Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: History of The Religion of Cropping ?  (Read 618364 times)

dalethorn

  • Guest
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #60 on: May 13, 2009, 11:09:10 am »

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
If you follow it to its logical confusion, every photograph would end up being cropped away to nothing. If the composition is gotten right in-camera, cropping will detract from the composition, not improve it.
I think it would be cool to make a tethered shooting app that displays the live view feed from the camera.....

To preclude cropping down to nothing, we should always preserve our originals, and ideally, use good workflow software. Composition is only one element of the process, and *any* change in other factors such as color, contrast, etc. may in fact call for a different crop. Which is why tethered shooting has its limits - it's a technical advantage, but still doesn't guarantee the final crop, since you can't usually get a fully-calibrated view in the field.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #61 on: May 13, 2009, 11:39:07 am »

Quote from: dalethorn
To preclude cropping down to nothing, we should always preserve our originals, and ideally, use good workflow software.

Ummmm, no. You avoid cropping down to nothing by ignoring the foolish notion that all images can be improved by cropping. At some point, cropping is going to detract from the composition of the image rather than improve it. If the image was properly composed in-camera, then any cropping after the fact is going to be detrimental.

Quote
Composition is only one element of the process, and *any* change in other factors such as color, contrast, etc. may in fact call for a different crop.

Can you provide an example of this? I've never felt the need to change the composition based on a tweak to contrast or color. Many people think just the opposite; that converting the image to B&W removes the distraction of color and aids focusing solely on the composition, so you can frame the image better in-camera and crop less in post.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 11:39:36 am by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

alainbriot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 796
  • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
    • http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #62 on: May 13, 2009, 11:40:10 am »

In discussing the "history of cropping" we need to keep in mind that the tools have changed enormously since Daguerre (to name but one of the early photographers).  

Today we are not limited to printing what is on the plate, or the film.  We can not only crop, we can also distort, skew, resize, reformat, clone, stretch and much more, thanks to CS4 and other imaging software.

Personally, I use all of the above possibilities in my work and more.  My goal is to create on paper the image I see in my mind.  I give myself this freedom and I know that my audience embraces my approach.  It has revolutionized my approach to photography.  I have no intent and I make no claim of doing "pure" photography, if there is such a thing.

How much freedom you give yourself, what you consider acceptable and inacceptable, are decisions each of us has to make.

There is no right and wrong.  There are simply different ways of approaching photography.  Certainly, you will find opposition, regardless of what decisions you take.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 11:41:27 am by alainbriot »
Logged
Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #63 on: May 13, 2009, 01:11:34 pm »

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
Don't know, don't care, as it's a patently absurd statement. If you follow it to its logical confusion, every photograph would end up being cropped away to nothing. If the composition is gotten right in-camera, cropping will detract from the composition, not improve it.

I see. You actually thought that whoever it was who made that statement, or something along those lines, was actually trying to say that whenever he saw one of his own photographs, he cropped it again, and again the next day, and the next week and each time he saw it he cropped it yet again until it was reduced to nothing. That really would be absurd.

But how could you think that that is what was meant, Jonathan?

Rather, I assumed that what the photographer meant, whoever it was who made that comment, was that he had a very individualistic idea of cropping that was at least slightly different from everyone else's. I assumed that such a remark would apply to other peoples' images and that he (or she) would always feel that other people's images required at least a small degree of cropping, even if it meant shaving off only a couple of millimetres from one side.

Don't you think that's a more sensible interpretation?
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #64 on: May 13, 2009, 02:17:54 pm »

Yes, I think this thread's about run its course, but I'm going to add one more post.

I think that HCB is correct when he states that framing a picture has to be intuitive. In street photography that's certainly true. You simply don't have time to set everything up according to the "rules" of composition. You have to see the picture in its entirety and react to it without thinking. It's less obvious that something like landscape photography requires the same kind of intuitive reaction, but one thing I've observed in 56 years of active photography is that if you're shooting landscape, or, say, an abandoned farmhouse, even though you may make a series of exposures, the first one more often than not turns out to be the best picture. That's because what you shot first was what you saw that made you stop to shoot the picture.

For most people it takes years of experience to get to the point where photographic composition is intuitive. It takes a lot of shooting and cussing when, as HCB says in another context, you look at your results and see where you went wrong. I suspect there are naturals out there who get it right from the very beginning, but I've never met one.

The other thing it takes is a thorough familiarity with the work of the masters: people like Eugene Atget, Jacques Henri Lartigue, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Brassai, Andre Kertesz, Paul Strand, Gene Smith, Robert Doisneau, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange, Chim, Robert Capa, Elliott Erwitt, Helen Levitt, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Robert Frank, Steve McCurry, and others I've left out of this list. When you find a master whose work moves you, you'll probably try to copy that work. In the beginning there's nothing wrong with that. That's how we learn -- same way some of the great painters learned by copying the masters who went before them. Eventually, though, you'll begin to find your own style. That's when it all comes together and photographing becomes one of life's most satisfying experiences.

In the long run, winging it just doesn't get the job done. You need to work at it and learn to compose in your viewfinder. That's where the picture either comes together or doesn't come together. Post-processing can't salvage a badly composed photograph.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 02:20:00 pm by RSL »
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #65 on: May 13, 2009, 06:31:54 pm »

Quote from: Ray
I assumed that what the photographer meant, whoever it was who made that comment, was that he had a very individualistic idea of cropping that was at least slightly different from everyone else's. I assumed that such a remark would apply to other peoples' images and that he (or she) would always feel that other people's images required at least a small degree of cropping, even if it meant shaving off only a couple of millimetres from one side.

In other words, "My photos never need cropping, but everybody else's does." Yes, Ray, I think I've met a couple of photographers who think that way.    


Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #66 on: May 13, 2009, 08:27:47 pm »

Quote from: EricM
In other words, "My photos never need cropping, but everybody else's does." Yes, Ray, I think I've met a couple of photographers who think that way.  

No, Eric. Why would you think that that is what he meant? What is more likely is that the famous photographer who made that remark was simply saying that he has a very individualistic and very precise concept of what constitutes the best cropping, and that such cropping rarely lends itself exactly to a predetermined aspect ratio of 3:2 or 4:3 etc., but is determinedand soley by the composition. I imagine that he (or she) would always crop his own images straight out of the camera, to some degree (unlike HCB), even if such images often required just a few millimetres shaved of one or two sides.

In fact the idea that a composition in general, with the almost infinite variability that compositions can have, should conform to the precise aspect ratio of the camera used, seems a very unlikely event, if one is a perfectionist.

I'll add that quite often when I see one of HCB's photos, for example, I sometimes think, 'Well, I'd have cropped off that bit over there. It seems an unnecessary distraction", or something like that.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 08:34:51 pm by Ray »
Logged

dalethorn

  • Guest
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #67 on: May 13, 2009, 10:26:16 pm »

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
You avoid cropping down to nothing by ignoring the foolish notion that all images can be improved by cropping.

At some point, cropping is going to detract from the composition of the image rather than improve it.

If the image was properly composed in-camera, then any cropping after the fact is going to be detrimental.

I've never felt the need to change the composition based on a tweak to contrast or color.

First statement true. Not all images can be improved by cropping.

Second statement true (at some point, wherever that is.)

Third statement could be true, if the perfect composition can be made at capture time.

Fourth statement is more difficult due to the definition of "tweak", and where your personal threshold is for when a change crosses the line between "this part of the image looks OK" and "now that I've enhanced the color, that green area there is bothering me, and I can crop part of it and be happier with the result."

Actually, a crop in some (or most?) cases makes a different image. Save the crop and the original and now you have two images, not just one. And you got this without having to take the time to perfectly compose the second instance. That seems like a bargain to me.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #68 on: May 13, 2009, 10:54:15 pm »

Quote from: Ray
I see. You actually thought that whoever it was who made that statement, or something along those lines, was actually trying to say that whenever he saw one of his own photographs, he cropped it again, and again the next day, and the next week and each time he saw it he cropped it yet again until it was reduced to nothing. That really would be absurd.

But how could you think that that is what was meant, Jonathan?

Because that is exactly what he said, or more precisely, exactly what you say he said.*** If every image can benefit from cropping, then infinite cropping loop that crops the image down to nothing is exactly what you get. It's a ridiculous scenario, and an equally ridiculous statement, but it is the inevitable conclusion that must be drawn if you accept the validity of the premise that every image can benefit from cropping. If every image can benefit from cropping, then it is immaterial whether or not the image has already been cropped--it can still benefit from more cropping.

OTOH, if you start from the premise that every image has an optimal composition, then whenever that composition is achieved in-camera at shutter release, no cropping in post is necessary or desirable. Ergo, not all images will benefit from cropping. And photographers who consistently get the composition right at shutter release (within the constraints of the aspect ratio of the camera) and avoid the need for cropping after the fact are more skilled than those who consistently fail to achieve optimal composition at shutter release and have to crop heavily afterwards.

***I did a Google search on the alleged quote, and didn't find evidence indicating any notable photographer ever said such a thing.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 10:54:37 pm by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #69 on: May 13, 2009, 11:04:51 pm »

Quote from: dalethorn
Actually, a crop in some (or most?) cases makes a different image. Save the crop and the original and now you have two images, not just one. And you got this without having to take the time to perfectly compose the second instance. That seems like a bargain to me.

It isn't. If a subject is worth experimenting with different compositions, simply shoot a series of frames with variations in the composition. Then you will have a full-resolution version of whatever variation you end up selecting, and you can vary perspective, focus placement, exposure, etc. as as well--something you can't do by cropping.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #70 on: May 14, 2009, 02:58:05 am »

Let me say in different words what I said before, I think the quality of any picture should only be judged on the final (printed or posted) result and the process used to achieve it is not important in my mind. So if that process involves cropping that's perfectly OK. Obviously when resolution defects become visible too much cropping has taken place, but that's again judging by presentation medium only and no value judgement on the process.

For me all the rest of the arguments in this thread are just myth, if people want to live by these process rules that's fine by me, but putting a value assessment on the end-product because of following these 'self inflicted/invented' rules or not is absurd.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #71 on: May 14, 2009, 12:00:39 pm »

Quote from: pegelli
Let me say in different words what I said before, I think the quality of any picture should only be judged on the final (printed or posted) result and the process used to achieve it is not important in my mind.

Pieter, You're absolutely right. But the burden of the argument on this thread is that photographs composed on the camera are almost always better than photographs made by shooting in the general direction of the subject and then sorting out the composition or trying to find the actual photograph in post-processing. That's not always true, but it's awfully close to always true.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #72 on: May 14, 2009, 01:22:15 pm »

Quote from: RSL
But the burden of the argument on this thread is that photographs composed on the camera are almost always better than photographs made by shooting in the general direction of the subject and then sorting out the composition or trying to find the actual photograph in post-processing. That's not always true, but it's awfully close to always true.

I would think it is always true that any photographer does his best to compose the shot on the camera at the time of shooting. The rest is either fine-tuning or second thoughts.
Logged

dalethorn

  • Guest
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #73 on: May 14, 2009, 01:41:09 pm »

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
It isn't. If a subject is worth experimenting with different compositions, simply shoot a series of frames with variations in the composition. Then you will have a full-resolution version of whatever variation you end up selecting, and you can vary perspective, focus placement, exposure, etc. as as well--something you can't do by cropping.

Foresight is better than hindsight? Sure. But are you implying that hindsight should be disregarded? Or are you saying that hindsight is merely the fallback of the lazy and incompetent? A lot hinges on that word *merely*.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #74 on: May 14, 2009, 03:08:48 pm »

Quote from: dalethorn
Foresight is better than hindsight? Sure. But are you implying that hindsight should be disregarded? Or are you saying that hindsight is merely the fallback of the lazy and incompetent? A lot hinges on that word *merely*.

I think of cropping as being like underexposure. If you accidentally underexpose a shot by 2 stops, you can usually make something fairly decent out of it in the RAW converter. But that doesn't mean that one should habitually underexpose your images by 2 stops; if you want the best results, you need to get exposure right in-camera. Cropping is the same; it's a fallback option if you don't get it right in-camera, but it's always better to try to get things right in-camera.

No one is perfect; I've had to crop and make the best of underexposed RAWs more than once. But when I'm shooting, I always strive to get the best possible focus, exposure, and composition in-camera, and generally succeed. But failure to do so is not something to celebrate as a Good Thing.

If you are exercising hindsight on the majority of your images, then your foresight is obviously lacking.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 03:13:19 pm by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #75 on: May 14, 2009, 03:51:53 pm »

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
But failure to do so is not something to celebrate as a Good Thing.

I think we're getting somewhere.
If we could say it's not always (or by definition) a bad thing either we've achieved a mutual understanding.

Also I think there is a difference with exposure. There's no technical reason to get the exposure wrong. The wrong crop can also be a function of what lenses you have with you and what freedom you have to go to the place you would ideally like to take the shot from, so sometimes there are not enough degrees of freedom.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 03:55:40 pm by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #76 on: May 14, 2009, 04:45:24 pm »

Quote from: pegelli
I think we're getting somewhere.
If we could say it's not always (or by definition) a bad thing either we've achieved a mutual understanding.

No, it's always a bad thing. Getting the framing right in-camera is always preferable to cropping after the fact. But sometimes it's your only option, since nobody shoots perfectly 100% of the time, and no camera's aspect ratio exactly matches the best composition for every photo.

Quote
Also I think there is a difference with exposure. There's no technical reason to get the exposure wrong.

In a studio setting, perhaps. But try shooting a concert where the ambient light level is changing by a couple of stops every few seconds. Aperture priority is generally your best bet, but because the lighting is constantly changing, you can't dial in a constant exposure compensation. The optimal EC setting for when the lead singer is in the spotlight and everyone else is in the dark is quite different than what's appropriate when everyone is lit. And every time you change composition, you need to re-tweak EC. And you can't use flash, because most bands (the more well-known ones, anyway) won't allow flash during a live show. Do you really think you're going to nail exposure perfectly 100% of the time?

But you missed my point, which is this: when you underexpose, you can compensate by making the appropriate adjustments in the RAW converter, but underexposing always has a negative effect on the final print. In the same way, if you fail to compose properly, you can compensate by cropping, but the result of doing so is always inferior to shooting with the best possible framing in the first place.

Quote
The wrong crop can also be a function of what lenses you have with you and what freedom you have to go to the place you would ideally like to take the shot from, so sometimes there are not enough degrees of freedom.

Just because you don't have the budget to get the right tool for the job doesn't magically make cropping a Good Thing. It's still a Bad Thing; your other options are just Worse Things like ripping off coke dealers, mugging the elderly, or stealing from the collection plate at church. Having a low-resolution, heavily cropped image of a bird or whatever is better than having nothing, but it is never as good as having a full-resolution image that didn't need to be cropped in the first place.

If you find it necessary to crop most of your images taken under conditions where getting the optimal framing in-camera was possible, but simply failed to happen, that is an indication your composing skill needs improvement. Cropping is not something one ought to celebrate or tout as a Good Thing or recommend to others as good photographic technique; it's a necessary evil that should be avoided whenever possible.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 04:54:24 pm by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

dalethorn

  • Guest
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #77 on: May 14, 2009, 04:55:49 pm »

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
No, it's always a bad thing.
Having a low-resolution, heavily cropped image of a bird or whatever is better than having nothing, but it is never as good as having a full-resolution image that didn't need to be cropped in the first place.

So you think that budget for the "appropriate" equipment is the reigning factor in the take? For example, when on an evening walk not specifically or primarily for photography, and I capture a bird with the ZS3 pocket camera, and crop 50 percent, it would have been preferable to haul the DSLR and big heavy zoom for that shot? Or maybe you're saying don't bother with the small camera - just wait for the photo walk to snap those birds?

"No it's always a bad thing" is so absolutist I can't imagine you can continue to defend it against all situations.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #78 on: May 14, 2009, 05:03:08 pm »

Quote from: pegelli
I think we're getting somewhere.
If we could say it's not always (or by definition) a bad thing either we've achieved a mutual understanding.

Also I think there is a difference with exposure. There's no technical reason to get the exposure wrong. The wrong crop can also be a function of what lenses you have with you and what freedom you have to go to the place you would ideally like to take the shot from, so sometimes there are not enough degrees of freedom.

I doubt anyone on here would disagree that there are times when you can't avoid cropping. The question is, should you try your best to frame the picture properly in the first place or is it all right to shoot loosely and then try to turn the result into something worthwhile in post-processing. I doubt not having the right lenses with you enters into the question. Having what you need with you is part of the job. As Jonathan pointed out many posts back, that's what zoom lenses are for. In the fifties the distorted, soft zoom lenses available didn't make sense for serious work, but nowadays zooms such as the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G are the equal of any prime around. It's impossible to see that much detail on a computer screen, but here are two examples with a modern zoom lens. You can at least get the idea.

[attachment=13677:Andalusia_1.jpg]        [attachment=13678:Andalusia_2.jpg]

And before someone suggests there's pincushion distortion in the picture on the left I'd suggest looking higher up the wall. The whole wall is sagging at the left end.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 05:32:35 pm by RSL »
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

dalethorn

  • Guest
History of The Religion of Cropping ?
« Reply #79 on: May 14, 2009, 05:20:05 pm »

Quote from: RSL
I doubt anyone on here would disagree that there are times when you can't avoid cropping. The question is, should you try your best to frame the picture properly in the first place or is it all right to shoot loosely and then try to turn the result into something worthwhile in post-processing. I doubt not having the right lenses with you enters into the question. Having what you need with you is part of the job. As Jonathan pointed out many posts back, that's what zoom lenses are for. In the fifties the distorted, soft zoom lenses available didn't make sense for serious work, but nowadays zooms such as the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G are the equal of any prime around. It's impossible to see that much detail on a computer screen, but here are two examples with a modern zoom lens. You can at least get the idea.

Most of what you've said and others have said is common knowledge on LL, and really doesn't need repeated.  But I've had the argument about computers for 25 years, which applies to cameras as well.  It doesn't matter so much which tool is right for the job, when you're not specifically "on the job".  What matters in many situations, and dare I say in most situations (unless you have your Big Iron with you 24/7) is what tools you have with you right at the moment.  And given what you have, you may require cropping.  Big zooms are *not* carried around a lot by a lot of photographers, 24/7.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Up