Fred A Levy Haskell (fredcritter) wrote,
Fred A Levy Haskell

  • Mood:

To Crop or Not To Crop . . .

Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4.

I must say that not unlike gomeza and one_undone, I was bothered by the grey blurry thing at the left of the photo shown in Exhibit 3 (and shown before in Another photothought from da fredcritter which is where those two good folks commented on it). In the good old days (that is to say, three or four months ago) I probably would have skipped that image and looked for a better one; or at least one that didn’t have The Mystery Thing in it. There are, in fact, other frames on that roll that do contain pretty much the same scene without it. But, well, as I’ve been mentioning a lot in my recent posts, I am at a point where I’m willing to throw at least some of my usual caution to the wind and try some new things. Is that grey blur an Intrusive Awfulness or a Fascinating Mystery? I'm pretty sure it’s the former, but I didn’t feel I could be really sure of that until I’d “hung” the photo—put it up for display—and thought about it for a while. So that is what I did.

Now, rather than suggesting I simply ditch that image and look for another, both gomeza and one_undone suggested that perhaps cropping would be an answer—probably because neither of them know the extent to which I overshoot and only had that image of that scene to go on. It made perfect sense that they each thought cropping might improve it. And to tell you the truth, I think they were right. (See Exhibit 4, which was cropped preserving the original aspect ratio, thus eliminating not only the Grey Thing but also a bunch of the useless water. Another bonus is that the shoreline then settled nicely near a third, which as you all know is where you want to put items of interest in a composition.)

And it was not as if the notion was without precedent. After all, as you can see above, the version of one of my images of Sara I chose to display (back in Another in the Sara series and shown again in Exhibit 2) was a cropped version of the photo shown in Exhibit 1. And, I must say, much improved for it. Instead of adding interest and movement to the photo, all that extra stuff to the left cluttered things up; cropping it out made the whole composition better and provided better “eye routes” for the viewer.

And yet the whole topic of cropping can get rather complex, especially in this boy’s head. You see, most of my photo habits and thought patterns have been formed over many years, and lots of them date back to years and years ago. You know, back when we all had to use film in our cameras. My attitude toward cropping is one of those habits/thought patterns. You see, when it comes right down to it, I really didn’t like spending a lot of time in the darkroom [and, yes, I’ve spent a lot of time in the darkroom over the years. My photojournalism degree, after all, was granted in 1971, back before digital photography was even a glimmer in some techie’s eye. Also, in addition to the darkroom work I did for all my journalism and art department photo classes, I spent about 4–6 months as the darkroom tech for the Minnesota Daily (the UofM school paper). And for the next bunch of years, when I was living in the bozo bus building (and at least for some part of that travelling in furniture so I wasn’t home much), the room that had been a kitchen was a darkroom (at least at night—I couldn’t get it dark enough during the day) and was only occasionally used as a kitchen.]

Anyway, one of the things … see, I could easily have spent hours and hours and hours in the darkroom getting the perfect crop on just one image, what with moving the enlarger head and changing the blades on the paper holder and redetermining the correct exposure … And when you come right down to it, 35mm photography is essentially a “speed & volume” medium (especially in my hands)—I tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Erm, I mean, I overshoot like crazy and then try to edit down to only the good ones.

So those two facts combined way back when and I started thinking, “Why am I spending so darned much time cropping? Why am I trying to ‘salvage’ this image? There’s probably a better one on this roll or another of the rolls I shot at the same time. Let’s skip it.” I also starting thinking about how … hm … even the very notion of cropping affected my work; that if I went around shooting with the thought, “Oh well. If there’s some intrusive element I can always crop it out later,” it was bound to give rise to sloppy work. (As I say, for me. Not necessarily true for everyone.) I rather like the aspect ratio of the 35mm film frame and think it has a certain inherent dynamic to it (even though I’m given to understand that it’s not a golden rectangle), and I figured that if I were to develop the “discipline” of shooting full-frame, trying to compose each shot using the whole of the frame, it would serve me well. A small bonus was that I could file out the edges of the film carrier and expose a small black border around the photo, which kind of creates an “instant matt” or “instant frame” or somesuch when printed at less than the full size of the photo paper. What eventually worked best for me was printing on 8 x 10 paper with an image size of about … hmmm … I just measured two of the prints that are currently hanging on our wall: one was printed 4 x 6 and the other 4.5 x 7; I think the larger one was the exception and my final standard was indeed 4 x 6. Also, I could play with how that black border interacted with the image: sometimes it was “the edge of the window through which you’re looking at this scene,” other times it was “the end of the world—there is nothing beyond it.” The final piece of internal logic driving this decision was the fact that if there was a photo that really, really needed it and was really great and there was no other like it but it had to be cropped to work, I could in fact crop it if I wanted to. It’s not as if working hard to shoot only full-frame images precluded my ever cropping one of them.

[Oddly enough, I’ve probably cropped more of my slides (which were used in what was then called “Da Fred Haskell Song and Slide Show” lo these many years ago) than my prints. I suspect that’s about the reverse of what most people do.]

I'll probably have more to say about cropping in the future, but I believe I’ve gone on at far too great a length already…

Oh. But wait. One more thing to mention, in case you're curious. The other experiment I did with this image was to make a new layer by copying the original image, apply a crystallize filter to that layer, use a gradient to fade out to the middle and delete the top half or so of it, and use it at a reduced opacity to overlay the original image. That added what I think was a somewhat subtle blur to the bottom half (the people and the water) which I thought made an interesting contrast with the sharpness of the textures of the trees (which I enhanced a bit with the Unsharp Mask filter). The thumbs for the images without the crystallized layer are below (Exhibits 5 and 6) and clicking on each will take you to the large versions if you care to see the difference.

Exhibit 5. Exhibit 6.

Tags: experimental series, friends, itasca state park, photo by da fredcritter, photothoughts, sara

  • Changes, changes, changes

    As a result of an unfortunate confluence of circumstances, Merrill Corporation and I parted company at the beginning of this month. The separation…

  • Kvell!

    See Geri Sullivan's lj post about my awesome daughter. Please. Thank you.

  • How cool is that?

    I believe this is the first of my photos to be displayed on iTunes. Oh … okay … okay … I know. It is not being displayed…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded