Stones #2

I've never understood why some people think that an uncropped shot is more natural or in any way "better" than a cropped shot. (Look, and ye shall find boasts of "Full frame, uncropped" on many descriptions on this site.)

 

Photography is the only visual medium (that I can think of) in which the artist begins with a standardized "canvas." A painter chooses the size of his canvas; a sculptor chooses the size of his block of stone. And critics freely comment on the choices made by painters and sculptors concerning the size and contours of the raw materials they chose.

 

Unlike painting and sculpture, nonstandardized film would be impracticable, given that electronic/mechanical hardware must interface with the film. So standards are imposed on photographers of necessity. But we should still be as free as any other visual artist to pick and choose the borders of our images.

 

In that light, I agree that cropping is but one aspect of composition. Like any other compositional choice, the artist should be free to do whatever he or she likes, and critics should be free to disagree with the artist's decision. It's no more subjective than any other part of composition.

Monitor Calibration Click to calibrate your monitor for color/brightness and contrast.. This is a site that guides you through a step by step process.

The same compositional skill is required to crop as to compose in camera isn't it? The same set of eyes. It's just when you do it, and how much time is available. Personally, I agree that there is something special about capturing 100% of what you want in a single shot, single moment, but that's very photogeekcentric IMO, and one doesn't often know that it has happened until later (with film at anyrate), so then, what is the difference in selecting a shot that you see, once it is developed, has really worked, and cropping another at the same time so then it does work? Regarding the viewer and the final image, and not one's subjective memory and feelings about the process, how is cropping more of a cheat than editing out the full frame photos that worked, from those that didn't? In this way the full frame fetish is really demanding absolute perfection because it is only valid if 100% of your frames are compositionally intentional and as intended. That's unrealistic and too constraining to allow for much creativity. It's dogmatic.

Balaji, name anything that works according to its ideal.

 

You are right in principle, and the ideal would be as you say, but I have never in my life experienced anything that is completely, 100 % ideal. There is always some little fly in the ointment somewhere and so I think that if composition and cropping must be joined, then I would want them to be easily separable at any time for any purpose.

 

In photography, it might be the wrong lens, or the ISO 400 when you want 100, or or when can't get close enough before the visual ideal wanders out from the best background, or when one more step will get you killed, slapped, or thrown in jail.

 

Also, we shouldn't be afraid to admit to gross misjudgements while on location, or behind the camera. Personally, I'm thankful for cropping guides, and scissors and not-to-format easels. A photographer wishing to limit themselves to full frame images: More power to you, buddy, go for it! I can still enjoy your images, but I'm not going that way myself. See you on the other side. Have a nice trip.

 

Serendipity is fun and besides, nailing it every time would make a person cocky and arrogant, and there's too much of that going around already.

Since when did scissors become part of a photographer's armor? I repeat, barring lens availabilities at the moment of shooting, deriving interesting alternatives out of a negative is sheer serendipity and NOT ideal photography. One can in theory have a 10 feet by 10 feet focal plane and film to go with, then it all gets real easy. Point the camera in the general direction and snap away and then later chop away to make interesting crops.

 

Dean, cropping does not require the same skills as to compose. Cropping a two dimensional picture at leisure is not the same as composing a 3 dimensional scene through the lens and the viewfinder.

 

Eyes and viewfinder for the good photographer, scissors and chop-chop for cheaters (like me).

Doug's comment snuck in while I was busy typing mine. I hate it when that happens. Everytime. sigh.

I know what you mean. Sometimes helpful to compose, back up one page, hit refresh, check for new posts, proceed as indicated.

 

Here's my take on the scissors/armor analogy, which I know you meant in a loose way, but I can't resist:

 

4x4 off road vehicle=trusty stead

knowledge and experience=armor

camera with normal lens=sword

camera with long lens=lance

camera with short lens=dagger

top rated pages=honorary and temporary knighthood

assistant or shlepper=loyal squire

people who don't understand what you're doing, or give you low ratings=peasants

people who admire you, or give you high ratings=noble peers

an image that pleases you=the Grail

scissors, or cropping=reality check

 

Can't wait to hear that titmouse ballad now, after reading all this! Have you composed it yet? No scissors allowed this time.

"Cropping a two dimensional picture at leisure is not the same as composing a 3 dimensional scene through the lens and the viewfinder. "

 

Balaji,

Well how about composing the 3D scene through the lens and veiwfinder at leisure? I respectfully think you are splitting hairs. As John Szarkowski points out in one of his books, photography is an art of visual editing. Each time you frame a shot in camera you choose what to leave out and what to leave in. It's basically cropping. When you throw away your failures, if you're like me and have them, you are cropping. Call it editing, or culling, it amounts to the same thing. And if the camera is, say, a TLR with ground glass waistlevel viewer, or digital with LCD, both help me visualize the shot in 2D, it's only the imagination that can make it 3D again.

I referred to both 'leisure' and 'dimension' when I said that.

 

With 'leisure', I referred to the timing constraints. The Masters of Street have produced volumes and volumes of perfect compositions of decisive moments. Partly luck? Yes. But it has been done before and those who did it, did it over and over again consistently. While that being the case, should cropping even be a consideration for the not so decisive landscape and other genres? I just wanted to underline the relation here between the sense of urgency/time and composition and whether we could get a leeway for cropping as it would apply to different genres. Again I'm not averse to snipping, all I'm saying is that it can't PERHAPS be denied that it's a patch up to a shortcoming in a skill of the craft. Constraining creativity? Probably. Unrealistic? I don't know.

 

Tony Dummett, where are you???

 

As for the dimension, isn't it easier to judge what stays and what goes on a two dimensional thin flat strip of negative than a three dimensional scene to which that our senses are so bound with in terms of depth and space and reality, let alone DOF and other considerations. I agree with you ofcourse on the ground glass part and LCDs as exceptions here.

I will assert unequivocally that cropping IS a patch-up, and I will resort to it anytime I need to. About this issue, I have no shame.

 

Additionally, I'll be happy to sell my prints to anyone who either doesn't know I cropped, doesn't care that I cropped, or doesn't know what cropping is. The money is still the same.

 

Also, when we finally endure that final crop ourselves, leaving behind countless negatives and prints, do you really think anyone is going to make a mad rush for our negatives? No. They will go for the prints, and it's what's on there that will glorify your name.

 

Were the negatives displayed beside the prints the last time you went to a gallery or photo show, or looked in a photo book? The answer is no, and if you ever see such a combination you can be sure you are looking in a text book, or attending a workshop, seminar or class. (Sorry. No closing rhyme.)

I think the shot is excellent. I like the composition, it works for me. I must say that it is refreshing to finally have a POW where the weekly conversation surrounding it is not hung up on "Is it or is it not Photoshopped". Good job, I look forward to more of your work.

No one has challenged John on his implication that the image

has value to him because it is a real place. At the risk of putting

words into his mouth, he's saying that if the image had been

significantly doctored up by any means such that the sense of

place is lost, then there is no 'there' there and it becomes

essentially a fantasy and has less value to the viewer . . . . at

least to John, . . . and to me. . . . .

My timing is always spot on . . . . :-)

 

No I hadn't read the post above.

Carl,

 

I am also one who values a "real" photo.

 

I treasure both "real" photos and those that are substantially created. I just need to know which type I am viewing.

And I understand the question to be not, Is it real?, but, Would it matter if it was not real? If the viewer perceives it to be real, then the impact is the same, and the image is succesful. Would it disappoint viewers to discover the scene is not real? Undoubtedly. Is faking a scene like this ethically acceptable? Deception is the key.

 

Marc Gouguenheim has a landscape similar to this which is almost entirely created from carpets. (And is unfortunately not on display at present, Marc?) In Marc's image, photoshopped to the hilt, there is no attempt to deceive, the hills are obviously carpet, and therefore the image is pleasing and ethically acceptable.

 

There is obviously a continuous scale of deception from none to total. We are presented with fake or deceptive scenes every day in print and electronic media, and they are getting harder and harder to spot. Some would argue that in art (or advertising!), anything goes, but for nature/wilderness photography, realism still equals integrity.

 

 

The issue that I find more interesting is how each of us seeks the art we personally need to provide the emotional and intellectual stimulus we desire. To some viewers, work of this genre is boring, providing no inspiration, and yet those viewers enthuse about work which wilderness photography fans find inane.

 

Our tastes in art reflect the different paths we have taken in life, and will no doubt vary over the stages of our lives, however there are very few genuine photographic polymaths, and I guess we can only strive to remain respectful and open to the styles of art with which we have least personal connection.

 

J.

 

p.s. I'm happy to run, breathe, generally cavort in this scene for a reshoot, if Mike Johnson can fund the journey. Norway is a considerable distance from Tasmania!

I'd say that Balaji is right that composing perfectly on camera is a skill, and cropping a second best skill, but I'm with Doug to say that cropping is of course allowed, and not a shame.

Besides that, the difficulty of cropping right when shooting is not so much related to the space factor Balaji refered to, imo, but rather to the time factor. If it takes you 3 minutes to decide what's the best framing of a street scene, then you should either give up on street photography, or buy scisors and crop at home. Same goes for this POW. The ray of light surely wasn't there for an hour, and the camera wasn't a square format, so Atle shot what he could, and composed well. Doug has done imo a better editing job than Atle when he proposed a squared crop. But Atle had another square crop in his folder, so he did look for a solution, and probably felt there was a possible improvement.

Side note about the cropping discussion: I am quite amazed to see that on Photo.net, we always talk about PRINTS. To me, a photographic image is a film, not a print. A print is just one of the many possible end products. The film is the only thing publishers and ad agencies care about (98% of the time); and by the way, to them, the crime is always when you composed too tight, because to recrop a picture, they have electronic scisors called Photoshop.

Hello!! Thanks for the feedback, highly appreciated! Some very interesting points here. I just wrote a long comment, didnt copied it, and of course... log in problems and it got lost. will catch up tomorrow with some answers and perhaps questions...if you still are here ;) Regards!

Hello everyody... If I may, I'd have 2 questions...

1) What about this other image by Atle ?

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=895626

I think it is my favorite picture in Atle's portfolio, and my second favorite would be this POW or the square crop of this POW, I guess.So I was just curious to hear what Atle and others would think about this other image... I find it more unusual and more gentle, but also more sophisticated than this POW as far as aesthetics are concerned.

I'm not shooting much lanscapes and know very little about this genre, so I'm just wondering whether my preference makes any sense to anyone or not.

2) Atle, would you care to tell us which picture of yours you would have picked for POW, if you were asked to chose yourself ? I think we could all learn a great deal from the POW photographers, if we could hear what are their personal favorites. I regret that it hasn't been a common practice to debate such things so far. So, Atle, what say you ? :-)

Marc.. Q1: to be honest.. this image is not one of my personal favorites.

 

Q2: this image http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1014194

and maybe a couple others along with the POW would be my choise. Well... i have of course the benefit of seeing the slides on the lighttable. seing all the details...that often is important to an image. Regards!

 

Regarding the POW i first preffered the cropped version, but have disqualified it. I feel much stronger for the original. I have a Question for you; can imagine why? (a little hint: The reasons the elves gave for choosing this image would have fitted very well for the cropped version. Regards!

To save clicking, here are the two images immediately referenced above.

Responding to Marc's posts: how about Prixels? Or Pixints, or Screenings? My favorite: Screen prints = Scrints.

 

I find the landscape Marc referenced for comparison as a better or possiblly better image, scrint to be on the mundane side. It's excellent, very well composed, but also very standard and unemotional.

About the POW. Its scanned on a nearby photolab at 40mb.. cheap and fast, and most often with good results, however on borderline images like this the quality isn't quite good enough. In reality (on the lighttable) the foreground is just slightly brighter with good detail,(maintaining the dark mood) with not anything special to look at but most important to the image i feel. The highlight at the right is a bit over the top but not so much, in fact i have never seen it as a problem, the indication that its not blown out you see in the right clouds that have acceptable texture and in reality the sky was not much blue. As Doulgas V so correctly assumed.., i have had certain doubts... but only on the composition. The word obvious is the one i have been waiting for, and yes the leading lines are very obvious. Giving high speed towards the rays, therefore i first disqualified the original version, feeling that the wide landscape was wasted.

Sorry to belabor the cropping discussion, just want to clarify my position. I appreciate photos that are presented as taken. They are something special. And I don't like to crop myself, but because personally I think it is a pain, and actually rather difficult to not overdo or actually make a significant improvement. But I think the presumption that a photo is only cropped because of some shortcoming in the original is a little narrow, and I fail to see how serendipity plays any less a part in urgent circumstances like street shooting than in one's studio where time is taken to consider the final picture. At any rate the discussion here is about this landscape photo and not about street shooting. There's a somewhat different aesthetic at work and certainly differences in process. The decisive moment still exists of course as the light changes, but whether or not the finished product is the result of devine inspiration and the phase of the moon, or cropping, is an esoteric subject generally of no interest to non-photographers who are simply viewing the picture. Only instructional texts go into how a picture was made. How many photo art books describe even what camera was used? So what I was trying to say is that in that sense crop or not crop is irrelevant. But of course it is relevant to the sentiments of the photographer and others who ascribe meaning to process.

In my view, this whole to-crop-or-not-to-crop discussion seems

ridiculously simple. If my photo will look better cropped, than it

will be cropped-and I don't feel like I'm somehow forsaking my

photographic forefathers by doing so. This is not to say that

everytime that I compose an image through the viewfinder, that I

then take 5 paces back and then shoot. I don't-I try my best when

shooting and then I try my best in post. Often, my views on an

image change as time goes on. Ignoring that change would be

a freeze on creativity and I can't subscribe to that. With the

exception of my plastic camera photos, probably 90% of my pics

have been cropped in some way-and its only a matter of time for

the other 10%. cheers