Is it just me?
When I shoot, regardless of format, I look at the whole frame and compose to fill the frame. When I print, I rarely crop but print full frame. Are there other APUGers that do the same? Is full frame composing and printing laziness or just another way of seeing?
You should compose for the image you want to make, not be enslaved by the format of the camera you own. I use a Hasselblad a lot because I love square format, and it gives a large square neg, but some images work better as a rectangle and I have no problem with cropping as needed. The image is what matters, not the gear. No one cares if you cropped, they care if the photo says something to them, and composition is important for that.
I try to compose using the whole frame, and like to print the same. I'm usually quite satisfied when this happens, but I also crop as needed when my framing was not accurate as needed.
Laurent "Je suis Charlie"
Thoe who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
My APUG Blog
I almost always crop, regardless of whether I'm shooting square or rectangle, and regardless of camera and film size. I don't object cropping heavily, providing some minimum quality is preserved.
I'm with you. I shoot with the intention that I won't have to crop. Occasionally, I'll crop, but only very slightly, and in a way that retains the 6x7cm shape that I like so much. Cropping, I find, can be more difficult to do effectively... when I crop too much, it just looks like... well, a cropped picture. Too cut up somehow.
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
YMMV, of course!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I used to shoot chromes almost exclusively so I got used to always framing exactly how I wanted it to look since masking slides is a PITA and so is doing duplicating work to do crops though I would get out the bellows and slide dupe rig if I really needed to do a crop. I find, no matter the medium, that a picture obviously looks better if you don't have to crop and enlarge the image any more than necessary. Hence the 300mm and 100-400mm lenses in my arsenal which are NOT just for wildlife and sports, I often do tight landscape framing as well.
I compose full frame and almost never crop when I print. I choose the format that suits my purpose for my vision, whether it be 35mm or square or 4x5, or whatever.
I compose full frame to use as much of the negative as I can. When I print it can be weeks or months later, and often see something different on the enlarger and will enlarge & frame differently from the original. I'm not a slave to the format, but rather I shoot the format I do because I like it.
Right now in Spain they're holding the Running of the Bulls,
followed by the Soiling of the Pants, and the Burying of the Idiots.
I also tend not to crop. When I do, I usually keep the same aspect ratio.
As a photographer, I can't help feeling that on some level full frame is somehow superior to cropping, but it is so easy to become enslaved to the idea -- a real problem when the corner of a sponge creeps into a picture of an otherwise graceful sink. So I crop away, loyal to the dimensions of the negative, but still feel compromised a little.
Not what we're talking about here, but...
As an editor, once a picture is committed to a larger project it must submit to the greater good. I think of both text and graphics as materials to be used to communicate with an audience. The editor is the arbiter is what communicates most effectively. So the writer is saying don't cut my beautiful sentence and the photographer is saying don't crop my beautiful image. The editor is there to serve as first audience and make decisions not everyone will like.
This is just one of many, many ways that the process of art is far superior to commerce (except for that making money one): The artist is creator, arbiter and audience all in one. No one to interfere.
"To a photographer the world consists of an infinite number of vantage points -- places to stand -- of which very few are altogether satisfactory." (John Szarkowski, Atget