photo-breezing

As for film - no, I don't crop. For some weird reason I can't bring myself to crop a scanned frame. It is what it is.

http://i.imgur.com/xP2Qwaz.jpg

The original puddle jumper

THe part on the left was part of the fence he was shooting through

http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/derriere-la-gare-saint-lazare/

Apparently one of only two of his photos that were ever cropped

Like we could prove otherwise though

He probably burns all his contact sheets

And of course the version we all know now crops out the bottom 1/3 of the picture as well

http://i.imgur.com/gHIb5hd.jpg

Gordon Parks shoots the Invisible Man, Crops

the most reproduced portrait of all time was cropped

http://i.imgur.com/sHiyNhL.jpg

Cropping was arguably better in the film days

You'd just move the enlarger head closer

Bigger grain yeah sure but you could sometimes get more detail too

Cropping digital is okay if you have a large source file and you're gonna show at 1024x768 or some other web resolution

when i see something that visibly doesn't conform to a common ratio i am raising an eyebrow

bigger grain would actually probably be an argument for cropping for me

the same way deep overexposure + then scanning can get you something you can't get otherwise

Fucking hell, the original negative

http://i.imgur.com/8Ib5avK.jpg

I'm glad to see HCB underexposed too

You can think of anti-cropping people as being photography's rockists

But given all the other ways we manipulate images

Color balance curves printing big small whatever

Intentionally overexposing underexposing shooting expired film cross processing shooting movie film

Cropping is just one more tool in the kit

Nobody has to know

It can be your secret

Take it with you to the grave

Destroy your hard drive when you die

On my tombstone it will say

He was a cropper

I am not ashamed

Now with all that having been said

I have never cropped a single image in my life

yeah it just goes against my instinct. I've done it a few times and then later replaced the cropped with the uncropped.

honestly it just makes life easier too

ha ha 乒乓 you are pretty much the disappointed paternal voice in my head ruefully shaking his head at my first inclinations toward cropping. like you appreciate the arguments but also something will have changed if i do it. i just can't even look at the disfigured skies that my lack of care has wrought anymore. it's like the guy in the godfather's unbeautified daughter.

i feel like i am applying for one of those licenses that means you can smoke marijuana in public because you have ptsd & so should be exempted from having to comply with certain social mores. the idea of cropping to me is so awkward, like it is a lie. didn't alice notley say the wrong word in a story is a lie in the middle of the page. i can't even make myself crop the selvages.

you are allowed to crop, but it must be done on the negative, with scissors.
accept this ruling.

that's perfect

mentally consulting robert frank's career to create parameters for everyday life

alternately, now that you know about your lens deficiency, next time you use it you must tape a piece of cardboard to the offending side.

i feel like when i look at my photos i'm already disappointed by how much i missed getting in to the frame in the first place

i want to put the whole world in to every shot more or less

mentally consulting robert frank's career to create parameters for everyday life

― love mike love (ko komo) (schlump), Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:14 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

This is how I live tbh

If it helps you to be a uncropper while following robert frank

Remember that frank did not think the negative was sacrosanct

As evidenced by his later work in nova scotia

What you need to do I think is to take a roll that you have developed

And eat it

Or burn it

Then and maybe then can you start to crop

Tbh I remember reading that robert frank had arranged with Steidl

To publish a new edition of the americans

With all new crops

Probably the most disappointed I have ever felt with Frank

Not because of the cropping but because I did not think the new crops could bring anything to the images that we did not already know

I don't think I necessarily pre-visualise in 3:2. Sometimes I know I only want a sliver of what I can capture from where I am.

i want to put the whole world in to every shot more or less

i think more & more that the less you are taking a photograph of - "of" - the better. i just was at the library looking at eggleston & koenig's (lovely) double exposure, i have maybe a new favourite eggleston (no i don't), this 2004 shot of half a phonebox and just some yellow canvasing in madrid. like obviously with W E the deal about ~life continuing beyond the frame~ is popular wisdom but also he just so delicately unites everything that's happening, pinpoints the essence & needs little more.

i have replaced my lens fwiw. i have a 35mm now. i miss the kind of innate hyper closeness of my 50mm, like it has come to just represent the act of literally focusing on a thing to me. but i am figuring it out.

i think frank has fucked with the crops used in editions of the americans at least twice?? usually erring toward revealing the full frame iirc. there's a section in the THE AMERICANS: THE ~~RE-MIX~~ deluxe book about it

i think more & more that the less you are taking a photograph of - "of" - the better

don't tell that to friedlander

i think wrt anti-zoom sentiment i feel there is definitely some kind of poetic (don't say truth don't say truth) righteousness to just dealing with what you confront through your camera. to crop for the juice seems to deny some basic idea of what photography is, to strive for some other kind of image making practice.

i feel like friedlander is with me on that! from his pics at least. like peak friedlander is, at least in the context of his time, not taking pictures "of" anything significant ..? excluding madonna nudes obviously

Right, that's it. I'm not cropping for a month.

I took less and less to mean fitting content in. feel like friedlander stuffs content anything, regardless of significance

Though my eldest might be happier if I just put away the camera altogether ("Stop taking pictures, Daddy!")... uncropped, 50mm prime, btw...

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2880/10800776133_e90bcf37af_c.jpg

I mean like

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/100906_friedlander-3_p465.jpg

The A-frame is the crop

So is the sideview mirror

I took less and less to mean fitting content in. feel like friedlander stuffs content anything, regardless of significance

― chinavision!, Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:35 PM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah i guess i am leaving this open & hoping to just trade of its (robert) bressonian poetic ambiguity but yeah i think i mean in terms of significance or identification. like there is a sort of higher ground of aphasic ignorance toward subject or content that pays off, the point at which you're totally just recording constellations of space like leiter did. i maybe don't know friedlander well enough to parse him in this argument but he has the kind of rephrasing democratic thing down enough to me that it fits with what i feel, like he is uniting what's there rather than trying to just capture an object.

not holding up friedlander as a non-cropper, just sayin, he puts a lot of stuff in his pictures

I crop film scans slightly to get them back into 3:2.

I crop digital a lot less than I used to. I've started finding images look a little odd to me if I crop them, but i'm sure if i stepped away from the computer and went back the next day i wouldn't notice.

I certainly don't hve any purist stance against it. I make plenty of other adjustments to my photos.

michael btw i am using your cropping pass for the next month just to try it on for size, let's trade back in dec.

I can't believe how expensive a roll of provia is now

How much??

close to $20 in some places!

then factor in e6 processing charges you can spend around $1 per frame

Damn

I bet you can find some cheap-ish places in Chicago to process? Or are you still doing mail order

actually i still prefer cross-processing

until recently i had to go to labs that would do it but still charge the slide film rate

but i found a walgreens near me that as long as i'm dropping off a bunch of c-41 at the same time, i've been able to sneak a roll or two of slide in w/o getting caught

i need to get a good scanner and start developing all my B&W at home

for some reason drug stores here charge ~$10 for a develop & scan to cd, compared to ~$5 in hawaii

and costco stopped fucking w/ film entirely around the time i moved

Time for home scanning indeed. You get a little more control then too.

Spending some $$ on a scanner now can save you $$$$ over hundreds of rolls