Posted by William Vrolyk on December 1, 2007 at 10:24 AM
I read many critiques that suggests the photograph be cropped. The reasons are to elliminate a distraction or some part of the image that is not so interesting such as a bland sky. Usually.
When we suggest a crop what are we saying to the photographer? That he take a sciccors to his photo? I do not think so and I do not conclude that for crop suggestions to my images.
So if it is possible why not suggest or ask if a different focal lenght, or a different angle would have worked better? And perhaps we need to ask the photographer more questions such as what was in the foreground or to the right or left of the frame.
I am interested to read your response to this topic.
On it's surface the distinction is between things accomplished in-camera versus in-CPU, in my mind at least. We use focal length, POV and framing to include or exclude things from an image. We use the cropping tool after the fact to do the same thing. Provided the image file is large enough relative to the intended output, there's really no penalty for using the cropping tool in PS to accomplish essentially the same job as might be done initially with the camera. There may be technical as well as aesthetic reasons for doing it after the fact, such as circumstances when you can't move around or don't have sufficient focal length in a lens.
But the larger question in my mind is related to critiques, and as you suggest, the need for reviewers to provide more detail on why they recommend something be removed from a frame. That may call for more time and thought than reviewers have, or are willing, to put into a review, but I agree wholeheartedly that more detailed reviews are more valuable to posters.
Posted by David Bostedo on December 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM
William - I think the base reason that cropping is mentioned, rather than perspective change, focal length change, etc, is that you are commenting on what you have to work with. You're presented with just a photo, not a setup of the whole area - so if you see a way it might be improved, you mention it.
At times, this is the only alternative to getting the best photo - for cases where a pano crop is really appropriate for instance. That can't (with one shot) be done in camera.
At the same time, these cropping suggestions can definitely lead to the photographer thinking about them in the field, and sort of pre-cropping - being more careful about composition. I know it's certainly worked that way for me, although I still struggle with checking the edges/corners of the frame before I click.
I try to crop 'in-camera' as much as I can using the LF lenses I have available to me. Sometimes I visualize a photograph that will not work well within the 4x5 format, so I select a lens that will get me close to the ideal in one dimension, make my exposure and then crop in PhotoShop.
Here's an example to illustrate: McGee Creek in October. In this case, I selected a lens that gave me the framing from left to right that I wanted. I then cropped from the bottom to achieve my desired image, which is square.
Regarding critiques: I appreciate suggestions for cropping; especially when the reviewer let's me know why I should crop.
I think cropping suggestions can be a lot more accurate than focal length suggestions. If I know exactly where I would draw the line it's much easier to describe in terms of crop rather than guess what focal length would achieve the required angle of view. Also, many times cropping is not about the chosen angle of view but about a change in aspect ratio which cannot be achieved by a change of lens.
The way I approach critique is this: I assume the photographer is asking me what works best for *my* sensibilities. Presumably they already know what their own taste is like and are interested in hearing whether others might have a different view, so my critique is often along the lines of "here's how I would have done it if I were there" or "here's what works or doesn't work for my own taste". By the same token, this is also how critique should be taken: it's an expression of another person's taste and there's no real wrong or right way to compose. You can accept or reject it if based on whether it meets, improves on, or detracts from your own.
I also don't see it as in-camera vs. in-CPU. Cropping is a common practice. In fact users of square formats tout the ability to compose/crop for any desired ratio as one of the strengths of their format. The camera can't always get it right and cropping decisions can be made in the field or in the studio.
Guy
Posted by William Vrolyk on December 1, 2007 at 10:59 PM
"Cropping is a common practice."
Guy, and I am one of those who commonly indulge in such practices And not always to improve on the original image. Cropping is also a convenient way to elliminate any unwanted intrusions that are missed while taking the shot.
In the case of critiques I assume the commenter finds the image works better or presents a different alternative to the composition if that part of the photo was taken out. That does not mean he dislikes the original version. Unless he says so.
As you indicated, David, cropping suggestions does influence how I compose in-camera. And so it should. At the same time, cropping can be anticipated even while taking the shot. Nice shot, Preston.
Perhaps what I was trying to say is that there could be other alternatives to crop suggestions and that can only be possible by asking questions about the posted image.
Thanks for the replies.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by David Senesac on December 2, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I'm one of those commenters that regularly add suggestions about cropping images. In fact for many years I have exactly framed my prints with custom borders instead of the usual standard frame sizes een though that takes a hit for business reasons. Thus I consider that to generally be quite important to overall image aesthetics.
It used to be with smaller format photographers that subjects were more often composed with the full camera format's boundaries intended to be what the final form of an image would likely be. In fact their was a time when that was considered to be somewhat of an ideal. Large format film users always used cropping because of their huge film areas. One significant issue was that only the few usually more advanced photographers actually had darkrooms where it was easy to crop an image during the enlargement print process. Thus most photographers simply sent in full frame film media to labs without any cropping requests. When digital processes rose in the 90s, those photographers that used Photoshop quickly viewed digital cropping as a very easy way to further tweak the aesthetic of their images. By time digital cameras first rose in the public's awareness earlier this decade, most serious photographers had already fully embraced cropping and that was extended to the public as an obvious expected post process. And as you noted in your followup post Will, you of course do the same with your own images.
Instead you suggest commenters might approach the advice of cropping differently by instead first asking why the image postee chose to frame their images as presented. The problem with that is the commenter needs to bring to the attention of both the postee and other members viewing the thread what they consider other framing alternatives instead of leaving that to each person's imagination. I think it is fair to consider that image postee's will tend to deliver reasons why they chose to present an image as they did and then relate how they assessed the advice of the commenter. Often since the image postee is far more familiar with the various ways their image might be presented, they have already explored other ways to publicly display the image. If there is an obvious competing alternative they might expect others will suggest, they might offer that up front in their title post as something they are aware of.
In making my own cropping comment, I prefer not to offer rigid judgemental statements like "the bright sky ought to be cropped off" but rather an input that provides more postee involvement and assessment like "I would suggest taking a look at cropping down some of the sky to the bottom of that bright cloud." I also post quite a bit in the Flora forum where cropping of flower closeups is far greater per frame area generally per image due to constraints of camera capture of depth of field, lens positioning, and lighting. In any case there are often a number of ways images might be cropped and like other parameters of presentation, all have some value in being fair subjects of image critique discussion. ...David
Posted by David Senesac on December 2, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I'm one of those commenters that regularly add suggestions about cropping images. In fact for many years I have exactly framed my prints with custom borders instead of the usual standard frame sizes even though that takes a hit for business reasons. Thus I consider that to generally be quite important to overall image aesthetics.
It used to be with smaller format photographers that subjects were more often composed with full camera format's boundaries intending to be a final form of an image. In fact there was a time when that was considered to be somewhat of an ideal. Conversely large format film users always used cropping because of their huge film areas. One significant issue was that only the few usually more advanced photographers actually had darkrooms where it was easy to crop an image during the enlargement print process. Thus most photographers simply sent in full frame film media to labs without any cropping requests. When digital processes rose in the 90s, those photographers that used Photoshop quickly viewed digital cropping as a very easy way to further tweak the aesthetic of their images. By time digital cameras first rose in the public's awareness earlier this decade, most serious photographers had already fully embraced cropping and that was extended to the public as an obvious expected post process. And as you noted in your followup post Will, you of course do the same with your own images.
Instead you suggest commenters might approach the advice of cropping differently by instead first asking why the image postee chose to frame their images as presented. The problem with that is the commenter needs to bring to the attention of both the postee and other members viewing the thread what they consider other framing alternatives instead of leaving that to each person's imagination. I think it is fair to consider that image postee's will tend to deliver reasons why they chose to present an image as they did and then relate how they assessed the advice of the commenter. Often since the image postee is far more familiar with the various ways their image might be presented, they have already explored other ways to publicly display the image. If there is an obvious competing alternative they might expect others will suggest, they might offer that up front in their title post as something they are aware of.
In making my own cropping comment, I prefer not to offer rigid judgemental statements like "the bright sky ought to be cropped off" but rather an input that provides more postee involvement and assessment like "I would suggest taking a look at cropping down some of the sky to the bottom of that bright cloud." I also post quite a bit in the Flora forum where cropping of flower closeups is far greater per frame area generally per image due to constraints of camera capture of depth of field, lens positioning, and lighting. In any case there are often a number of ways images might be cropped and like other parameters of presentation, all have some value in being fair subjects of image critique discussion. ...David
Now that you mention it, I think I tend to make suggestions that are often unactionable because the photograph was already taken. Unless you have a time machine, you can't possibly go back and take one giant step to the left before releasing the shutter.
As I got into digital photography, I realized that I've been freed of the dimensional constraints of a slide mount. So, I do sometimes suggest cropping an existing "capture." I hope I explain why. In the future I'll make sure I give reasons. I'm usually in too much of a hurry to be nice about it though. I figure we're all dogs anyhow.
Posted by William Vrolyk on December 4, 2007 at 11:32 AM
I have given my fair share of crop suggestions in my comments in the Galleries. And why not? Cropping can be a useful tool. But sometimes a crop could result in a centered horizon which the photographer tried to avoid, or there may be something else within range of the crop that he prefers left in. But I think I understand what you are saying, David, that is to allow the photographer to draw his own conclusions as to the crop suggestions and what he may do differently next time in the field. I don't want to "cross-examine" anyone as though I am a layer in a court of law.
And we are indeed given more freedom to do what we want with our images. For a matter of interest here is a vertical crop I made from a horizontal format. At least half of the frame was cropped out. Nothing wrong with the original.
Discussion
9 repliesWhen we suggest a crop what are we saying to the photographer? That he take a sciccors to his photo? I do not think so and I do not conclude that for crop suggestions to my images.
So if it is possible why not suggest or ask if a different focal lenght, or a different angle would have worked better? And perhaps we need to ask the photographer more questions such as what was in the foreground or to the right or left of the frame.
I am interested to read your response to this topic.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
But the larger question in my mind is related to critiques, and as you suggest, the need for reviewers to provide more detail on why they recommend something be removed from a frame. That may call for more time and thought than reviewers have, or are willing, to put into a review, but I agree wholeheartedly that more detailed reviews are more valuable to posters.
At times, this is the only alternative to getting the best photo - for cases where a pano crop is really appropriate for instance. That can't (with one shot) be done in camera.
At the same time, these cropping suggestions can definitely lead to the photographer thinking about them in the field, and sort of pre-cropping - being more careful about composition. I know it's certainly worked that way for me, although I still struggle with checking the edges/corners of the frame before I click.
I try to crop 'in-camera' as much as I can using the LF lenses I have available to me. Sometimes I visualize a photograph that will not work well within the 4x5 format, so I select a lens that will get me close to the ideal in one dimension, make my exposure and then crop in PhotoShop.
Here's an example to illustrate: McGee Creek in October. In this case, I selected a lens that gave me the framing from left to right that I wanted. I then cropped from the bottom to achieve my desired image, which is square.
Regarding critiques: I appreciate suggestions for cropping; especially when the reviewer let's me know why I should crop.
-PB
The way I approach critique is this: I assume the photographer is asking me what works best for *my* sensibilities. Presumably they already know what their own taste is like and are interested in hearing whether others might have a different view, so my critique is often along the lines of "here's how I would have done it if I were there" or "here's what works or doesn't work for my own taste". By the same token, this is also how critique should be taken: it's an expression of another person's taste and there's no real wrong or right way to compose. You can accept or reject it if based on whether it meets, improves on, or detracts from your own.
I also don't see it as in-camera vs. in-CPU. Cropping is a common practice. In fact users of square formats tout the ability to compose/crop for any desired ratio as one of the strengths of their format. The camera can't always get it right and cropping decisions can be made in the field or in the studio.
Guy
Guy, and I am one of those who commonly indulge in such practices
In the case of critiques I assume the commenter finds the image works better or presents a different alternative to the composition if that part of the photo was taken out. That does not mean he dislikes the original version. Unless he says so.
As you indicated, David, cropping suggestions does influence how I compose in-camera. And so it should. At the same time, cropping can be anticipated even while taking the shot. Nice shot, Preston.
Perhaps what I was trying to say is that there could be other alternatives to crop suggestions and that can only be possible by asking questions about the posted image.
Thanks for the replies.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
It used to be with smaller format photographers that subjects were more often composed with the full camera format's boundaries intended to be what the final form of an image would likely be. In fact their was a time when that was considered to be somewhat of an ideal. Large format film users always used cropping because of their huge film areas. One significant issue was that only the few usually more advanced photographers actually had darkrooms where it was easy to crop an image during the enlargement print process. Thus most photographers simply sent in full frame film media to labs without any cropping requests. When digital processes rose in the 90s, those photographers that used Photoshop quickly viewed digital cropping as a very easy way to further tweak the aesthetic of their images. By time digital cameras first rose in the public's awareness earlier this decade, most serious photographers had already fully embraced cropping and that was extended to the public as an obvious expected post process. And as you noted in your followup post Will, you of course do the same with your own images.
Instead you suggest commenters might approach the advice of cropping differently by instead first asking why the image postee chose to frame their images as presented. The problem with that is the commenter needs to bring to the attention of both the postee and other members viewing the thread what they consider other framing alternatives instead of leaving that to each person's imagination. I think it is fair to consider that image postee's will tend to deliver reasons why they chose to present an image as they did and then relate how they assessed the advice of the commenter. Often since the image postee is far more familiar with the various ways their image might be presented, they have already explored other ways to publicly display the image. If there is an obvious competing alternative they might expect others will suggest, they might offer that up front in their title post as something they are aware of.
In making my own cropping comment, I prefer not to offer rigid judgemental statements like "the bright sky ought to be cropped off" but rather an input that provides more postee involvement and assessment like "I would suggest taking a look at cropping down some of the sky to the bottom of that bright cloud." I also post quite a bit in the Flora forum where cropping of flower closeups is far greater per frame area generally per image due to constraints of camera capture of depth of field, lens positioning, and lighting. In any case there are often a number of ways images might be cropped and like other parameters of presentation, all have some value in being fair subjects of image critique discussion. ...David
It used to be with smaller format photographers that subjects were more often composed with full camera format's boundaries intending to be a final form of an image. In fact there was a time when that was considered to be somewhat of an ideal. Conversely large format film users always used cropping because of their huge film areas. One significant issue was that only the few usually more advanced photographers actually had darkrooms where it was easy to crop an image during the enlargement print process. Thus most photographers simply sent in full frame film media to labs without any cropping requests. When digital processes rose in the 90s, those photographers that used Photoshop quickly viewed digital cropping as a very easy way to further tweak the aesthetic of their images. By time digital cameras first rose in the public's awareness earlier this decade, most serious photographers had already fully embraced cropping and that was extended to the public as an obvious expected post process. And as you noted in your followup post Will, you of course do the same with your own images.
Instead you suggest commenters might approach the advice of cropping differently by instead first asking why the image postee chose to frame their images as presented. The problem with that is the commenter needs to bring to the attention of both the postee and other members viewing the thread what they consider other framing alternatives instead of leaving that to each person's imagination. I think it is fair to consider that image postee's will tend to deliver reasons why they chose to present an image as they did and then relate how they assessed the advice of the commenter. Often since the image postee is far more familiar with the various ways their image might be presented, they have already explored other ways to publicly display the image. If there is an obvious competing alternative they might expect others will suggest, they might offer that up front in their title post as something they are aware of.
In making my own cropping comment, I prefer not to offer rigid judgemental statements like "the bright sky ought to be cropped off" but rather an input that provides more postee involvement and assessment like "I would suggest taking a look at cropping down some of the sky to the bottom of that bright cloud." I also post quite a bit in the Flora forum where cropping of flower closeups is far greater per frame area generally per image due to constraints of camera capture of depth of field, lens positioning, and lighting. In any case there are often a number of ways images might be cropped and like other parameters of presentation, all have some value in being fair subjects of image critique discussion. ...David
Now that you mention it, I think I tend to make suggestions that are often unactionable because the photograph was already taken. Unless you have a time machine, you can't possibly go back and take one giant step to the left before releasing the shutter.
As I got into digital photography, I realized that I've been freed of the dimensional constraints of a slide mount. So, I do sometimes suggest cropping an existing "capture." I hope I explain why. In the future I'll make sure I give reasons. I'm usually in too much of a hurry to be nice about it though. I figure we're all dogs anyhow.
And we are indeed given more freedom to do what we want with our images. For a matter of interest here is a vertical crop I made from a horizontal format. At least half of the frame was cropped out. Nothing wrong with the original.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada