For many photographers, cropping is a dirty word. For some photographers, the very mention of the “C” word is enough to make them shudder. Me? I do it all the time, and I have my reasons… lots of them. But before we move on, let’s talk about the fact that the pictures we “create” are to a certain extent pre-cropped before we even press the shutter button.
“Huh?” Yes. You read my words correctly. The photographs we compose through our viewfinders are a small central portion of a much larger circular image projected by the lens. The central portion of the image circle is the sharpest and least distorted portion of the image circle, and this is the portion of the image we see when we look through our viewfinders. To reiterate—the photographs we compose through the viewfinders of virtually all consumer cameras are the central portion of larger round photographs cropped to rectangles with 2:3, 16:9, or 4:3 aspect ratios. Unless you have a thing for round photographs with blurry edges, premeditated rectangles are something we should be thankful for. Also, every single time you decide to move to the left to take something out of the frame before you hit the shutter, you are essentially “cropping” the scene. Cropping happens all the time.
It’s worth noting, painters do not have this problem. When time comes to choosing the dimensions of a canvas, there aren’t any industry standards. The artist can make their painting as big, as long, as small, or as square as they want. Photography? That’s another story.
Get in Closer… Whenever Possible
Question: If I cannot, for whatever reason, get closer to my subject due to physical or optically imposed restrictions, is it OK to crop a photograph if doing so improves the visual or emotional dynamics of the photograph?
How many times have you heard the experts tell you, “You have to get in tighter to your subject. There’s too much stuff going on in the background—who needs it… move in… get in closer!”? You’ve heard it lots of times, and it’s rock-solid advice. But what about times you physically cannot get closer to your subject, or alternately, zoom in tighter? We’ve all been there. If cropping into a photograph improves the composition or otherwise better guides the viewer’s eye across the image field, why not?
When You Select an In-Camera Aspect Ratio, Are You not Cropping?
Question: Is changing the aspect ratio setting in your camera the same as cropping the image at a later date?
The default aspect ratio in my personal camera is 3:2, and I have the option of setting it to a narrower 16:9, which is ideal for widescreen playback. Other cameras I’ve used also give the option of shooting 1:1 square images, which can come in handy when taking pictures that will be used in a template or layout that requires a square image. Is this not cropping? And if it isn’t cropping, if I take a picture with a 3:2 aspect ratio and crop it to 16:9 or 1:1 later in the day or next year, have those pictures—heaven forbid—been cropped? The answer is “yes,” but I doubt if anybody would crop-shame you for not sticking with your camera’s default aspect ratio.
Cropping for Editorial and Commercial Applications
Question: What counts as cropping? Does cropping photographs under these circumstances compromise the integrity of the photograph?
I’ve yet to meet the commercial photographer who’s turned down an assignment because the layout would require cropping their original photograph in order to fit the layout.
The opening photograph of this Explora post is by design restrained to containing a photograph (or composite photograph) that fills an image area with a 16:9 aspect ratio. That’s how our templates are designed. When I produce an article for Explora, part of my job is to make sure I have a 16:9 photograph for a top-shot opener. I either intentionally capture my image in a 16:9 aspect ratio for use as the top shot, or I make sure I capture photographs along the way I can later crop top and bottom to fit the template.
Similarly, I used to shoot for a publication called Nautical Quarterly, which was a square (12 x 12") magazine that came in a square slipcase. The covers of the first 12 issues had square, full-bleed color photographs, and many of the interior photographs were also square. If I shot with a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad, composing pictures for NQ would have been a piece of cake. The problem was that I shot with Nikons at the time, which meant cropping was an essential part of my creative process when angling for a cover or full-page bleed. So, cropping for print or online publication often requires that a photograph be cropped to fit a layout or template.
Aesthetics: Cropping as a Means of Creating Better Photographs
Question: How about the shot that would be perfect if only the horizon line was level? Is straightening the horizon line in a photograph an act of artistic blasphemy?
The last point I’m going to touch on has to do with aesthetics. I can only speak for myself, but there are many occasions in which, while editing photographs, I look at a picture and discover a “better” picture within the composition I originally captured. If I crop in to pull out a better image, have I crossed the line of integrity to the craft? I think not.
Throughout this article, I have been asking questions, but not necessarily answering them. The reason is that most of the questions are subjective—there is no right or wrong. Regardless, many photographers consider cropping to be a sign of carelessness during the creative process, which is often not the case.
What are your thoughts and feelings on the topic? Do you crop? Do you crop for technical reasons or aesthetic differences? Let us know your thoughts on this somewhat touchy topic in the Comments field, below—we’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
