View Poll Results: Do you crop your prints?
- 68. You may not vote on this poll
i dont photograph rocks and stones etc. actually most of my photos are dynamic situations. people, nude, etc. i do still too and street as well. when i say to try the full format i dont mean to walk around the model a hour or so just to find the print that will not be cropped. the thing is to analyze why u tend to crop and then, with expiereance, u will be able to push your self using the given film area. actually i can say that it becomes very intuitive. with such studies one first finds the frame and then puts the camera in the place and then tuning it a bit. i feel very dynamic even with the view camera, not to mention the 35mm.
by the way, changing the format (example, making 69cm as 67cm or 45" to panoramic 612) is not cropping if u do it simetrically.
u crop if u have no choice, but with it it is very important to use fully the given format.
So if I crop to 35mm from 4x5 but do it symmetrically it's not cropping? But if I chop off the left 1/4" it is cropping? :wacko:
Originally Posted by victor
Cropping is cropping and cropping is ok by me but if someone wishes to place arbitrary restrictions on his work then go for it. It's your work and you can define it however you want.
If I am a lesser photographer because I crop, then so be it. It's my work. I have placed arbitrary restrictions on what I do also as I don't use digital and I have heard that some might find that weird.
i said cutting symetrically. for example ... 9x12cm format to make it like 6x12. that means that u cut 1.5cm from each side (top and dawn).
BobF, I entirely agree with you. Whatever you chop off your image, it _is_ cropping_ symmetrical or not. An image can improve dramatically if you do crop, but cropping doesn't work for all images. There is nothing wrong with cropping.
Just look at Cheryl's master pieces. That's proof enough for me.
So, if I have a square final image in mind, I'm not allowed to use a 4x5 or other rectangular format to shoot it? Or is it the intention that's important: that I'm allowed to crop after exposure so long as I know ahead of the exposure that I will do so?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Am I the only one feeling incredulous that this discussion merits this many posts?
"Life is serious, but Art is Fun"
- John Irving, from "The Hotel New Hampshire"
Latent Images Plastic Toy Cameras
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive" - Howard Thurman
It does get silly doesn't it?
Originally Posted by noblebeast
Yes, so long as we all agree that cropping is OK.
It does get silly doesn't it?
I crop, unless the government grants me a subsidy not to. :whistle:
Seriously, I do feel as if I failed if I have to crop. But it can be a good learning tool. Crop, rethink the image, and if at all possible, go back and do it again and again until you get it right. Subject matter close to home can be done over and over, which is why I encourage students to have a set route so you can revisit year round. Landscape painters will carry several canvases out into the field and go to location after location so to get as many moods and lighting situtations into their works.
With 8x10 and larger, you certainly tend to be much more methodical, careful in your shooting. Especially when you have to process such large negatives. I sometime shoot 4x5's like 35mm, shooting several sheets, until I am satisfied. Which images, I'll never tell, and no one has to know either.
But then again, with portraits you cannot always do it. Arnold Newman's head shot of Picasso was from a croped 4x5 negative. Though you would never know it by just looking at the print hanging on the wall. Kertez shooting mostly 35mm from the hip, how many negatives did he crop? It all depends on what you trying to accomplish. BUt once you hang it on the wall, that should be the end of it.
Time & tides wait for no one, especially photographers.