This may seem like nitpicking, but I assure it isn’t. There is a fundamental difference between trimming and cropping; I had a lengthy email discussion with a reader recently on exactly why it makes a difference – both compositionally and conceptually. There’s a third ground too, which is very much intention-driven – and unlike situations that require attorneys, photographic/creative intention is much easier to prove.
The three images here are original (full capture), trim and crop respectively. I think it’s clear to see that the third situation completely changes the composition, look and feel of the image. A trim is simple: it does not fundamentally change the perspective or impression created by the original composition, and there is no fundamental difference in composition or message compared to the whole capture. There are often many good reasons a trim may be required: most usually due to inattention of the photographer and having some unintended elements intruding into the edges of a composition, but also possibly due to technical reasons: not every camera has precise frame lines or 100% coverage finders. Even cameras which supposedly have 100% coverage are never perfect to the nearest pixel, and may well have offset or skewed masks (sadly seen too often, even in supposedly ‘pro grade’ models). That said, even large format is quite imprecise: the groundless doesn’t show exact edges; medium format is no better, and Leicas can be as bad as 80% coverage only – I used to use the outside of the frame lines as I found that to be a better guide.
Bottom line: losing a few pixels here and there is somewhat inevitable.
I’ve explained why cropping is bad in the past: fundamentally, it’s to do with compositional intent. By cropping I mean experimenting with cutting out parts of the frame after capture; in effect you are looking for a workable composition after you should have already composed. This inevitably results in a weak image because you would not have considered other outside elements of the frame that might have helped add context or strengthen the idea. Additionally, even if you find something of interest in the frame after the fact, you might not have been fully aware of it at the time of capture – meaning that spatial arrangement and composition for that small portion of the frame will not be optimal anyway.
I think there’s a further element of composition here: constantly cropping means being unable to previsualize and be familiar with the angle of view and foreground-background relationship rendering of a particular focal length, and this may result in fumbling and missed opportunities at the time of capture. Clearly, these are not the makings of a strong image.
There are reasons to consider cropping, however: this boils down fundamentally to pre-capture intent. If you visualise a composition in an aspect ratio not native to your camera – square, 16:9 etc – then you have no choice but to crop in post, though maintaining one of the original dimensions of the file. However, the big difference is that you are composing with the intention of doing so beforehand: you are not looking for the composition afterwards. The second reason is more prosaic: you may visualise a composition that simply requires a much more compressed perspective or a longer focal length than you have available. Once again, the intent is there before capture, and so the composition is balanced accordingly. The final reason to crop is more of a virtual exercise: a good frame should really be recursive in that each portion of the image holds some areas of interest. This way, more considered contemplation of an image yields further rewards for the audience in the form of additional layers of context or meaning. The ‘crop’ in this case i a compositional tool: dividing up the image into different sections as you’re composing helps to ensure there are no empty or dead spaces.
The last pair of images is a far more dramatic example of why you shouldn’t crop, and the beginnings of a greater philosophical discussion around the verisimilitude and ‘accuracy’ of photography: losing something may change the implied message substantially. The initial three images did not really change in meaning with the crop, but certainly you no longer got the impression of quite so much nature surrounding the building. This image is completely different: it moves from I think quite sinister to something a bit more ambiguous; a solo protagonist to some perhaps implied danger or predatory relationship. Clearly, these are not the same image at all – even though I simply went up a focal length step between the two.
I think this is where things become grey. We except a photograph to be a true and mostly indisputable representation of events especially when presented from a photojournalistic standpoint; elements/ subjects/ individuals can be clearly identified. What is ambiguous is the relationship between them – implied or actual. We, as the audience, cannot see what we are not shown. The photographer has already invoked their bias in the very act of composition, which is in itself cropping; a photograph cannot include everything remotely relevant by proximity. Even if it did, then it would be impossible for us to disentangle any meaning from it because there would be simply too much information.
Naturally, this raises the question of ‘what is the difference between cropping before and after the fact?’ I am not sure I have a good answer to this. I can only suggest that the intended message of the photographer can and would change substantially, and this might land up having potentially serious consequences. Think carefully before you crop…MT
__________________
The Singapore Architectural Masterclass from 1-7 July 2016 is now open for booking. Click here for more details and to book.
__________________
Visit the Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including workshop and Photoshop Workflow videos and the customized Email School of Photography; or go mobile with the Photography Compendium for iPad. You can also get your gear from B&H and Amazon. Prices are the same as normal, however a small portion of your purchase value is referred back to me. Thanks!
Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!
Images and content copyright Ming Thein | mingthein.com 2012 onwards. All rights reserved
Ming Thein | Photographer 
Hi Ming,
I agree with you and I don’t agree, ok I don’t think it is that simple. Pre-visualization is necessary to achieve an excellent picture, that is you should know what you want the photograph to convey and to be before you click the shutter. As you mention trimming to achieve that end is appropriate as you suggest. But,
I don’t agree, because, well because, I see the photo as an entity in it self that can be represented and abstracted via cropping. Think for example, shooting a photograph with a 4×5 with a 90mm lens. Once this image is processed it becomes an object that I can then explore through cropping like using a 35mm camera with a 90mm lens on the original scene. That is I explore the 4×5 photograph as an object in it self.
the point here is that what we see is a representation of what is out there in the world and not actually what it out there. So the pre-visualization process that we use before we take a photo is like the pre-visualization process used when we decide to crop the photograph. In each case we are studying the perception we have of the object, be it in the world or on a piece of paper, and deciding what to leave in and what to cut out.
Clearly, cropping the photo afterwards is much more limiting as you cannot change the point of view, the focal length or the lens. But to me I think many worthwhile photos can come from the process. That said, In the hands of a hack, cropping will result in a less than satisfactory result. The question is, does the photograph justify the means?
Ming, Thank you for a rather thought provoking article.
Cheers,
alexis
Here’s the crux of your situation, as I see it: if you can make one, or several, strong 35mm-e images from the single 4×5″, why not make one much stronger and visually richer 4×5″ to begin with?
The catch in this discussion is also found in zooms vesus primes. If you have only one prime, editing is basically the tool you have, particularly if you have to shoot in say e journalistic setting. If you go to the streets with a 35mm og 50mm, that whats you have. The flexibility a 24-70 gives you are totally different. So I think it boils down to intention. Since I have a tendency to shoot most of my pictures wide, I also find great plassure in editing the work afterwords. Yes, I fancy to make great compositions at the first place, but I also think its fair to exercise creativity and recomposing pictures in the darkroom tool of your preference. From a purist point of view, it should be perfect at the beginning, but its fair to recompose the scene in the darkroom afterwords. The main thing to understand, at least if you want to become a better photographer, is to understand that recomposing an existing exposure using the crop tool is equal to make a new frame. It boils down to your “sanchin” in the moment of exposure.
Yes and no – I can’t really agree with that because I don’t do it in practice. I shoot most of the time with primes these days, but that doesn’t mean I crop a 50mm down to an 85, or a 100 down to a 130. It doesn’t work because you can’t easily visualise the end result, which result in messy edges and a compromised composition – which just falls out of curation.
Composing with the zoom doesn’t work for other reasons: perspective becomes secondary, and then your foreground-background relationships are all off, which in turn changes the structure and narrative flow of the image. I can accept that 57mm is the same as 60mm for all intents and purposes, and perhaps that’s the strength of the zoom – and convenience, of course. However, I also often find myself seeing a composition of one subject at say 24mm, and another one at 120mm – and being unable to decide between one and the other. At the same time, you don’t want to keep both because it’s like using twenty words for a name when one will do 🙂
I view the cropping debate a little differently, and while I sympathize with your arguments, and don’t claim to refute them, I think there are other considerations as well.
The first and obvious argument is one of time and opportunity. For a tripod mounted landscape photo, there is no question the composition should be conceived and finalized beforehand. However, for more spontaneous imagery such as street photography or photojournalism, it can be a case of working with what you have and not missing the shot rather than losing it and saying it wasn’t perfect.
The second is one of photographic education. I know from personal experience that my compositional ability has improved over time thanks to cropping. By that, I mean that I accept my image, even when i did have more time at hand, was not ideal, and playing around with the cropping options found a way to reach a better composition. The key here is that I then try to integrate what I learned from this process and identify what changes were made and how to use them in future images. My image might not be a master photo, but since I am not a master photographer either, the issue for me is to use the tools at hand to help me learn and raise my game.
I am not commenting on other means to progress of course, just the use cropping can have. This is not a blanket blessing of cropping in all images either. I expect to need less and less as I improve, and ultimately progress to trimming at worst, and nothing at all at best.
“I am not commenting on other means to progress of course, just the use cropping can have. This is not a blanket blessing of cropping in all images either. I expect to need less and less as I improve, and ultimately progress to trimming at worst, and nothing at all at best.”
I think that’s very fair – now if only it were more widely adopted 🙂
Thanks for the thought provoking article. I am all for capturing a photo as pre-visualised and keeping post-capture editing to a minimum. But then again, I don’t think we should be too upset or think any less of those we capture (and later modify) with a bit of serendipitous luck. End of the day if you’ve made a point of going out to photograph a particular image at any given location with a subject in mind you’ve already opened the possibility for that to happen. For me one of the most enjoyable parts of photography is going out with an idea of what I’d like to shoot but keeping an open mind and being surprised and delighted by what any given scene has to offer.
It’s back down to us keeping up our end of the game then – the considered, thinking photographer is going to get more out of the same scene than the post-capture hunter 🙂
The way you’ve posed the question, I have to agree wholeheartedly. That said, in photoshop the only command available is called, “crop,” not trim. So, it would seem at first glance it’s only a matter of degree. Until you elaborate, of course. Then “why it makes a difference – both compositionally and conceptually” is required. The use of “trim” just reminds you that it’s not the degree or extent that you crop, but rather what it does “compositionally and conceptually.” But those are clearly the judgement of the artist/photographer. The exceptions have already been mentioned, especially street photography or what I would call quick moving kid photography which you must be doing a lot of these days. The opposite would be when using a tripod: what’s the point of fixing the location and perspective if you don’t know what you’re doing, as in “composition” and “conception.” Unfortunately, like the rule of 2/3 in composition, sometimes the image works better if centered. With a tripod, you should see this already, but there’s too many instances when working without a tripod and with fast moving subjects that a subset–intended or otherwise–is captured that would make a brilliant image by itself. Hence, substantial trimming (cropping) is required. In particular, by intent, I am always looking for images of a scene that stands alone, but also can be cropped to create, say, a head shot, that captures a beautiful portrait of the subject. These please me so much more than purposeful or staged portraits because the expressions are spontaneous and unusual if not beautiful. The huge sensor sizes and resolutions make this more possible than ever, certainly more possible that in the film days. So, the circle goes back to the essence of what you’re saying, how and how much you trim has to be justified by the eventual composition and the concept that it conveys or captures. We all have undoubtedly overcropped and violated our own purposes, which means starting all over again with the image. Cartier-Bresson supposedly refused to have any of his negatives cropped after a very bad crop was made of one of his published photographs. But he never developed or printed his own negatives either. The ones we see speak for themselves; very few photographers have that many life-time images to their credit. But alas, his estate has thousands of his unprinted negatives, many of which may have only required some strategic trimming or cropping. What a loss for us if that’s true. But not for him, of course.
“The exceptions have already been mentioned, especially street photography or what I would call quick moving kid photography which you must be doing a lot of these days.”
I still don’t crop 🙂
There’s one more possibility we haven’t really talked about: the hatchet-man art director. We often get asked to do something much wider/ broader that they can hack down later for a headshot or closeup because they don’t want to pay for another proper setup or angle. 😦
In some ways, perhaps HCB is posthumously a victim of this. That said, some of the Magnum books and his own Scrapbook show clearly indicated crop marks on the negatives made by HCB himself…
Great post, thanks. I am firmly in the “previsualize” camp, and prefer to trim rather than crop. Reinforcing the case for cropping, though, I still get great joy in using my square format Mamiya 6. Occasionally the ultimate output is square, though mostly I’m making an aspect ratio and orientation decision while composing, which means cropping in “post”. I don’t feel that same freedom with other formats.
Also, I use a 40mm-equiv pancake on my Fuji when I want a small-light-unobtrusive configuration. I’ll crop when that FoV seems appropriate but the frame contains extraneous elements.
Thanks. Extraneous elements aren’t always distracting providing there’s appropriate counterbalance on the opposite side or diagonal…
Hello Ming, I absolutely agree with everything you say. The main thought, IMO, is the necessity to pre-visualize. I have two considerations in this context though.
I crop quite a lot when street shooting. That means walking in the streets, observing people’s behavior, and “snapping” significant, characteristic moments. Since the time between noticing and shooting is very short, most of the time there is simply no time to get the right focal length. So it’s important to see a “micro-frame” within the actual frame. The composition within this micro frame is done through timing (because the objects are permanently moving) and subtle (because fast) repositioning. In post the picture will be cropped to the micro frame. Pre-visualizing is indeed essential. Although honesty obliges me to say that “fast composing” is IMO largely a matter of feeling and anticipating, and finalizing the composition in post. Of course, far from every picture will be successful when shooting fast.
Second thought. One can make pictures in two ways: 1) thinking of an image and creating it (staging it, one could say), 2) noticing the image while observing scenes in real time. I’m referring to the actual shooting process here – one can also work with images afterwords (combining fragments, heavy processing etc.), but that’s another matter. The key idea here is: “observing, noticing and creating an image”. Now, what I wonder is, imagine that one would notice an image within the frame of an earlier shot picture, the creative process would remain the same: observing, noticing and creating. The way of creating would differ, but the essence of the process still stands. Would it be less valuable? I think not. Of course, there is is great part of luck in the process, to find a valuable image within a frame that was shot for other reasons. The percentage of such thing happening would be very low. But still, it’s absolutely possible and I would consider it unwise to reject that. But of course it’s absolutely clear that it’s not THE way to create one’s images. Pre-visualizing is, without any doubt. But I wouldn’t reject anything in a kind of fanatic way.
BTW, I love this kind of articles. It stimulates our thinking, and surely improves our skills, in the process! Thanks for that.
I think there’s a hybrid of 1) and 2), because this is the way I work: constant observation of both action and context (i.e. surroundings) and continually assessing what might be relevant or interesting or suitable for the action. Sometimes there’s great context but no action, and you wait; sometimes there’s action but no context and you either find a way to make the action interesting or move on. You have to be always ready, both executionally (i.e. camera on and exposure correct etc.) and observationally. Believe it or not, I don’t crop any of my reportage/street/documentary work other than to change aspect ratio, which I’ll have thought about before hitting the shutter.
Thinking about it, I agree with the hybrid, which occurs all the time when shooting in a vivid environment (the streets) and one needs to anticipate. But it doesn’ change my point about observing a picture and noticing something there, other than the original subject. But again, those cases are very exceptional, of course.
I absolutely believe your last statement, but your skills are at another level than mine. Still, there is a difference, I guess, as to how we evaluate a picture. I tend to give more “points” to the action. If the action is special, I believe the context becomes less or even unimportant. I guess the difference mainly lies in our focus (mindset) when shooting. And again our skills… 🙂
That wasn’t always the case, and who knows – for some things, may still be true. I have had more than my fair share of near misses and outright misses and ‘if onlys’ – I tend to throw them away rather than try to save them simply because if you already know the shot is compromised…then why bother? 🙂
While I understand the argument you are making, Ming, I think one can also make a case that cropping can help the beginner learn to compose, much as learning to write initially involves massive editing. You have often made the apt point that photogrpahy is the art of exclusion. Seen in this light, cropping is another form of exclusion that while no substitue for good intial composition, may help one develop a better eye in the field.
A valid point, Lucy. Though I’ll answer with the corollary: how do they know when to stop?
just as you knew when to stop? unless you are saying that you never ever have cropped, even in your formative years?
I did it very early on, but not for very long because I was never happy with the results. I found it was impossible to get the edges right – there would always be something included or excluded that you would want the opposite for instead. The resulting frame always felt compromised. You could take off more to try and solve it, but because the elements never lined up in a nice clean way to facilitate being orthogonally cropped afterwards, the edge problem never got solved. It’s very difficult to visualise where the ‘virtual edge’ might lie in the finder without having lines or a guide frame, and if you already have a guide frame to compose to – it’s not really cropping anymore, is it?
Cropping for instagram (I like to preserve the square), has made we want to shoot natively in a 1×1 aspect ratio. I wish someone would make a digital camera that would support this, or is there something available I’m not aware of?
Thanks so much for posting this, really enjoy reading the article and the comments.
Many digital cameras can be set to 1:1, and display that only in the EVF or LCD.
For me, the major takeaway is the reminder that it’s a change in behavior. If you don’t force yourself to visualize without crop, then you will always be cropping.
But I’ve also been doing much more wildlife photography lately. Sometimes the 400mm still just doesn’t “cut it” (pun intended) with those small hyperactive birds. 🙂
Bingo – I think you’ve got the idea.
Yes!
And good arguments around the choice of equipment, i.e. the choice of which limitations you prefer.
Many years I had only a zoom compact (always in a pocket) and enjoyed being able to choose my standpoint and then frame, but missed choice of DOF.
[ My XF1 broke and I temporized with a used EOS-M (It’s weakness is catching action) with Magic Lantern and a few used primes (plus a tele zoom and now a wide zoom) – and the nuisance of a bag to carry.]
So I am quite often back to finding a different view between my ideal standpoint and the camera distances and somewhat different shooting directions my primes ask for (or I’ll have to crop – or let’s call it digital zooming in post).
Which can be frustrating and sometimes is very rewarding and anyway makes good learning!
Sometimes we simply have no choice though – if I see a frame that would work with 500mm and I’m only carrying a 250, I’m not opposed to composing with the intention of discarding half – there’s just no choice. But I’m not hunting for that half afterwards…
That said, I think the game changes a bit with super high resolution sensors – say the forthcoming Hasselblad 100MP – if you know you don’t need more than say 25MP output, that means you could potentially save quite a bit of weight by carrying a 35-90 only and be willing to accept that 180mm-e is possible if you don’t mind 25MP (for example). The higher resolution goes, the more feasible this becomes – without limiting output. Doesn’t change the importance of previsualisation, though.
Exactly.
– – –
hm…
aah!
√(nr. of Mpx) * (min. nr. of prime lenses)
= const. * (print size) * (print resolution)
ahem..
🙂
Nice to see an updated version of this classic – one of the central tenets of your photographic manifesto! When I first came across your blog, I was actually *opposed* to cropping/trimming of any kind (possibly even including straightening) – I thought it made things look too precise and inorganic. Four years later.. well, I’m opposed to everything my younger self believed in :p
I’m all for precision, but I’ll try to get there natively. But sometimes it’s just impossible if your finder doesn’t show the very edges…
I almost always crop/trim! Why? It is not for the sensor manufacturer to decide the image proportions of an image I create! It is between the scene and me! 🙂
Coming from the old film and wet darkroom days, making the exposure is just one step in the middle of the creative process. Everything must not be planned in advance to be right, only the final result is what matters. I too have an intent with a photo session and what I want from it. But what if, during the creative process, an unintentional possibility comes up. Take every opportunity! There are good rules – but ignore them if they limit your creativity!
I like that philosophy: whatever it makes one happy to achieve the results he/she hopes for. The results will speak for themselves, and if one doesn’t tell how they were achieved, does it matter?
No, it doesn’t. But the bigger question is whether you can achieve that result at all if you’re looking for a composition after the capture – I don’t think you can.
Without an image INTENTION, you can never make great images. But once you have that, do not let it stop your creativity. That’s my point
Then we are on the same page, I think.
I agree – what you are describing is a conscious choice rather than a random hunt, which is what I am against…
This is probably the perfect way to put it: a hunt at random is not going to deliver good results.
Bingo.
That’s exactly what I say to some friends who love photography.
Sadly most of times they look at me like I was a fool.. “Cropping is allowed, because..well, because we can.”.
I agree on everything you wrote Ming.
Ciao,
Marco
I guess we have to remember everybody has different definitions of ‘good enough’ 🙂
Thanks for the post Ming. I remember reading the first article about cropping and why it’s bad and thought this was a good follow up. Just a couple of questions for you or any other readers that can chip in. I have a Fuji X100, which is a 12mp camera and sometimes I want to shoot a tighter composition for a portrait.
(1) Is it generally best to frame with the intention to crop from the centre of the photo? i.e. is that going to give you the sharpest crop given it’s from the centre?
(2) How can I calculate the effective megapixel count after a crop? For example, my lens is a 35mm equivalent but I let’s say I want to shoot like a 70mm equivalent. That’s a 2x ‘zoom’ I believe, so I would have divide both the height and width of the photo by 2, meaning I’d go from 12mp to 3mp. Is that calculation correct?
(3) What size can I reasonably expect to print from that cropped 3mp file if the viewing distances are close? i.e. 6×4 displayed on a fridge, small photobook etc.(These are mainly family/friends shots).
Finally got around to finishing the Monochrome Masterclass video’s too. So much info to process, I want to go back to Ep’s 1 – 3 and make my own notes as to what the critical points are so I can keep hammering home those fundamentals then do the same for the Monochrome Masterclass. Will eventually get around to buying and watching the Photoshop workshop too.
Assuming you don’t want to just move closer for reasons of perspective, or use a camera with a longer lens, then:
1) Yes, as far as optics goes; however, if you want virtual perspective correction by virtue of holding the camera level and just cropping from the upper or lower portion of the image, then no.
2) Yes, the math is right. 2x increase in FL means 2x increase in magnification, which means halving the number of pixels on each side – or 1/4 the area, thus 1/4 the totals resolution.
3) 6×4 is probably about the limit, perhaps 8×10 if you have perfect pixels. 🙂
Glad you found MMC useful!
Thanks for confirming points 2 and 3! Yeah MMC was very informative and I’ve tried it briefly on a shot I had already taken but I hadn’t exposed with monochrome in mind not with a particular style in mind so the end result was ok without being a wow moment. Definitely can see how the exposure choice is tied in with creative choice and hence what you want to or can achieve in post.
Would you mind clarifying point 1 please? Yeah my question was for those occasions when I didn’t want to move in close with my 35mm focal length (it’s my only camera too so I don’t have access to any longer lenses unfortunately but the 35 is a great all rounder for my purposes). Did you mean I should be positioning my body so that I’m shooting straight on to the centre rather than from slightly above or below and then cropping? I assume that would skew the perspective a little? I noticed you bent your knees to take a shot on episode 2 I think and explained it was to make sure verticals stayed vertical. If my memory serves me correct!
It’s the thing I was doing in Episode 2: changing camera height to keep verticals vertical and avoid perspective skew (and large heads or feet). Since you’d be discarding some of the image anyway, you’d probably be using the bit towards the edges rather than the centre.
Great, thanks for clarifying 🙂
Cropping Rocks! A trim is a trim.
Ming — another interesting viewpoint on this from Master Fan Ho, who refers explicitly to a “second composition” when he post processes/ crops in darkroom. He discusses this at around minute 26 of this video: https://vimeo.com/10023156
What did he do with the first composition? This seems to be an attempt at recovering something he knew was compromised to begin with…
Interesting point about what we perceive to be interesting in our own work changing with our philosophy/world view, though 🙂
WOW.. I thought for the first time I am first to comment. Then the page refreshed and I am 2nd .. 😦
Very nice article but I am guilty of cropping afterwards. My theory is that the different aspect ratio of different output media require different compositional elements. If I am not sure what will be my output media (web, wall hanging, picture-book) then I can’t frame accurately.
That’s not quite the same thing – cropping to a different aspect ratio if your camera does not natively offer it is fine so long as you intend to do it before you capture, i.e. the image was composed for that to begin with. The problem is if you compose for one aspect ratio and try to force it to fit after, it never will – balance will always be off if you used the original aspect ratio correctly to begin with.
Hmmm, this makes me think: “Naturally, this raises the question of ‘what is the difference between cropping before and after the fact?’”
I found myself cropping less and less after the first few years and now it rarely occurs, but more like trimming.
The question remains: is cropping in post a worse form of cropping? beside the technical aspect of a less perfect image capture, technically speaking
Back to intent: if you are framing with the intention of throwing some away and you know what you’re going to discard – for lack of a longer lens or other reasons, for example – then it’s fine. The problem arises when post-cropping is used to experiment and hunt for an image in the frame where it wasn’t clear what composition was intended to begin with.