-framed, perfectly-exposed pics are actually some of the more ho-hum ones and many of the “sloppier,” more quickly grabbed are ones that spark the imagination and tell a more interesting story? Someone working differently does not demand a “correction.”

[SCL]

Having grown up shooting slides, composition was always a key element of a picture. But as I spent increasing time in the darkroom I began to value the concept of cropping. These days when working with digital files, the concept of cropping is always in the back of my mind, even when I'm shooting film (less often). The potential to achieve the most attractive end result, IMHO, should always include the potential to effectively crop, if necessary. To force the discipline of either "no cropping" or "shoot and always crop" just doesn't make any sense to me.

[paddler4]

I thought I wanted all my images to at least match the camera’s native ratio even when I crop.

 

Why? Does that mean that if you have been using a camera with a 3:2 and create an image that looks the way you want without cropping or with a crop that maintains 3:2, and you then shoot it with a camera with a 4:3 ratio, it will now look better at 4:3?

 

I don't think it is helpful to conflate composing carefully in camera with what aspect ratio is best. There are lots of reasons to compose carefully in camera, including not wasting pixels to avoid decreasing the quality of the image by cropping. But the real world isn't likely to hand you scenes that happen to be portrayed best at whatever arbitrary aspect ratio your camera happens to have.

[William Michael]

. . . I was addressing the OP's comments who didn't seem like they were interested in framing a picture in camera or trying to see the best at the time they took the shot. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

 

Understood. Thank you for taking the time to explain your meaning, my response was based upon my misinterpretation.

 

WW

[Uhooru]

My favorite instructor in the photo classes I took always believed in cropping where needed. We had to make these little cropping frames to see in our exercise of finding the photo in the photo. But people have different philosiphies, rationales for them as to cropping. Personally I crop if I think it will make it better.

[glen_h]

 

(snip)

 

And there you go. I might add with street photography its about the capture, and is often full of chaotic unwanted elements-hence the need to crop.

 

(snip)

 

I suppose, but for me, much of the fun of street photography is all the things that are in frame but

that weren't intentionally the subject.

[samstevens]

being borne from an authentic independent expression.

Yes! This is a key more than so-called objective criteria like whether a photo was framed in the camera or not and whether a photo appears to be "correctly" exposed to some objective textbook standard. Thanks for the important addition.

[AlanKlein]

Understood. Thank you for taking the time to explain your meaning, my response was based upon my misinterpretation.

 

WW

No problem. I hope my comments helped someone.

 

As an aside, I crop most of my images even though I frame in the camera. But the discipline of framing borne from shooting slides for so many years, helps me see the best in the scene first. And line up the camera to that scene. Otherwise I'm shooting snapshots from the hip and cropping does little to help.

[William Michael]

Shooting lots of Kodachrome and Ektachrome certainly has had an effect on the methodology and techniques of many Photographers, not only apropos ‘Framing’, but also: nailing the exposure the first time; and getting the timing of the shutter release spot-on.

 

The merits and values of being brought up on shooting Transparency could be a topic for another Casual Photo Conversation.

 

WW

[Allen Herbert]

Lots of blah blah. Perhaps folks should do their own thing.

 

There's a thought.

[samstevens]

Perhaps folks should do their own thing.

Seems like that's just what folks are doing, while also sharing their methodologies and reasoning for what they do ... nice idea in a community forum.

[Allen Herbert]

Happy days.

[Allen Herbert]

"My point is that it has precisely nothing to do with how a photograph objectively looks on the surface" Phil.

 

Phil, the question was about cropping the good, bad and ugly. And whether it was a wicked thing to do. My mate Sam thinks its very wicked; a proper purist photo is the way to go, without any influence from the photographer.

 

Answer the quested. Yes, it is nice to walk through a field poppies, and go to a special place. But, hey Ho.

 

Methinks, it would be nice, if you put that photographs intellect to actually answering the question.

 

Just a thought. What do you think? No need for rigmarole.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Allen Herbert

[samstevens]

My mate Sam thinks its very wicked; a proper purist photo is the way to go, without any influence from the photographer.

Huh? Sam who?

 

Here’s what I said in my first post ...

I don't see it [not cropping] as a goal and am just as happy when I come up with a crop that works.

 

Here’s what I said in a later post ...

Yes! This is a key [authentic independent expression] more than so-called objective criteria like whether a photo was framed in the camera or not.

 

Admit it. You had your reading glasses on backwards, didn’t you? :rolleyes:

[Allen Herbert]

Just because I challenge your posts, Phil, does not mean I do not respect or a have a love for you.

 

Sometimes, I think our Americans Cousins, at best feel uncomfortable with the world love.

 

Probably my imagination./

[Allen Herbert]

Admit it. You had your reading glasses on backwards, didn’t you? :rolleyes:

 

Okay. But I don't need+ reading glasses backwards or otherwise. Sort of on my way, but not there yet.)

 

You are so intense my friend,

[samstevens]

Admit it. You had your reading glasses on backwards, didn’t you? :rolleyes:

 

Okay. But I don't need+ reading glasses backwards or otherwise. Sort of on my way, but not there yet.)

 

You are so intense my friend,

I think the words you’re looking for are, “Sorry, I misread you.”

 

Grace is universal. Not a European thing or an “American” thing.

[Allen Herbert]

To be to honest, Phil, I did not read your previous posts,

 

Sort of feel really guilty about being honest; just not the way, the world works,

[Allen Herbert]

@I think the words you’re looking for are, “Sorry, I misread you.”Philip

 

Don't get to excitable you won a little foray.

 

Think, just a little foray. Think tomorrow,;(

[samstevens]

Not only are you not reading posts. You’re not reading the names of the people making those posts. Phil has been nowhere to be seen today. In essence, you’re talking to yourself. Lucky for me, I just found the IGNORE link, so I don’t have to witness this train wreck from here on out.