Yeah Cartier-Bresson couldn't crop for........a member's comment

[Ken Bennett]

O LORD, have mercy on me; heal me, for I have cropped my pictures

I've often felt that the whole "never crop" thing is purely a religious belief. Cropping is sin, and suggesting that sometimes cropping might be okay is blasphemy. There's just something about the virginal purity of the uncropped image, I guess.

Me, I'll stick with cropping as needed, though I understand that means I am not a real photographer.

[RSL]

There are two kinds of cropping, Ken. First, there's the grab-bag approach to photography where you don't really know what you're after and you bang away and then try to make a decision later on your computer by cropping something out of the random crap in your new files. Second, there's the situation you get into where you know what you want in the frame, but you can't get in position to frame it. In a case like that you shoot loose knowing you'll have to crop to what you wanted. HCB was the second kind of cropper -- in spades.

[Ken Bennett]

Oh, I understand that, Russ. I'm just reacting to the suggestion (not yours) that the second kind of cropping represents "a failure to capture the image properly in the first place."

That's nothing more than a dogmatic belief.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Oh, I understand that, Russ. I'm just reacting to the suggestion (not yours) that the second kind of cropping represents "a failure to capture the image properly in the first place."

Actually, my comment was directed toward the first sort of cropping--where one doesn't have a clear idea of what the final image should be while shooting, and cropping is done in an attempt to clarify a fuzzy concept.

Being limited in vantage points to shoot from is no different than being limited by the native aspect ratio of the camera in hand. You get as close as you can to what you really want, so you minimize the amount of negative/RAW you have to discard in post.

[RSL]

Exactly!

[Jonathan Wienke]

Is that something you do / you have done?

Do you know anyone who says they do that? Have you seen anyone do that? It isn't something I recall doing.

Looking at my current batch: 10 weren't cropped, 5 were cropped tighter by about 1/10th, and 1 cropped 3:2 to 4:3 from bottom-right. (13 still to do and 28 deleted, with some more deleted from the camera).

You're either schizophrenic, have Alzheimers, or are being intentionally obtuse. The "5 were cropped tighter by about 1/10th" is exactly what I'm describing as "sharpening a fuzzy concept". If you'd shot a bit tighter in the first place, you'd have gotten a better capture of the final image.

Nobody's perfect, and nobody always gets the ideal framing without having to crop. But IMO one should always strive to shoot to minimize the cropping needed to get the best final image.

[RSL]

Isaac, have you ever posted anything on LuLa? Do you actually make photographs or only criticize?

[amolitor]

The question really seems to be

"did you see, more or less, the final picture before you pressed the button, or after?"

I find this to be a pretty arbitrary distinction. In essence, you're either doing the Photography at the camera, or at the contact sheet, and
what does it matter where and when you do it?

Doing it at the camera is a lot more efficient, certainly, but photography isn't a very efficient process at the best of times, and anyways,
why do I care what you do with your time?

Some people choose to do it one way, others another. I don't judge your process. Or at any rate, I strive not to.

[LKaven]

The question really seems to be

"did you see, more or less, the final picture before you pressed the button, or after?"

I find this to be a pretty arbitrary distinction. In essence, you're either doing the Photography at the camera, or at the contact sheet, and
what does it matter where and when you do it?

Doing it at the camera is a lot more efficient, certainly, but photography isn't a very efficient process at the best of times, and anyways,
why do I care what you do with your time?

Some people choose to do it one way, others another. I don't judge your process. Or at any rate, I strive not to.

The philosophy of the decisive moment is tied up with the idea that the meaning of the photograph is inherent in the photographer's act of taking the photograph, and explained by the history of reasons that led up to that action in that moment.  It is partly a philosophy about existential engagement in the moment. 

[amolitor]

Err, OK. That's new to me!

[LKaven]

The meaning of the photograph to whom?

It is an objective fact, not subjective.  It is only part of the entire picture of meaning, which may include subjective facts.

This is the meaning conferred on a work in the act of authorship, at the moment the photographer commits to tripping the shutter, situated as s/he is.  It is the answer to the question of why the photograph is here, and may include such things as why here, why this moment, why composed just as such.  It is explained by the causal history that led up to the moment of commitment, which supplies the reasons (beliefs, desires, etc) for the act of tripping the shutter. 

The existential part of "the decisive moment" affirms the virtue of "being there" for that moment.

[amolitor]

Is this existentialist approach to the decisive moment yours or are you referring to someone else's ideas here?

How is the act of tripping a shutter fundamentally different, in these terms, from the act of drawing a red rectangle onto a contact sheet?

[Jonathan Wienke]

Have you ever photographed thinking - I could easily frame tighter without any risk but I'll just leave unnecessary margin so I'll have something to crop-out later - or - I don't know why I'm taking this photo but maybe if I crop the image something will turn-up ?

Perhaps there are people who've grown-up with digital and are so happy with the quality of heavily cropped images that they don't bother trying to frame tighter, they just crop the image. Has someone told you that's what they do?

No. And no. And no.

And if you think I've ever advocated any of those things, you need to improve your reading comprehension.

[LKaven]

Is this existentialist approach to the decisive moment yours or are you referring to someone else's ideas here?

How is the act of tripping a shutter fundamentally different, in these terms, from the act of drawing a red rectangle onto a contact sheet?

The existentialist character of the theory is apparent.  I don't know whether HC-B took after Sartre intentionally or not.

In your question, the act of tripping the shutter where cropping is disallowed, and the act of cropping a previous capture, are both acts of committing to the final form.  So in that (narrow) sense, they are the same.  

In another way, they are different.  In the case of the former, the image is wholly the product of immediate engagement with the subject, and in the case of cropping, it is not.  The question when cropping is "what /were/ you engaged with when you committed to tripping the shutter that further change should be necessitated?"

If one stops looking at the thesis as a matter of what one should or shouldn't do, it becomes an interesting way to understand the process by which a photographer engages his/her subject, and how that engagement is or is not reflected in the final photograph.  

In my view, there is not just one right way.  But I do feel that one often underestimates the aesthetic complexity one can realize in a photograph at the moment of capture.  For me, I feel that with few exceptions, the picture is either all there when I tripped the shutter, or it isn't there at all.  And to my mind, it is very rare that "the picture" should ever be a proper subset of another picture.

[Ray]

IMO, cropping for reasons other than the necessity of fitting an aspect ratio represents a failure to capture the image properly in the first place.

Obviously, if an image works best cropped square and your camera is 4:5, you will need to crop. But if you have to do more than crop the :5 down to :4, you screwed up the capture.

There seems to be a lot of confusion here, Jonathan. First, all images are cropped. It's not possible for a photographer to take an image without cropping it. He crops it first through choice of camera and lens (in relation to the scene), and crops it again, if required, during processing.

There's nothing wrong in revisiting a shot months or years later and cropping it yet again in accordance with an improved or different personal aesthetic.

Being limited in vantage points to shoot from is no different than being limited by the native aspect ratio of the camera in hand. You get as close as you can to what you really want, so you minimize the amount of negative/RAW you have to discard in post.

This is not always true. Getting as close as you can changes the perspective. In some shots you might want to stand back for the sake of the different perspective. If you don't have the appropriate telephoto lens, then there might be no other option than to crop in post processing, in order to achieve the desired perspective.

Now, I understand with the Canon 1Ds you will probably have a great incentive to get as close as possible to the imagined composition, because a mere 11 million, rather outdated pixels don't allow for much flexibility. If you decide the composition requires a square format, no matter how close you get, you're restricted to a 7.3 mp image, and any further cropping will reduce that number.

Those IDs pixels may be large, but they don't compare with a modern small pixel, such as the ones on the Nikon D810. In all respect, the D810 pixels are either equal to, or better than the IDs pixels. Something for you to consider. 

[RSL]

...your forcefully stated opinion on cropping doesn't seem to be different, in any way that you-know-of, from what people ordinarily do when taking a photograph.

How would you know what people ordinarily do when taking a photograph? In order to know that you'd actually have to do it.

[Jonathan Wienke]

In that case, your forcefully stated opinion on cropping doesn't seem to be different, in any way that you-know-of, from what people ordinarily do when taking a photograph.

In contrast to Cartier-Bresson's.


Put-downs and name-calling are certainly less challenging than conversation.

HCB advocated the notion of getting the image right at the time of capture, as opposed to sloppy composition and cropping after the fact. Which is exactly the approach I advocate. Explain how my views "contrast" with HCB's.

As to "put-downs", in your case they seem apt, since you seem to insist on pretending that everything I've written means the exact opposite of what I said, even if that means contradicting yourself in consecutive sentences. Having never met you, I don't know if you're truly that comprehensionally-challenged, or just being an ass for the sake of being an ass. Either way, it makes it difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you.

[Ray]

Steady on! Jonathan. You're being a bit hard on Isaac.

One should bear in mind that HCB didn't develop, process and print his own photos. His situation was quite different to those of us with a modern DSLR and the opportunities offered by Photoshop.

As I understand, HCB was more of a photojournalist than a fine-art photographer. Cropping an image for him would have been a cumbersome process. He would have needed some shots to be printed twice, perhaps indicating with pencil and ruler on the first print how he wanted the final print to be cropped.

For him it was probably easier to spend more effort in framing the shot as precisely as possible to avoid as much as possible any perceived need to crop later.

[Jonathan Wienke]

For him it was probably easier to spend more effort in framing the shot as precisely as possible to avoid as much as possible any perceived need to crop later.

And his work was the better for making that effort.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Do you in-fact crop your photos?

I have on occasion, as did HCB occasionally. But it's not how I prefer to work.

Do you in fact have a point to make with the question?