🟡 Rookie Mistake! 😐 To CROP, or NOT CROP, that is the Question!
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- I've always proudly said that I crop in camera (99%).. What a mistake that was
💫 MRLEICA LR PRESETS - mrleica.com/presets/
🚀 LEICA WORKSHOPS: mrleica.com/workshops/
📝 LEICA CLUB WELCOME PACK - mrleica.com/leica-club-join-t...
📝 FREE NEWSLETTER & EBOOK - bit.ly/3OLE37t
📷 CAMERA BAG: bit.ly/3Uiva6w
📷 SEE ALL MY KIT: mrleica.com/kitlist/
🚀 FREE MODEL PHOTOGRAPHY GUIDE EBOOK: mrleica.com/ebooks/
🚀 MAKE MONEY WITH PHOTOGRAPHY EBOOK - bit.ly/3PIYtwD
✅ CHECK PRICES: (US) ebay.to/2F0HoxY (UK) ebay.to/3ijzle2 (DE) ebay.to/3iqDNYs (FR) ebay.to/2ZJ3E75 (HK) ebay.to/32A8xBu
📞 ZOOM: Not sure what camera or lens to buy? Arrange a call today - bit.ly/3lBkdgq
⭐️ PATREON: 100+ Videos & Zoom - mrleica.com/patreon/
🛎 SUBSCRIBED?: Monthly Giveaways! bit.ly/3qET0ZO
🎞 NEED FILM?: mrleica.com/do-you-need-film/
☕️ COFFEE: Thank Matt with a coffee - www.paypal.com/paypalme/MrLeica
⛔️ INSURANCE: Aaduki UK Photography Insurance - with since 2014 - www.aaduki.com
❕ DISCLAIMER: This description may contain affiliate links. If you purchase an item via clicking a link I will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. Thanks for your support. Matt
#leica #printing #darkroom #mrleicacom
💫 MRLEICA LR PRESETS - mrleica.com/presets/
🚀 LEICA WORKSHOPS: mrleica.com/workshops/
📝 LEICA CLUB WELCOME PACK - mrleica.com/leica-club-join-the-club/
📝 FREE NEWSLETTER & EBOOK - bit.ly/3OLE37t
📷 CAMERA BAG: bit.ly/3Uiva6w
📷 SEE ALL MY KIT: mrleica.com/kitlist/
🚀 FREE MODEL PHOTOGRAPHY GUIDE EBOOK: mrleica.com/ebooks/
🚀 MAKE MONEY WITH PHOTOGRAPHY EBOOK - bit.ly/3PIYtwD
✅ CHECK PRICES: (US) ebay.to/2F0HoxY (UK) ebay.to/3ijzle2 (DE) ebay.to/3iqDNYs (FR) ebay.to/2ZJ3E75 (HK) ebay.to/32A8xBu
📞 ZOOM: Not sure what camera or lens to buy? Arrange a call today - bit.ly/3lBkdgq
⭐ PATREON: 100+ Videos & Zoom - mrleica.com/patreon/
🛎 SUBSCRIBED?: Monthly Giveaways! bit.ly/3qET0ZO
🎞 NEED FILM?: mrleica.com/do-you-need-film/
☕ COFFEE: Thank Matt with a coffee - www.paypal.com/paypalme/MrLeica
⛔ INSURANCE: Aaduki UK Photography Insurance - with since 2014 - www.aaduki.com
03:28 I think the print you made for Mum was the better composition! In graphic design we obsess constantly about “eye flow” and a lot of money is spent on eye-tracking studies. Specifics are still a bit controversial, but what I was taught as the standard was that the eye starts a bit above and to the left of the center of the image, moves toward the top left corner, and then wanders around in a roughly clockwise direction. This wandering is influenced a lot by the details of the individual image, but the start-near-center-then-move-up-and-left behavior is very strong. By this standard, your print for Mum has near-perfect eye flow: the eye starts at her lips, moves up and left to her eyes, then follows around clockwise along the line of her neck and shoulder, down along the line of her arm into the nicely textured hair and décolletage areas, then up the other arm to the eyes again. Flip the image, and the eye starts on the shoulder and has nowhere interesting to go from there; not nearly so good. I think you were right the first time!
Another old-timer gotcha about flipping negatives: women's and men's shirts traditionally button on opposite sides, so if you flip a negative containing buttons it can look “off” to the fashion-conscious…
Thanks James, I've said it before but I love your knowledge! I always shoot what looks right to my eyes but to my little brain the flipped on popped more. You approach is interesting (the science). Maybe I'll do a poll on IG tomorrow to see how the average person sees them. Thanks for sharing and the button info! (I'm not planning to flip lots of images*)
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Well, women sometimes do wear men's shirts so you can usually get away with it there!
I was taught to fill the frame but to leave enough space for a crop.
Also, if you shoot for print, you must leave enough negative space for any print that may be required, such as a brand name/logo.
Always enjoy your vids.
Good luck with the experimenting.
"Leave enough space for crop" was valid advice in advertising or the press where the photographs are just raw material for the editors. And I would add, a certain type of press or photographers, and a famous counter-example: a lot of photographs taken by members of the Magnum photo agency are stamped at the back with "do not crop" lest the photograph would lose its original meaning, mood, careful composition achieved in camera. [same goes for VII, Vu, Tendance Floue, MYOPS or many other photo agencies].
I always appreciate your honesty. Photography seems to be a journey-we make make some turns along the way. Doesn’t mean we can’t backtrack !
Thanks Michael!
I am very much in the camp of "crop in camera" but more so for the reason to maximize the character and capabilities of lenses. When I transition into M body, I actual had a hard time getting framing that I once enjoyed with SLR/mirrorless because of it's 0.7M minimum; and most of my favorite M lenses are at 1M minimum. So perhaps I need to be more forgiving and crop a bit more than just horizon correction.
In contrary, as a working commercial photographer, I often get asked by graphic designers to frame with as much empty space as possible and leave them room for copies, and crop for different ads layout (double spread, single sheet, etc). It was never my favorite way to photograph, but that's why I do what they say to keep who sign the checks happy, and I still take photos for fun when I am not working 😛
Thanks Rex!
Brilliant! A great quick tutorial on the basics and why of cropping. Thumbs up! Thank you. You have given me thought.
Thanks Sandy!
I agree with your cropping decisions -- they make the image much stronger, interesting and appealing. It's good to be reminded of this. I think magazine editors used to rely very heavily on tight cropping in the 70's and 80's to make compelling images. It's easy to fall into a rule to make one's life simpler -- e.g., the only crop in camera rule -- but its almost always hugely beneficial to smash those rules!
Thanks and interesting about the old magazine. I'll definitely experiment with this going forward
Framing with the camera (technically not "cropping" which happens after the fact) is far, very far to make "one's life simpler" for a well-composed photograph where form follows meaning in an aesthetic fashion. It requires work, experience, practice and developed intuition... to sum it up some expertise in image-making. It is not a rule (in the same way, the "rule of third" is not a rule, just guidelines, crutches tested for over 2500 years in various media and helping the novice. Once mastered they are easy to "forget", or rather one can work intuitively).
Another consideration for cropping in post is image publication use options. A client may want the same photo to work as a square or circle in their online profile page, a super wide header image, a long vertical banner advertisement image, etc.
Excellent point.
Hear, hear! I'm a graphic designer by trade, and it's a constant challenge to find strong images that work in all the vertical, horizontal, and square-ish formats needed for the online environment. What's usually needed is an image with the main subject confined to a small area smack in the middle, with a large expanse of harmonious but non-essential context around it. I try to tell other photographers to shoot like this - “frame it wide and crop it loose” - but most absolutely hate that advice because photo education still brainwashes us to revere tightly-cropped, “high impact” images.
Yes great point about photos for print/ publications. Thanks for mentioning that.
Thanks James, yes I can visualise the photos you mean for magazines but equally I'm guilty of cropping close for a more powerful image (hopefully)(well whatever my eyes like is what I shoot)
Then it is also a matter of whole you work with and where your practice and principles are.
Target located - get better at cropping in camera :-) I feel you, I always struggle with the composition when I switch from a 3:2 to a 6:4.5 camera. My eye is used to the tighter crop of 3:2.
Thanks Tobi!
Great video …very interesting ! Learned a lot
Thanks! I’m glad it came across ok.
Excellent commentary. I love the idea of testing the composition by flipping-and using the narrow strips. I also commend your journey into film. I am mostly a film shooter-all formats-and printer (my X2D gathers dust these days), and the joys of a tangible print in your hand or on the wall (or for your model's mother!) are immense. Don't you just love looking at a 4x5 negative projected through the enlarger?. Good for you, my friend.
Thanks Charles! Great to hear you enjoy the same!
Brilliant. Thanks for sharing your thinking. So many possibilities. Loving the honesty.
Thanks so much!
Nice to have even more creative options. Nice job!
Old time movie directors liked to cut in the camera too.
This also points out the advantage of larger formats and more pixels to work with in printing and enlarging.
I wonder if Hebrew reading photographers feel the same way concerning left to right. LOL
Thanks! I’m not sure about Hebrew!
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Read right to left.
I really enjoyed the practical side to this. Easy to understand. Please remain humble but the pictures you get have some really gret charcter.
Thank you! Yes I'm just an average guy sharing his 2p worth. I'll be the same.
the first 6x7 photo the frame is Perfect. You can get away with 6x7 than the tighter crops with 35mm 3:2
the tighter crop shows a beautiful woman, the 6x7 shows a story
Thanks!
Many thanks for this video; very interesting the technique of testing different angles in editing/printing phase, with the handmade frames.
Regarding which direction is the best, in that specific photo (3:17), my opinion is that I prefer the one where the head is in the left side and the arm in the right side, if the photo will be in a frame. From my point of view, what we touch with our hands becomes, sensorially, an extension of our body (e.g. printed photo, musical instrument,…). The reason is that if I am holding the printed image with my right hand, I can mentally (and respectfully) visualize an arch (semicircle) made of: “my head -> my shoulder -> my arm -> my hand -> her hand -> her arm -> her shoulder -> her head -> her hair”. In the contrary, if I hold the same photo (and direction) with my left hand, I will be breaking the arch: “… -> my hand -> her hair -> …”; and I think this will not work, because holding a printed photo with the hand where the point of contact between my hand and the printed photo is too close to the Model’s hair is wrong, or at least weird, because I think the Model’s hair should be untouchable. Other story is if the photo is in a book, with left and right pages, because we can hold with our hand, for a long time, a printed image that is in a frame, but we don’t hold, for a long time, a page of a book, usually we touch the page just when we are about to flip the page (e.g. 1 sec); again, different cases. This is how I mentally visualize my point of view. Again a respectful comment.
Q: how important do you think it is to keep the standard H/W proportions? In digital, I hxtx social media because they force us to use specific proportions.
Thanks! Yes IG push us to use certain formats but for print anything goes!
great tips to see the things out of the box ... I love your new pages marks ... 🙂
Thanks for sharing ....
Thanks Grom!
When using 35mm film I was taught to ‘fill the frame’ if just because when printing for quality. With medium format 6x6 I would still compose in the camera frame for personal use, but for commercial use cropping was an option. High MP digital changes the game - I’m limited to 24mp myself - but hard to break old habits, and I still have some enjoyment framing what I see in the camera anyway.
Thanks, yes I always crop in camera with all cameras but I’m enjoying printing even tighter (hence this video). Always learning!
I definitely like to crop if it’s going to remove some unnecessary parts from the composition. I find it especially useful when shooting with a rangefinder because sometimes there’s slightly more stuff in the image then what I expected.
Yes nice point about RF cameras. The Mamiya 7 was terrible for that (wrong photos vs VF view!)
Photographers and Art Directors usually use a set of black card ‘L’s for cropping. Simple and easy✌️🇦🇺
Thanks Mark, someone else mentioned those too. See I get to learn from you guys too. Thanks!
My personal rule, not that I am much of a photographer, is to leave it a bit wider if the view finder isn't 1:1. And this is literally every film camera, from 35 mm to 4x5 that I have ever owned.
Always good to see people experiment, and share why the do and don't like things with their own vision. Very refreshing.
Thanks Ashley!
A very informative video . Hadn't thought about different crops when it came to portrait.
Thanks! Me neither, it was just lucky I saw it from doing darkroom test strip prints.
Nice guide Matt and some really useful examples 👍
Thanks Kev!
Very helpful and academically rewarding subject that is too rarely discussed
You take photography to a new level as an art that goes beyond exposure and includes multiple opportunities from the same exposure as we did with darkroom printing.
Perhaps we need to make adjustable borders to help us reach a better composition ?
I definitely agree that a flip can change a composition; who would have imagined that?
Another point is that a lateral inversion or the flipped image is more pleasing to a model as closer to the image of ourselves we are used to observing in a mirror
Your candour and humility are priceless
Thank you! I love the mirror fact. That's an interesting point I'd not considered!
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaComtry looking at your own pictures in a mirror: you will find your image more familiar 😊
Also, a well composed grainy, low definition and low micro contrast picture is always more pleasing than a sharp high definition and badly composed picture
Poor composition is inexcusable
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaComI was totally unaware of the effects of tilting and of a lateral flip I am wondering how twin lens reflexes users could ever deal with composition on screen. It was clearly a camera for darkroom composition, specially in B&W
In camera composition was no doubt a condition we acquired for slide photography
You need to develop and patent a more convenient composition assistant than cut out envelopes
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom you video has provided me with a link between graphic arts and photography.
Many of us consider the technical value of the image that speaks out for the film/sensor, camera and the lens, rather than the visual impact of form colours and composition.
I regularly receive videos automatically produced by iPhone
I am sometimes amazed how out of a detail of a fuzzy and low definition image that had totally gone unnoticed as junk, that I had neglected from deleting, the program has extracted a highly meaningful image.
I realise how even out of “junk” we can compose highly impactful images.
Technical expertise is not the only aspect of photography there is a world of impressionism hidden in the colours, forms and proportions of each image and your brilliant video leads us into realising this.
This has more to do with looking at pictures than taking them and your open and inquisitive mind has helped us realise this. There is a wealth of art waiting in our old photos
These kinds of art videos are amazing!
Thanks Greg, it was nice to share my lesser seen creative side!
Nicely done ! I've never been afraid to crop an image in post. The idea of flipping is new to me and the bookmark framing was interesting. Cheers !
Thanks George!
Thanks Matt , I think beginners can take a lot away from that . I know I was thinking yep makes sense I should try that . Cheers
Thanks! Just my 2p worth.
I take FullFrame/NoCrop simply as a Rule of the Game. If I need to crop to get a worthwhile image, I have failed. With very few exceptions I discard such photos and take note of where I went wrong. I like to think -- I hope -- that decades of following the Rule had a good effect on my in-camera composition and seeing things in general. To follow the Rule, is easy with SLR cameras -- with RFs much less so. (I found the Leica VIOOH-viewfinder a great aid, though less so for close-ups.) Perhaps it's self-stifling and silly to follow the Rule religiously. But, at the least, make sure that cropping still goes with feelings of guilt, shame and, yes, embarassment! 😉
Yes that’s how I’ve always shot. Get it right in camera! ..until I accidentally discovered these tighter crops when printing
Matt
It is where you place the model’s eye
Do not forget models have other
Body parts
Thanks I was just using this photo as an example. Yes I tend to auto-compose based on the eye placement without thinking with my regular cameras
I always had two rectangular L-shaped pieces of black cardboard in my darkroom. The legs were about 10 cm wide and 30 cm long. You can use them to look for interesting image sections that might look better than the original photo. All you have to do is move the two Ls towards each other and you can create any size and aspect ratio you like. This works at least on contact sheets of 6x7 negatives or later on the first test print.
Thanks and nice idea! Thanks for sharing
Hi Matt!
No such thing as “wasted space” …….just more room to be creative!
NEVER CROP IN CAMERA! You won’t get it back!👍
Who needs to get it back if you did the right thing for the time, light, subject and your goal? If you cannot do it the first time, do it again (in the end you will gain time, intuition and authenticity). ;o)
@@BrunoChalifourWow says the Einstein of Photography!!
Mr Perfect has spoken!!!! W⚓️!!!😂😂😂
It has nothing to do with even aiming for perfection. This is a rather non productive remark showing either a certain penchant for provocation or a lack of experience and practice (which bring distance and perspective). Everyone of us just do and enjoy the photography we deserve. Having expectations about one’s work prevents one from stagnating and helps one grow. What else can I say ?!?
PS I’ll spare you the stupid emojis.
@@BrunoChalifour Don’t spare me anything you pompous tosser!
How long have you been a professional photographer???
I’ve done 40 years!!!!
W⚓️🤪!!
@@BrunoChalifour Aren’t you embarrassed by your humongous pomposity???
Pray tell me how long you have earned a living out of your photography??
Mine is 45 years and counting!!!
You could certainly earn a living out of big-headedness!😂😂😂😂😂W⚓️!
"Fixing in the post" :)
Use cropping to learn for the future. Nothing wrong with slight cropping, adjusting to different formats etc... But let's try not overthinking it ;)
Endless cropping is like not knowing when to stop with editing in photoshop.
Yes 100% I normally crop in camera do give it no thought but it was fun playing around with these darkroom print crops
For publication you need the negative/blank space for them to print any text on.
Thanks yes!
Thanks Matt.Your photos are strong so they dont need much crop.
Thanks! Great models help me a lot. I'm always searching!
Fantastic. I learnt a lot
Thanks!
Shooting film I’m much more focused on the in camera crop but I see little advantage to fixating on this shooting digital. I’m more likely to miss a good crop by restricting the frame by the camera.
Thanks Gary, I guess that’s why some shoot landscape orientation for portrait shots (with either medium)
As someone who got into photography 60 years ago enlarging and printing, doing E-6 and C-41 etc., to pay my way through Uni, I find the notion that you "crop in camera" more than a little silly. The only ones back then who where anywhere close to that were news and sports photographers and I can tell you that the tech printing the images had as much compositional involvement in the process. I was doing a lot of scientific printing and the only work that wasn't cropped/refined were the initial 5x7 catalog prints and contact sheets of every roll. Within the limits of needed resolution, there is no inherent plus to taking the time to "crop in camera" and you don't know that until you know from the print shop the rasterization frequency required for the process by which the print is being made.
Thanks James! As you see, me diving into printing around 15yrs+ after starting out now I'm learning what you already knew. Digital is easy but I think many new-wave (digital era) photographers could learn so much from using old full manual film cameras (+darkroom). I'm loving the learning process.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Be careful. By 1975 I had developed (no pun intended) a contact allergy rash to fix. Marriage, ...kids, ....life set my photography aside for 35 years until my wife died a few years ago. I'm now indulging in my appreciation of vintage Nikkor glass. She would have never let me spend so much on so little, and I still feel a bit guilty for it.
"framing in camera" (cropping happens after the fact as the two notions (frame and crop) and practices are quite different to the point of sometimes dividing the photo community). If we are here to share our personal experience, I have probably got the same experience as you have (to which I would add Cibachrome and platinum/palladium) and I do not find precise framing with camera to be a silly piece of advice. On the contrary it is a discipline which teaches one to be more demanding with oneself, more aware, in other word to master one's tool and to develop one's vision in the field instead of on a monitor or in the darkroom. By the way if anyone was submitted to intempestive cropping that was definitely press and advertising photographers that were employees, and paid to provide raw material for photo editors and lay-out employees. Others (authors, independent photographers especially united in strong agencies (such as Magnum) would negotiate the respect of their framing and even specify "do not crop" at the back of their prints). Among other things, I work for the press and still do from time to time. It took me a few years to get there but in the end I got enough respect from the editors for them not to crop my photographs unless I gave them a green light. My personal work (exhibitions, books) has not been cropped for the past 50 years. Either I get it at the time of photographing or I do not. It is just a personal discipline and philosophy, too long to explain here but everyone and anyone can photograph the way they want, and crop or not. There is nothing silly in either: they are just choices that, most of the time, are totally legitimate and reflect the ones that make them.
@@BrunoChalifour My main career ended up being data cop for a fairly large printer/prepress operation mostly for print ads and mid to high magazine work and I venture less than 10% of the work involved non-art directed work in which the photographer any input at all, both iin digital form and in analog (silver based) composite work for both ads and copy. Everything was cropped in some way as a pragmatic/logistic reality. If it wasn't it was usually rescanned and blown up or modified on the Scitex to provide that capability.
If my "really good images" ever get to the level of your "bad ones" I'll call myself "Mr. ...", too. Your images are amazing. While I understand your take about leading line from the right hand bottom corner, I think it's a matter of numbers. If you start shooting every model looking to the right side from now on you will eventually get bored. I think the square image is the strongest of the three, but not because of direction but because of the crop. Cropping out so much of the model (head, hair, arm) makes it very "fashion magazine style", and renders a pretty dramatic scene, no matter the model's direction, while the 6x7 and the other (2x3 ?) are nice, beautiful, but also "cute", therefore less dramatic. Just my two cents... I do love all of those images.
Thanks Ron haha, I'm just an average guy, the Mr bit is purely for the website (named in 2013 and it stuck). Yes don't worry I just shoot what I see, I don't think "rules" when I take images, I let my eyes tell me how to shoot and crop. That said yes I loved the tighter crops like the one you mentioned too. It has that wow factor. Lots to learn but loving the journey!
Great advice as always Matt.
Thanks Shane!
Second crop looks perfect! Great idea on those envelopes btw. Also, I guess this is a good reason to shoot larger format film :)
Thanks Thomas, haha and yes 100% re. 120 film vs 35mm for me
A few remarks:
1-For me your original image (its composition) is far more interesting (and sophisticated) as an image/photograph than its cropped/simplified version because it plays more with space and environment (shadows, light) and not just centering on the subject and eliminating everything else (that is why composition in most macro photography's quite easy if not basic, because thanks to shallow depth of field it eliminates everything but the subject). "Flipping an image makes for a stronger composition"... ?!? where in the world did you hear that? In fact, the right way of phrasing this is: if one's want to check the strength of one's composition, turning it sideways or upside down will help as it detaches the eye/mind/ and heart of the photographer from the subject and help her/him concentrate on the composition only.
2-image-reading literacy is a technique and a set of skils that, like most techniques and skills cannot be improvised. It takes time, knowledge and practice/experience: saying that we read from left to right and top to bottom in our cultures(yours and mine) is a well-known fact practiced by all. Stil, it cannot be applied blindly as a ruling principle to anything and everything when it comes to images. If that were the case then the eyes of your model should be at the bottom right corner of your photograph and not the top left one (because that is where you want the viewer's eye to end). There is a crucial factor that is being ignored here: light. Our eyes instinctively go where legible information is and vision/reading requires light (that is why I think it is far more important to have information in the highlights (thence expose for the highlights) because the viewer's eye will go there first than in the shadows (we know we cannot see much in the dark). Another issue: "the model [or subject] filling the frame" is far from accounting for a lot of successful if not extraordinary or poetic or meaningful images. A lot of famous photographs do not fit this bill (even in portrait photography-elsewhere look at most Magnum photography for examples-for instance, the famous "Derrière la Gare St Lazare" (1932) by Cartier-Bresson].
3-a tip: a useful tool for practising cropping after the fact on prints (I think we should agree that calling in camera "cropping" (the way you use it), "framing" would be less confusing) consists in cutting out 2 large "L"-shaped pieces of card-board (a tool widely used in photo schools and photo-department of art schools in analog years. It still useful with digital prints).
4-there is a technical/practical dimension and a philosophical one to making sure the framing is right, done with the camera, and does not necessitate after-the-fact cropping (of course there are practical exceptions like war-photography, paparazzo photography when reflex photography is of the essence... but there are also exceptions to these exceptions ;o). First, technically you teach yourself to better see, to be more precise with your tools (camera and mind) which gives you more time to craft your image or teaches you to anticipate on its appearance (subject and surrounding) and making sure they work together. It is a self-imposed discipline that will pull you up to be a better photographer, develop your intuition, and in there end spare you the activity (and hesitations as shown in this video) and the time of the "cropper". Another argument for "framing" and not "cropping after the fact": if you want your photograph to convey the mood of the moment (as you felt it then), the expression of your own sensitivity there and then, you should avoid to crop hours, days months or even years after you took the photograph. The reason: the cropped image becomes an artificial artefact (whose composition depends on the mood of the moment, not the original one anymore (unless decided at the moment of taking the photographs because for instance, you felt a square format would work better but your camera only gives you a rectangular one. But there the decision of the format/crop is decided at the moment of photographing and disconnected from the "then and there" (the where and when it was taken) and yourself at the time. The after-the-fact cropped photograph is something else, an image, no doubt, but not a photograph anymore, as it does not depend anymore on timing and light. Through cropping, the original photograph has just become raw material for the cropper. Again, these are just matters of personal discipline and philosophy (on the photographer's part), more difficult (but not impossible) to grasp from a viewer's point of you. The question being are we expert photographers or expert croppers: neither being bad, just quite different vantage points.
Thanks Bruno! Sorry I didn’t say flipping images makes them
Better I said in this example I prefer it. It’s all personal choice. I only go with what my eyes tell me looks good, not rules or others. I agree on the brightness. That’s a given. I agree to crop in camera as I usually do but I do enjoy printing even closer. It’s more rewarding to get it right in camera hence as you say people that get nice crop from a wide scene say for street photos or weddings is a different skill to catching the crop at the time.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Yes Matt. But do not forget your eyes and brain have been trained, whether you are aware of it or not in your choices, by decades of images from painting to cinema, photography, advertising...
Interesting video as usual. The fact of changing the direction of the picture by reversing the negative is awesome and as you I prefer the picture on the right. About cropping, I am not a big fan of your last very narrow and long frames and the cropping must not means avoiding any composition but true that this gives a particular impact of the eyes. Last point your main model is lovely/awesome/superb/sexy/beautiful… how much for her phone number ?:)
Thanks Phil, some like the flip others not, it's interesting!
I prefer left but in the square crop it's better flipped
Thanks! Yes that square one seems to pop the most.
This is an issue that depends very much on personal taste and style. I think many of the images shown were already very close before the crop. Negative space can also be an elementary element of a composition, and there is no need to always fill the frame. I like showing models in an environment, but I'm not strong in close-up portraits. As I said, it's all about taste and style. But I have one advice. If you rotate an image, it can also look unnatural very easily because the pose no longer fits the photo's orientation, and when it looks a bit weird. Just my 50 Cent.
Thanks! Yes we all have our own styles (which is important I think) but nice point about making sure it still looks natural.
Interesting review of cropping.
Certainly some of the photographs displayed benefited from a more closer viewpoint.
I do think though a good photographer can make the right decision/ the right crop so to speak in his camera lens first time round.
Excellent demonstration featuring the printed photos and the cut out window envelopes.
Made it crystal clear and obvious.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Thanks and I'm glad my little envelope idea came across!
Why do some crops and compositions look better than others? It must have to do with how we look at women.
What is the most important feature of a woman? Do your choices emphasize it?
PS. I really appreciate the different aspects of photography Matt is talking about.
I bought his Leica presets.
Thanks Martti! Yes it's interesting isn't it. Always learning!
Cheers Matt, it’s Sean in Atlanta. This was a brilliant video! When you pointed out that model’s arm using the 50 mm lens being so prominent, I simply didn’t see it. Just a really great video!
Sean
Thanks Sean, no problem and interesting! To me the arm was flash neon red it was that bad to my eyes. It’s funny how I see stuff
I am not convinced that the top left to bottom right is valid for images. We use this notion for scanning the content of a website and not for observing a single image. And yes, in some languages it has to be from the top right.
Actually, the golden ratio grid is what makes a picture look nice. In your case, placing the model in a diagonal is the preferred choice.
Thanks! Yes it's only what I remember reading once, I tend to do whatever looks best to my eyes.
So many people say ‘I only crop in camera’ as if it’s a badge of honour. No, all it’s saying is ‘all my photographs are determined by the camera I’m using’. 6x6 is a format where a picture editor could do a vertical or horizontal crop according to the magazine space and an intelligent use of the image, so why can’t the photographer see this same relationship between impact and format? For sure a documentary photograph needs to be seen as much as possible as ‘authentic’, but anything else is open to the photographers version of what they saw and not the cameras imposed version of what they saw.
Thanks, yes I'm 100% guilty of this as I like to keep the original borders for say the Hassy shots but now I might have to experiment a bit more in post. It was a fun yet accidental experiment. Always learning!
Framing efficiently in camera is not a badge of honour just a sign of experience and expertise that a lot of novices tend to poo-poo. It is not a rule, just self-imposed discipline (which also allows the photographer not to waste time in post production/cropping). In other words it is also an efficient way of working. 6x6 format photographs were cropped in the press by editors. A lot of photographers who controlled (or still control) their productions shot/ shoot 6x6 square to print 6x6 square because of what the square format brings to their photographs. Arthur Tress, Doisneau, Robert Adams, Joe Deal...
Like you Matt, I like to get the crop I want in camera. I do try to err on the side of larger.... kind of like a haircut, cant' readily add it back but can take more off.
Thanks Will, haha and nicely said!
I like the original crop more than the flipped version.
Thanks Robert, someone else said the same! It’s funny how we see things differently. I will do a poll on my IG story!
In the beginning, when I only photographed on 35mm film, I always printed the photos slightly smaller than the paper format with a narrow white border. The mask of the negative holder of my Leitz enlarger was slightly larger than the actual negative, so that each print also had a fine black line around the image. Now everyone could see this is really the original image section!!! I was very proud of it. The truth is, nobody cared except me, but it was certainly a good exercise. - The picture has to impress the viewer and not bore them, that's the most important thing. To crop or not to crop is not the question, it´s only a useless dogma.
Thanks! Yes I've always tried to get it right in camera and like you, I like the original border.. BUT for MF & LF now at least I might start cropping a bit more!
"nobody cared except me" That is were you are self-incriminating with no reason... a lot of us did it (I filed my negative carrier down to be able to reach the same result and HCB was my hero). As you said it is good exercise, discipline that forces one to be more aware, rigorous in the field. It helped developed my vision and anticipate on the frame while photographing. Dogmas are always useless, principles or self-disciplines can be good and help you grow and develop an identity. But in the end, as you rightfully wrote, only the result matters.
I agree with you completely
Thanks Peter!
Looking forward to the Silver Efex video
Sadly I only use LR & PS for digital
I'm not a photographer. But to me, the most "special" part of that photo is her hair. So, I feel like the original photo might be cropped a bit to tight on the left :)
Thanks! It great how we all see the same photo differently
good primer on composition
Thanks Cam! Just my 2p worth
great video as always. I have been meaning to ask this a long time now, can you make video or explain in writing how any of this works: are the models in these shots actually paying you or are they paid models for a job or do you pay them? I find it so difficult to believe that girls who look like that would actually pay someone to take their pictures and even more difficult to believe that they would ask or search for a photographer who shoots film. I just want to understand the reality of those things, I have no problem with any answer you would give, I just really like to know as by my experience all the models have a thousand photographers chase them and no matter how good you are, they would never pay for a shoot out of pocket as they have so much options. Do these girls actually hire you or is it just model mayhem and you pay them and then sell prints etc? Thanks...
Thanks. I have done a video and a free ebook on this. Get it on the link below. These are collab shoots, TFP or free. No money. We pay models when I run workshops but every other model I’ve ever shot was free.
I wonder if it is different for people who read in Arabic or Japanese for imstance, where it is read from right to left? Most pronbably.
Yes as I understand
The original is far better than the flipped version.. I think 😅
This is the beauty of art, there is no right or wrong and we all see things differently. Thanks though, interesting! (In theory those in the East should prefer the original, the west the flip but we'll see!)
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Not quite so... even if all tastes are in nature, work allows us to refine our craft and aesthetics. I am not so sure about the East/West theory though (do we have to stand on our heads or use a mirror to appreciate Japanese prints? Our reading might be different though). But here what matters is your vision, you are the author and as such should take responsibility in which version you choose to show us (outside this didactic video of course). Whether you crop or do not just tells us something about how you work.. and anyone can draw their own conclusions according to their value system. ;o)
Your print cropping is a kind of post composing in the dark room.
The composing of the image should be done in the studio.
The focus of your portrait kens is much too short.
When shooting with a 4x5 camera, you will need a 360 mm lens to make a decent portrait. Do not use the Schneider Symmar
or the Rodenstock Sironar or the Voigtländer Heliar. You better get the SchneiderTele-Xenar or the Zeiss Tele-Tessar.
For more info on wide, normal, long, tele, portrait and soft 4x5 lenses , just send me an email.
Thanks Jaco, I’ve got the 210 Xenar and others
For the first picture, the flip gives nothing more and the crop cut off the interesting light you get in her hairs.
Thanks, yes people are split on this from the comments!
Cropping is fine, flipping and changing the nature of the scene not......at least for me
Thanks! Yes I don't think I've ever flipped a digital photo but scanning film/ printing, it can be easy to get them flipped by mistake. (and then you see how they look and can't unseen it haha)
Agreed. Flipped is better.
Thanks! Seemed about 50:50 preference
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom interesting.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom interesting!
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Somehow reminds me of the 1989 black and white with the supermodels: Stephanie, Cindy, Christy, Tatjana and Naomi.
@@Democratiser I’ll happily take that thanks!
I don't go around croping images in post to see which one looks better. It goes against what I believe of what a photographer should be capable of doing. I do however crop a little bit to tidy the image up, and I really like the 16X9 aspect ratio. I find the 3X2 or the 135 aspect ratio the most difficult of all to deal with as far as portaraiture and model shots were concerned.
Thanks and likewise. It was only when doing the darkroom test strips that I saw the impact of cropping + the tight and unusual crops.
Photographing is cropping a slice of space and time from reality. Not having to crop in post is a privilege we rarely encounter. Deliberately never cropping in post means missing out on many chances to enhance one's pictures. But I don't by into the left-right flipping ideology as presented. Look how many famous painted portraits are facing their shoulders to the left of the picture even if their face is oriented to the viewer or over left shoulder i.e. to the right border of the frame. Look at the Mona Lisa: If it was good enough for Leonardo, a model oriented to the left of the border should be good enough for you. It's at leas not a rule carved in stone that westerners mentally expect it the other way around.
Thanks and nice quote. It doesn't matter the direction of the body or face (sorry I wasn't saying that), just for this one image the pose seemed to work better to me flipped. (If you see the 4x5 neg the girl is the other way and it still works great)
If one's photograph is good in camera how can it be enhanced in post while cropping (without betraying the original decision, mood, motivation, intuition)? Some of us are photographers, others are graphic designer and prefer post production. To each his/her practice. It is just two slightly different world and branches of image-making.
@@BrunoChalifourThe purist standpoint to leave out the any editing completely ignores the artifical editing designed into devices, optics, chemistry and presentation-means. Photography always includes editing on several levels, you only decide to either make your own decisions or to rely on choices others have already taken for you. Also, the human beeing is never a godlike genius, who doesnt make mistakes and he relies on mood and feeling in his decisions. In this world intuition and idea may turn out as cheesy crap the next day and you often will happily correct your decisions if you can, unless some purist dogma is in your way. Your idea may persist in the process even if your decisions at the moment of exposure may turn out less than ideal later.
@@kalenderquantentunnel9411 Why would I deny the fact that photography used many different routes? As a photo historian that would be pretty hypocritical if not stupid. So why don't you stick to the point of the video: cropping or not cropping, it will make the conversation easier and more to the point.
Now looking at your comment:
How can a BW photograph be realistic, it is BW and two-dimensional and reality is in color and has3-D and a totally different relationship with time. What you are saying about the f 64 group is somewhat misleading. In fact historically what they tried to do was going back to the roots of photography, what differentiate the medium from painting and too heavy interventions/manipulations of the print. This latter way was something they thought was going against the essence of photography as well as emulating painting beyond what made sense for the medium of photography. It was a proposition not a diktat.
Point #2: the conversation in this video is about cropping or not cropping (and not " the artifical [sic] editing designed into devices, optics, chemistry and presentation-means")., in other words human interventions, please do not stray the conversation with the tools themselves, that was not the point.
Let us keep it simple: framing (in camera) is obviously a way of editing, choosing. All is about editing/choosing. The differences have to do with where and when one edits. For some framing (editing with the angle of view given by camera format and lens) is central to their practices, for some it is just a starting point and most of the work is done in darkroom (Jerry Uelsmann, Pictorialists)/in computer. These are two fundamentally different processes.
Historically, the f. 64 happened (1932) at a time when most negatives (of the group) if not the very vast majority of them were printed by contact from large format negatives... so very little cropping, if any, happening in E. Weston's prints, Brett's or even A. Adams at the time. And I am not even mentioning the originator of the "purist" movement (aka straight photography), Paul Strand.
Finally when you are writing: " It also views the human beeing [sic] as a godlike genius, which doesnt [sic] make mistakes and relies on mood and feeling in his decisions. In this world intuition and idea may turn out as cheesy crap the next day and you often will happily correct your decisions if you can, unless some purist dogma is in your way."
I do not know whether you have ever met anyone that thinks that " the human [laborious I guess ;o)] beeing as a godlike genius, which doesnt make mistakes." I have never met such persons and obviously according to your preceding sentence, neither have you. So let us remain real!
As for "relying on mood and feeling" (that can be sources of errors we have probably all experienced), we all do at some point or another. So your thinking here is quite paradoxical if not contradictory, in any case difficult to adhere to. " In this world intuition and idea may turn out as cheesy crap the next day"... if you say so. Not my experience either, and definitely not a starting argument for this video.
As for dogma. People who follow dogma must have a good reason for it, my tendency is to always question them, see what I can learn from them, reject what is useless for me. So the dogma world is definitely not mine, whether purist or not. By the way the "purist/straight-photography" way is just a way of working according to what photography as a medium does best, nothing more and nothing less. If some make it a dogma, good for them but they have never stopped me from appreciating and having very interesting conversations with Jerry Uelsmann (whose work had also it roots in straight photography, knew AA very well, taught at his workshops although his own photography had taken a different turn, spending more time in the darkroom than behind the camera). So no dogma here, even coming from its high priest, Ansel Adams himself ;o) Once again, let us stay real.
@@BrunoChalifour Sorry for my late edit as I also realized it my comment wandered too far of the main path of cropping. I rest my case to not making this conversation even more longwinded than it already is.
At 2:18 I am not with you. In my opinion it’s a to tight crop. Maybe some in between would be my personal crop. I like when the picture can breeze. The eye anyway goes to her because pose and look is beautiful. And flipping the picture feels less strong and appealing to me. Sometimes maybe we overthink a picture. Anyway I would have all shown photographed with more room. There is more freedom in cropping later on.
Thanks Bruno, yes I was just using this photo as an example. Normally I shoot and crop / compose on auto pilot.
So do Israelis and Arabs read photos in the opposite direction then? 😀
Great question! I have no idea. Maybe someone will comment
Matt: I am moving from SONY to Leica ; the M3 and MA were the first cameras and I love my M3 .. the best , like you I have for several years now , experimented with LF mainly 4x5 right now. I love my MF film work with the Tessar and Distagon lenses in my Rollies , superb classic glass and camera , however ... I made a little departure again replacing my SONY system ... I have purchased my first L Mount camera. LEICA SL-3 . I am going to adapt my Leica M Mount lenses to her , and the M42 ( Vietnam War Era ) TAKUMAR and my other rare M42 and L39 lenses. Why did I go back to digital ? Transporting file for customers in a future business. Film is my love , but digital will be the fast -dirty ... method for most of my paying work.
If anyone wants a Rollei portrait of LF .. that will certainly cost more , and as a separate " niche " service.
Nice Chris, congrats!