Steiglitz gave us the theory of Equivalents. This could be relevant to all us.
Originally Posted by Moopheus
Absolutely crop if you are creating Equivalents.
I'd be horrified to learn that my preference to not crop led any photographer away from that path.
Refer to ROL's example again, Wildcat Falls. While I say I prefer the before... the after is more an Equivalent. Thus it has the potential to reach a higher level.
hey if Arnold Newman was not above cropping (and not just an edge here or there) , who am I to argue ;)
Do what you need to do to make the images that you want to make.
An argument could be made that the "don't crop" camp have an agenda other than the pictorial content of their photographs. The classic example is Henri Cartier-Bresson who insisted that his images not be cropped for publication. It was all about control, H.C-B's rather than magazine editors, and insured that H.C-B would remain in charge of the cultivation of his own legend.
Originally Posted by cliveh
In truth the viewfinder of a Leica is not so precise that the edges are certain. Different focal length Leica lenses, particularly the wides, actually deliver different size images on film! Similarly 35mm SLR's (Nikon F, WL finder excepted) often show 90% or less of the image that will arrive on film. Different focal lengths offer no salvation. So it is odd that the "don't crop" people insist on keeping edge details they never saw as validation of their skills. And don't get me started on people who file out negative carriers and include "verification borders" real or faked to "guarantee" the integrity of their art.
I adopt the old maxim, "Fit the image to the format". Rangefinder viewfinders are by their nature imprecise: you will get more in that you cannot see (same, too, with MF viewfinders that do not show 100% of the view).
Cropping is an individual thing: you can be for it or against it (as the argument in this thread vascillates to and fro...). I suggest you concentrate on what is right for you, irrespective of populist opinion.