It seems that there must be some history that I'm missing regarding the comments from those who like to compose with the view finder versus those who like the freedom of cropping later.

I've heard and read comments about the conceit of those who like to use the view finder and don't like to crop later. I even heard some strong opinions on this in an LL instructional video.

I feel it to be a very different experience and do prefer one over the other, and I must add, this is at this time in my life and experience...Things change.

I don't see any need for regarding one or the other as a correct or incorrect way or consider people in either group to be conceited or not conceited, and certainly don't exclude people in either group as artists.

I'm just curious, is there some history to these strong opinions that I'm not aware of?

There's nothing "conceited" about getting the composition in-camera as close as possible to that of the final print. Cropping throws away resolution; it logically follows that to the extent resolution and sharpness are desirable attributes of the final print (and they always are to some degree; it is impossible to have a meaningful image without some resolution/sharpness), cropping is an undesirable step and should be kept to a minimum.

Most photographers prefer to compose the shot in-camera so that the only cropping necessary is to alter the aspect ratio of the image, say from 3:2 ratio of a 35mm DSLR to the 4:5 ratio of an 8x10 print. Ideally in this example, only the ends of the original frame would be cropped away; the sides would be left alone. Murphy's law dictates that this ideal will not always be the case, but that does not mean it is is not a goal worth striving for whenever possible. Failing to do so is no less a sin than not bothering to focus properly; both have a similarly negative impact on the resolution and sharpness of the final print.

The Cropping Police are an insidious threat to Photograph Freedom. Just say no to Creeping Cropism. Or I'll report you to the Perspective Police.

I use small cameras, but still crop. Cropping is very valuable because I can spend much more time in the field looking for possible images and capturing "around" them a dozen different ways, then be concerned about rotation (that comes first) and cropping when I'm back in the lab.

I've taken the perfect photo many times, and more often than not, any cropping also introduces the necessity of a slight rotation, perhaps 1/4 to 1/2 degree. You can judge rotation by horizon lines etc., but in the end, you have to look (not once, but even days later) and ask "is it right?"

Once those two things are out of the way, the other fixes can be applied.

Just curious, do you ever print an 8x10? 11x14? 3x5? 4x6?

In the days of film, I always tried to crop within the camera. I came to really like the 35mm format and still do. But now after shooting nothing but digital for the past 4-5 years, I find the viewfinder as just another tool that I use to get close to what I may have envisioned. I still try to crop in the viewfinder, but I don't allow myself to be constrained by it. I often find that after I have had a chance to look at an image on my monitor, I find that there are things I may have missed, or even images that I didn't see when I was composing a shot, and then cropping almost becomes mandatory.

I'm just curious, is there some history to these strong opinions that I'm not aware of?

Yes there is. As I remember the history.....back in the days when contact printing from large negatives was the norm (before modern papers that were fast enough to enlarge) there was a belief that in-camera seeing was superior. Paul Strand is a good example. He actually had his camera altered to give him negatives of what he considered the perfect rectangle and he never cropped when printing.

Beyond that I think I completely agree with Jonathan. Having shot transparency film commercially for some 28 years, I preferred to send perfectly composed FF 4x5 images to my magazine clients. That way I was much more likely to get my composition printed instead of the art director. Nothing has changed for me in digital.

Hah! The CP and PP are sissies compared to the Legion of Horizon Levelers.

- Fred Dawson
Member, L.H.L. Local 395

One thing I've noticed, and it's a pretty general observation: people who crop regularly don't make as good pictures as those who treat cropping strictly as an emergency procedure. I think the reason is that a good photographer pre-visualizes a photograph by throwing a mental frame around a subject before he lifts the camera and throws the camera's frame around it. In other words, he makes a decision about the photograph and then carries out the decision by actually making the photograph. People who make a practice of cropping haven't really made a decision before they snap the shutter. The result is tentative, and often wishy-washy. The habitual cropper then tries to find an actual photograph in what he's shot, and what results often is strained and unconvincing.

On the other hand, there are times when you can't avoid cropping. Here's an example. Once I had the camera to my eye I had less than a second to get the shot. A guy walked into the frame from the left just as I tripped the shutter and I had to crop him out. That kind of thing doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Same thing's true of an incorrect horizon. If you're shooting fast it's not unusual to have to straighten the horizon. But these problems are just that -- problems. The cropping that results is truly an emergency procedure.

Click to view attachment

Wow. Just wow.

You might find this link interesting. Not sure if you would consider these "emergency" crops or not.

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/04/27/spo...lide-show-book/

If I have to crop then I didn't understand what I was shooting, a failure of seeing on my part as RSL pointed out. Anti-cropping is a good discipline because it forces me look at my subject carefully right from the start, and to think of the finished photograph right from the start. Shooting images in the hopes of finding something there in post is to be awash and incompetent in the visual skills.

An embrace of cropping encourages the funny concept that a photograph needs to have a single, tightly defined subject that is the focus of the entire image. I don't buy that at all, photographs can legitimately be about spaces, have multiple rambling subjects, and have other valid qualities that violate the tunnel visionary cropping-is-good paradigm.

I have two technical objections to cropping...

1. When it upsets (mostly left-right) perspective in pictures where perspective is important. In that case it's hoaky, don't do it. In particular badly cropped architecture looks awful.

2. The crop is extreme enough to noticeably degrade image quality.

As to the origins of the powerful cropping tradition, it must have it roots in high-school classrooms where it is an easy and engaging way to fill up one rotation of the minute hand. Young minds are so impressionable.

For all the reasons cited, Full Frame is preferable, but of course there are some compositions and subjects that don't fit the standard 5:4, 4:3, or 3:2 aspect ratios. Cropping the extra is worthwhile in those cases. I really like the extra dollop freedom from a 2x2 MF frame. I can compose in the viewfinder, and then revamp to a H or V final image of any aspect ratio. Or I can leave it square. It's cool.

And if an art director recrops? Well, I get paid. And I can (silently, in my heart) call the AD an idiot. Sadly, that is not always so. It is possible for an AD to Get It Right.

Exactly. I you haven't figured out a decent composition before you press the shutter release, the odds of finding one after the fact are significantly reduced. Minimal cropping to fit a particular aspect ratio or straighten a horizon that's off a degree or two is a necessary evil of post work. But if you're regularly hacking off more than 25% of your capture to try to salvage an image that wasn't composed properly in the first place, you're either sloppy or clueless, and it is negatively affecting your work.

I find it humorous that many practitioners of vigorous cropping are pixel-peepers who sneer at the notion of using a zoom lens because primes are 10% sharper, but see nothing wrong with cropping away 30-50% of the captured image because they couldn't get the framing quite right because they couldn't "foot zoom" quickly enough to capture the decisive moment with optimal composition in-camera. This is one of the most-overlooked advantages of a zoom over a prime; you can get the composition exactly right to minimize or eliminate the need for cropping, even in situations where "foot zooming" with a prime would be dangerous or impossible. This is especially true when shooting landscapes, where "foot zooming" might require walking several miles (during which time the light would change, of course) or hovering over the edge of a cliff; and when shooting events where circumstances require the photographer to be constrained to a small area or fixed location (weddings, sporting events, street photography where backing into a busy street would be unwise, etc.). Eschewing zooms in favor of primes in situations where that choice necessitates heavy cropping is being penny wise and pound foolish.

Just my two cents-
I only crop when I have no alternative, as throwing away resolution seems unhelpful. Landscape photographs generally allow time for careful study of composition with the camera on a tripod. As a result I almost never crop a landscape photograph. If anything I'm more likely to stitch multiple frames together.
People photographs are another matter. This may simply reflect my lack of skill, but I find that the need to compose, focus, choose exposure and shoot on the fly hand-held with moving human subjects means I have a lot more photos with an errant tree branch or awkward frame edge needing rescue. Last night I took the obligatory photos of my son's prom night preparations. Invariably the only shot where everyone's eyes were open and expressions perfect had something awkward that was best cropped out. Sigh.
At least with high-megapixel capture it doesn't hurt quite so much, and I'm less likely to print people pix at 24x36" to count every pore and nose-hair.

Those who crop regularly are probably taking a lot more photos of a bigger variety of subjects.

i.e. the inverse of the quoted statement is: "People who rarely crop are usually concentrating on getting that "one good shot" and miss many opportunities that other photographers are taking advantage of."

What really bugs me though, about taking a lot of shots handheld, is not so much losing quality due to rotation/cropping issues, it's when the light or other circumstances are changing and I get several takes of a given scene, then back in the lab after tossing the less-than perfect images, I'm left with two - one has great light but isn't as sharp, and the other vice-versa. Noting a couple of scenes in the LLVJ videos, where the guys are shooting from tripods and "carefully composing", there is nonetheless mention of just missing the ideal frame due to changing light or other things. So carefully composing doesn't always get you what you want.

A local professional offers a service of cut & pasted "perfect" composite group photos of that type. Put the camera on a tripod, shoot a few dozen more or less random frames, fix it in post. Not exactly cropping, but of the same unconfident ilk.

Some pros are doing group photos where people come to the studio either singly or in small groups, then are shot against a green cyc to be later assembled into a larger group through the magic of PS. Makes it possible to do truly no-account tricks like having the whole group knees-bent in the middle of a jump. Grand Canyon background costs extra. Hey, it's a living.

Perhaps. But I think cropping is mostly a symptom of having not learned to view composition through the viewfinder.

Newbies tend to look at parts of the the subject THROUGH the viewfinder, but do not look at the overall composition WITHIN the boundary of the viewfinder. Best practice is to frame the composition in the viewfinder looking first at the overall frame, then placing the central subject within that in a way that makes compositional sense. Compositional sense usually means that all the objects in the frame fall into some geometrical arrangement, and that stuff that does not relate to the subject is left out. But most importantly the photographer needs to "zoom out" his visual perception to include the boundary of the finder. Seems obvious, but it is usually elusive to the beginner. The most mysterious aspect of cropping is that anybody can crop reasonably well in post, but very few can do it in the viewfinder, under pressure.

And as for hand holding landscapes, that is the source of its own well deserved punishments! Good grief, hand holding landscapes, what's next. A person trying to shoot landscapes in light bright enough for hand holding misunderstand landscapes. Nature wants you to shoot landscapes at f8 at 1/4 second or slower in the last exquisite instants of magic hour, with a tripod. Everybody should know that, it does not require further explanation.

Does anyone else recall that Hasselblad used to advertise their square format cameras specifically for cropping after the fact? -- Shoot square, then crop out a vertical for the cover, or a horizontal for the inside spread. Infinite flexibility. Here's a quote from a 1993 NYT article:

"Ernst Wildi, technical director of Hasselblad in the United States, is a champion of the square format. He says 120 roll film gives a photographer more film area for higher-quality results than 35-millimeter and allows one to shift easily -- with a little cropping -- to making either vertical or horizontal pictures from the square format. He likes to point out that internationally known photographers like Mary Ellen Mark and Greg Heisler are Hasselblad users."

Not many beginners using 'Blads back then. I used the Bronica SQ-A, great camera.

I can understand -- sort of -- this bias against cropping if we're talking about landscape or architectural photography. Camera, tripod, locked down, with a careful and almost obsessive attention to every detail. And this is The Luminous Landscape, and many members shoot that sort of work.

But I find it laughable that so many responses here basically say the same thing: that anyone who crops is by definition a bad or beginning photographer. Tell that to old Ernst, why don't you....

Dale, Those who are capable of framing what they actually want in their pictures are just as likely to shoot a series of shots as those who aren't quite sure what they want and keep banging away, hoping something worthwhile will turn up. That's exactly why, when he was evaluating the work of people who wanted to join Magnum, Cartier-Bresson always looked at contact sheets instead of individual prints. Contact sheets told him whether or not the photographer had a clear idea of what he was after. He and Magnum weren't interested in people who tried to make things work out from a fuzzy approach after the fact.

Kind of makes the $30,000, 50 megapixel Hasselblad sound like a loser against the $8,000, 24 megapixel Nikon D3X if you're going to crop away half the Hasselblad's pixels to turn a square format into a rectangular one doesn't it? Wouldn't it be better to use the D3X? After all, it has a vertical release built in, and it's a heck of a lot easier to flip the camera to vertical than to hassle with post-processing cropping.

B.S. Paying enough attention to what is going on around you so that you can frame the shot reasonably tight does not prevent you from taking advantage of a photographic opportunity. You are more likely to capture something interesting if you are sufficiently in tune with the action to frame a decent capture than if you merely point the camera, machine-gun the motor drive, and hope to crop something interesting out of the resulting mess. I've been known to shoot well in excess of 1,000 frames at a wedding or concert, but most of the time I crop only to change aspect ratio. It is a rare thing for something "interesting" to happen while I'm shooting without getting at least one reasonably good shot of it. If you are paying attention to what's going on around you, most of the time you can anticipate the "decisive moment", and the fraction of a second it takes to tweak the zoom setting and double-check focus does not impede you from nailing the peak of the action, whatever it is.

3 Principles Of Being An Excellent Photographer
1. Know your gear intimately, inside and out. Making the correct adjustment for any given situation should be instinctive. If shooting conditions change, you should know whether changing ISO, aperture, or shutter speed is the best option, and why. You should be familiar enough with your gear to make those changes immediately, so that you aren't missing an opportunity while attempting to figure out how to adjust a setting. The less time you spend futzing with your gear, the more time and attention you can devote to observing what is going on around you and capturing it well.

2. Know your subject just as intimately as your gear. Anticipating action is critical if you expect to photograph it well. Knowing what is going to happen before it happens give you time to prepare yourself and your equipment so that when the time comes, you are already there and all you have to do is press the shutter release. If you're shooting an event, go to the rehearsal if there is one. This will not only give you some excellent opportunities for candid shots, but it will also allow you to test various camera settings and shooting strategies, rehearse the sequence of events so you can find the best shooting location for each part of the ceremony, and iron out any conflicts between what you are doing and the expectations of the client, venue staff, and other participants. Learn as much as you can about the cultural significance of what is going on, (like the significance of changing shoes at a quinceanera); this will help you recognize and anticipate significant moments so you are ready to capture them when they happen. Learn as much as you can about the people around you; the presence of a particular person my be much more meaningful if you know that they are significant to what is going on. For example, if you are shooting a Black History Month event, knowing that that old guy sitting in the back is one of the Tuskeegee Airmen will probably affect how you shoot the event and enhance your client's satisfaction with your work, especially if you're an albino cracker like me.

3. Have a backup plan. You'll eventually need it. All your skill and creativity as a photographer mean exactly dick if something quits working and you have no backup plan. Don't even think about shooting a wedding or similar event where "do-overs" are not an option without one. Having backup equipment is expensive, but the pain in your wallet is much less than the pain you'll experience the first time you have an "oh s**t" moment in the middle of a wedding ceremony and haven't even shot the formals yet. You should be able to take any piece of gear you have, light it on fire, and still successfully complete the job.

You are being intentionally obtuse here. I specifically stated that cropping for the purpose of achieving a print aspect ratio different from that of the camera is not what I am arguing against. You can't change aspect ratio without cropping; in such cases, cropping is a necessary evil.

And yes, if someone shooting with a D3X shoots tightly framed and gets 20MP into the final print, and another photographer with the Hasselblad shoots sloppy and ends up cropping away all but 15MP of the capture, the print from the lightly cropped D3X capture might well be better than that from the heavily cropped 'Blad. And the 'Blad shooter would be a fool and a loser for doing so. While MFDBs tend to be more square than 3:2, there is no reason to crop away half of the original capture to get a 16x20" print.

No B.S. at all. A, I don't use a motor drive (signature says LX3 and ZS3), and B, you can't claim that framing shots carefully to minimize cropping can allow you to look around as much as someone who sees what they want but doesn't spend extra time framing carefully. That's just plain absurd. That's the same as saying the guy who's shooting from a tripod is as flexible as someone shooting freehand, to catch a bird flying by, or a deer jumping across the road. Just plain absurd.

Straw man argument. I never claimed I don't look carefully and "bang away". I look just as intently as anyone, but I don't waste time getting the edges of the frame "exactly right". No need to - I just allow a little extra around what I want so I don't have to waste time. Your argument is like saying it's better to fold the napkins exactly precisely in half so they don't look unsightly, or make sure the labels on the cans in the cupboard are aligned exactly, in case someone thinks they look sloppy.

Now I'm not so dumb as to argue that there is NO reason to *ever* frame very precisely, but, certain habits have a way of turning into compulsions.

I think a any print (AA called it the performance) should be solely judged on it's qualities as a picture, not on the means it was produced. So if this involved some cropping so be it.
I think a general statement like "people who crop don't know how to take good pictures" is as useful as saying "I never believe people who make general statements"

I always try to fill the frame with a well composed image. In fact I have the opposite problem, where often I have not left enough room around the image I wanted to account for some overlap when matting. On the other hand, I was also taught, early in my film days, to take a pair of L-shaped pieces of cardboard and play with my negatives after the fact, to discover pictures I had not thought of or seen when taking the picture.

I do not consider post-shoot cropping to be "making up for a shooting deficiency" nor do I consider always filling the frame in the camera to be the proof of "the best photography." I do both, and I am sure many others do, as well. I do resent having to throw pixels away when I crop to correct what I should have seen in the first place, but I have many final images that came from suddenly seeing something in a small part of the image, even years later, that all of a sudden spoke to me.

My motto when it comes to cropping is to be flexible rather than arbitrary and rigid.

I find the proportions of the 50Mpx (8,175 * 6,132) Hasselblad very acceptable, but my preferred format is "one to the square root of 2", partly as it exactly fits A1 and other A-sized paper: the 35 mm 24:36 would be very nice for 24 * 36" paper.

Panoramic normally means wasting half or more of your res, or panning and stitching and distorting and cropping... and not getting much more res that you would have done if you had not bothered... but the logical solution is to use a sliding stitching back and nearly double your res without having to distort or crop.

I just now opened the drawer with the old Kodachrome slide in it. That's where I got my attitude towards cropping. Frame it in camera, or weep!

That was back when photographers were real men. Moma don't take my Kodachrome away. They used to know me by name at the Kodak Hollywood Kodachrome plant, my shop was a short walk away. What a luxury...same day Kodachrome! Didn't need no stinkin' CF card!

I do claim exactly that; framing tightly so that little or no cropping is necessary (other than the minimum needed to match the aspect ratio of a given print size) and consistently capturing action going on around you are not mutually exclusive. The key is to be intimately familiar with your equipment and what is going on around you so you can capture the moment quickly when it arises. When I decide to shoot something, I can bring the camera up, zoom in/out as needed to get the framing I want, focus, and take the shot in about two to three seconds. If I already have the camera up, even less time is necessary. But even shooting that quickly, most of the shots I take (>90%) are well-focused and composed, allowing me to choose the "keepers" on the basis of the artistic/creative merit of the selected images, rather than their technical merit. IOW, the choice is made on the basis of things like the subject's facial expression or most interesting moment of action, not which shot is the least misfocused. Obviously, if I am shooting a static subject or waiting for a particular moment, I reserve the right to take more than three seconds to capture the image. But in the great majority of situations, I can consistently get a technically and artistically competent capture requiring <10% cropping (excluding aspect ratio changes) in <3 seconds if I had to. It's not absurd, it's simply being competent.

If you can't consistently capture an arbitrary image in less than 3 seconds from the time you recognize the opportunity to shutter release, you need to practice with your equipment more. If necessary, practice with your equipment on a regular basis. 3 seconds may not sound like a lot of time, but with practice and responsive gear it is easily doable. If you are using a digicam that takes 3 seconds or more to lock focus, practice anyway; if you have to wait for the camera, it is even more important that you minimize the time the camera is waiting on you.

I don't have any disagreement with this. Looks like your initial disagreement (the 'BS' comment) was based on your misunderstanding.

Cropping is not desirable as a rule. It will reduce image's resolution and also considerations about the pre-visualization of the scene and the good photographer (already commented in the thread) can be made against cropping.

But cropping can also benefit us or even be necessary under some circumstances, I don't see any problem in cropping in a clever way.

In fact sometimes not-cropping can lead to worse consequences than cropping:
- If you are quick shooting over a scene, allowing some extra room around the subject assuming some cropping can prevent us from loosing important information of the scene.
- If you are using a prime lens, to have the perfect field of view can mean have an undesired point of view. Cropping allows to have both FOV and perspective.
- If you are not generating final images, but images that will be used by third parties (a graphic designer for instance), they will be pleased that you allow some extra room around each subject to crop according to the final print format.

If you have a good lens, and a high resolution camera (>20Mpx), there is no reason at all to care about the drawbacks of cropping.

BR

Actually, that's exactly what you said, and I quote: "I use small cameras, but still crop. Cropping is very valuable because I can spend much more time in the field looking for possible images and capturing "around" them a dozen different ways..."



When you see and understand what you want from a scene you don't "waste time" getting the edges of the frame exactly right. You do that intuitively. I understand that people who haven't practiced their art sufficiently to be able to do that intuitively may have to resort to winging it, and hope something worthwhile will show up in post-processing, but it's always worth your time to work on that deficiency until you can frame your pictures correctly.

Exactly! Or, as HCB said, "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."

Sorry -- double post.

I almost always agree with Jonathan, but in this case I think he's wrong. (But not utterly wrong.) There are a number of assumptions built into what he is saying, and they are (1) resolution is more important than composition. I think is almost never the case. (2) That good composition on any subject can be forced into whatever frame you're carrying that day -- square in some cases, 2x3 in others, 4x5 or 6x7 in others, and all you have to do is maneuver around a little. I think that is almost never the case. (3) That when you crop, you throw away a huge proportion of the pixels. I think that's almost never the case, unless you're cropping from square to something else (a big problem with the square format) or you're too lazy to switch your camera orientation. (4) He's also implicitly suggesting that nature (or at least the external world) should dictate to the photographer. I think most artists go the other way around - they take from the world what *they* wish, and that usually involves cropping. The real world doesn't necessarily come in 2:3 bites. Sometimes times it's necessary to take a 1:5 photo with your 2:3 frame.

...and Jonathan concedes this when he says it's sometimes "necessary" to make a few trims. Well, yes. Isn't that what we're talking about? We really weren't talking about unnecessary or frivolous trims. We're talking about trims that help the photo more than the extra resolution will help it.

He's not utterly wrong because the idea of cropping in camera, as a goal (but not a requirement) will get you the most usable pixels; when you see your composition, you fit as much of it as you can. Then you plan for a crop. You PLAN for a crop because that is the way you'll get the most final pixels.

And, I think most people know all of this. The full-frame idea is simply a worthwhile consideration that some people have hardened into a rule; but a foolish one, IMHO. It's as if Rembrandt were required to paint only on sizes and shapes dictated by some clerk in the canvas factory.

JC

So was it your evil twin or an alternate personality that wrote these?





There is no misunderstanding here; you are clearly stating that you believe that photographers who compose in-camera and frame so that little or no cropping is needed later miss more shooting opportunities than those who shoot "loose" and crop heavily later. I disagree strongly with that notion, for the reasons detailed in my previous posts.

In legal situations, this is called being argumentative. You understand my intent clearly yet continue to beat a dead horse.

Again, argumentative. You either have an obsession with "getting it perfect" or an obsession with winning an argument (of some kind). The simple answer is, you line up a good shot the best you can based (in my case) on 40 years of shooting experience, and then fix the imperfections in the lab. The details aren't so important to know here - nearly every lurker here knows them. I make process mfg. software for customers who lose 95 percent of their raw material on the way to making a finished good, and other customers who lose only 5 percent. Is one more right than the other? It's absurd to say so without knowing what they're making (usually secret) and how much they're selling it for. If I crop a lot because it's serving my artistic vision, who are you to say it's wrong? If you have a technical point, make it, but you can't make such final judgements as you're trying to, because you simply don't know enough.

Hi,

My view on cropping is that there no need to be religious about it. Some cropping is necessary.

1) The aspect ratio doesn't fit the media
2) The subject requires some kind of extreme aspect ratio. What I call semi panoramics are a good example of that. I often shoot more frame and stitch rather than crop in order to preserve pixels.

My suggestion is essentially: Compose in the viewfinder. Crop if cropping improves the picture. Learn from misstakes.

A final note: 3:2 or 4:3 are not optimal aspect ratios! Each subject may need it's own aspect ratio. With the arrival of HD 16:9 is a new aspect ratio we need to learn to live with.

Best regards
Erik

In the interest of being informative rather than merely rhetorical, I crop an average of 5 to 8 percent linearly on landscapes or other large scenes, and 20 to 40 percent linearly on photos of small birds at distance. If that constitutes heavy cropping, I plead 100 percent guilty.

I like 1:1.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I specifically exempted cropping-for-the-purpose-of-changing-aspect-ratio from my criticism of cropping in general, more than once. A lot of the stuff I shoot ends up getting cropped from the 2:3 aspect ratio of my cameras to a 4:5 aspect ratio. If you look at the images I've posted here, on my web site, and elsewhere, probably half are 4:5. But when I crop a 1Ds (4064x2704) image to 4:5, I almost always do so by trimming the ends only, not the sides, so that the cropped image is 3380x2704. Cropping from 4064x2704 to 3380x2704 is a necessary evil required to crop from 2:3 to 4:5. But cropping further than that (say down to 2500x2000) is an unnecessary evil, and something to be avoided whenever possible.

You were agreeing with statements I made disagreeing with statements you made. I was simply pointing out the obvious inconsistency in what you wrote. And instead of clarifying your position, you chose to go ad hominem, calling me "argumentative". What do you actually believe?


A. Cropping is something that should be kept to a minimum by composing as closely to the final print as the aspect ratio of the camera allows.

or

B. Doing so causes so many missed shooting opportunities that shooting loosely and cropping later is the preferable method.

It is good to make good use of your pixel res, and also not to waste too much paper... The client or the format of a magazine or calender might dictate the proportions, but if you produce prints for sale, "print size" should not be a restriction - you can crop to the final size and shape with a guillotine, and custom frame any size or shape.

I would not want to be stuck with standard print sizes, (or aspect ratios) so I use roll paper - any ratio or size I like up to 24" * 10.5m (until I get the 60" printer).

Um, no. I agreed only with a specific statement that made general sense, but not with statements that dictate your terms of cropping. Based on your many comments, I don't see art getting in the way of your quest for precision any time soon. And BTW, in case you missed my previous post, those are real numbers as opposed to vague assertions.

You obviously haven't looked at any of my work then...


Not cropped except to convert to 4:5 aspect ratio.

And post #41 appears to have been posted while I was still writing my previous post. You didn't answer the question I asked in it.

John,

I think we all agree that there are times when you need to crop. The argument seems to be over whether or not the photographer ought to compose his photograph in the camera’s viewfinder or simply snap something that includes what he thinks he wants and then figure out the composition in post-processing. Sort of what we used to suggest to each other when I was flying fighters in Korea: “Shoot ‘em down and sort ‘em out on the ground.”

I keep quoting Henri Cartier-Bresson because the geometry of his compositions was exceptionally good – perhaps the best I’ve seen, and because he was the most articulate photographer I’ve encountered: someone who could explain how he worked.

HCB always composed on the camera, and even insisted that his photographs be printed with the dark border of the unexposed part of the film included. On the other hand, his most famous photograph “Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare,” the picture of the guy jumping into the puddle, always (incorrectly) used to illustrate “the decisive moment,” was cropped. Like the picture of the three fifth-graders I posted above, he had less than a second to get the shot and there was a wall off to the left that he couldn’t avoid including. Another was the very moving picture of the woman kissing the bishop’s ring. He couldn’t get close enough to the scene, was standing behind a row of people and had to lift the camera up and shoot down, then crop later. But all of his crops were emergency procedures, not standard practice.

Here are some quotes from the Aperture book, The Mind’s Eye, a collection of Cartier-Bresson’s writings:

“To take photographs means to recognize – simultaneously and within a fraction of a second – both the fact itself and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning.”

“One does not add composition as though it were an afterthought superimposed on the basic subject material…”

“If you start cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which was feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the darkroom’s enlarger; the integrity of vision is no longer there.”

I think this is what this discussion is all about. In my 79 years I’ve seen a lot of photographs and I’ll say it again: People who crop regularly don’t make as good pictures as those who treat cropping strictly as an emergency procedure.

I agree with most of Jonathan’s points – except the idea of shooting at a 4 x 5 ratio with a 2 x 3 camera. If I wanted 4 x 5 I’d get a camera that’ll shoot 4 x 5. I could set my D3 up that way, but I don’t because I happen to like the 2 x 3 format.

Okay, after 3 pages of posts on cropping does any one have an answer for the OP?

For the record the question was ...

"I'm just curious, is there some history to these strong opinions that I'm not aware of?"

I'll suggest that there is no particular history. It is just the standard "someone is wrong on the internet" thread path. And cropping sits in technique and workflow so there is plenty to be "wrong" about.

Congratulations on making a good image without cropping. I just ordered a Pana G1 to complement my ZS3. With the much larger sensor, you'll be delighted to know that when I crop the bird photos 40 percent, I'll be cropping from a much higher quality image. I do try my best, Jon, but no matter how skilled I become in the next year or so (ignoring the previous 40), I still frequently see ways to make a better image by cropping the near-perfect scene I grab in the field. Just my personal compulsion, I guess.