Cropping

 Following on from the article on filling the frame, which looked at techniques to reduce dead space and create more impactful images, let's look at what we can do in post-production. There is nothing technical here - even the most basic photo editing program enables cropping. And even if you do nothing else with your pictures once they've been taken, I would urge you to consider adding cropping as a fundamental part of the workflow. It's quick, easy, and can make a huge difference. More than this, it forces you to analyse aspects (shape, composition etc.) of your pictures later, which in turn benefits your photography on the ground.

As said before, cropping really is one of the most powerful tools for working on a photograph. It's the very first thing I look at when I open an image for editing - and it's rare that I won't crop at least a little.

Firstly, let's look again at shapes. We've said previously that what is captured seldom fits the dimensions of the frame exactly - no matter how good you are. Crop your pictures if for no other reason than this.

We can see in the picture of the dog in 1a that cropping to the same dimensions as the frame would leave dead space either side (as shown by the black box). Instead (1b) a slightly square shape works better.

Just as commonly, the crop tool is also used to 'tidy up' a picture. Example 2a, a family photo, is a good example of this. It is a loose composition, with unnecessary distractions around the edges. This is removed in 2b to leave only our key subjects. Note that they also appear larger, more prominent in the frame.

 Practicalities aside, cropping also allows us to 'create' a composition where it is poor, and fine-tune it when it's good. The unedited picture of the cat (3a) has a rather weak composition, with a lot of dead space, but can be somewhat rescued (3b) to give a better balance, while also going in tighter. The cat now sits better in one corner, set against the boy and his dog in the other (who in the original were weighted more equally, making for a sloppy image).

I find myself often using the crop tool for these reasons of composition. Or rather - aside from the practicalities discussed - that's the thing I'm really looking to do in post-production. Over a cup of tea and with the luxury of time to assess the pictures, I can look to ways to tweak the composition, or perhaps give the picture a new twist entirely*. Can I add some real interest with a simple crop? How much freedom do I have to recompose the frame?

Remember that most cropping decisions are to differing extents influenced or modified by what else is in the picture. We briefly talked in an earlier article about cropping people, and how some points on the body don't suit cropping. Similarly, there are certain locations in each picture where cropping just doesn't work. These are locations where what might be gained by cropping (to improve composition or simplicity) perhaps become outweighed by the corresponding ugly edge created in doing so. Equally, a well-balanced composition which would otherwise work well would lose its harmony if clutter on the other side of the frame is removed. That's the trade-off in the real world. Better if we can get it right when shooting.
But back to creative cropping. Let's look at a more extreme example. If the quality is good enough, the cat in 4a can be boldly cut down to the essential (4b), making an almost entirely new picture. Although here I must say I prefer 4c, a more 'artsy' style. I think they're both punchier than the more traditional example 4a.

Example 5a. With its subjects looking in opposite directions, its differential focus, its acres of white/dead space, it seems to offer a number of possible crops. But actually it doesn't really. I naturally went with 5b (although an 'edgier' version might have the crop as marked by the black box in 5a).

 

6a is a little similar to those pictures where the background appears to extend indefinitely, which we talked about in the last article. Always hard to crop, they're a balance between the significance of the subject within the frame, versus how much you want to suggest the infinity of their surroundings. Also a balance between how interesting the surroundings are, versus composition / placing within the frame. Usually with these I make an effort not to make a clean crop, however close in I go. This approach ensures things appear to continue off the edge of the frame, by leaving elements half-in.

6a is also a more realistic example of an exeryday cropping decision. We're not usually blessed with obvious places to crop so neatly as in these pictures (white backgrounds and space between everything). However, 6b shows us that a clean crop was possible - and preferable (it wasn't one of those kind of 'going on forever' pictures). A balance was struck between enalarging the lollipop lady, whilst still showing a crowd behind her. The composition is much better balanced, too.

Let's briefly look at harsher cropping. Being more heavy-handed, we can remove key elements of a picture, changing the photograph significantly. 7a allows for a clean crop between people (but only just). As such, we can not only get rid of some (or all) of the other people in shot, but just notice we can also change the shape from a horizontal to a wide (7b). Not so signficant in this example, perhaps - but it can be.

8a and 8b show limitations imposed when you have overlap, and can't crop cleanly. So this is a much more realistic situation. How would you crop - if at all? One might opt for cropping in to the ice-cream man even more harshly than done in 8b, getting simplicity and cleanliness and sacrificing all else. This crop is indicated by the black rectangle.

As with any cropping, note that these choices are easier when the subject's central shape matches a rectangle or square at the point when all distractions or obstructions are removed. In other words, had he been holding his arm out to the side, we'd have to make the best of a bad situation. Happily here, in this case it would fit the shape pretty well. We would be able to crop in and to get rid of the people either side entirely, while still showing his face and hands.

The point in 9b and 9c is to illustrate how two ruthless crop choices might give an entirely different shape and meaning to the picture 9a. Your eye moves around the picture differently - different things are important. This is perhaps a better example than the earlier one in 7b of how one picture can offer real alternatives for a wide, square or upright crop. And with each shape, a new emphasis.

Finally, just a quick example of how a crop can change the meaning of a picture entirely. 10a shows a bird at a fountain. But we can see from 10b that this is only half the story, which is a completely different photo - and then in 10c we get the full picture. I show this as a reminder - we should always be aware that every image we see is the result of a decision, a choice about what is to be shown, and what is to be left out. Either at the point of shooting, or in post-processing. And this can be significant.

Two points to finish on. The first, mentioned at the beginning, is that a level of editing is a central part of the photographic process. The photographer's job does not end after the shutter is pressed.

There are endless discussions about the extent to which one should edit, and at what point the original picture is lost, replaced by photoshop artistry etc. And nowhere more so than in news photography, with its stated aim of reporting truthfully**. But whatever your opinion, it is (I think!) generally accepted that cropping is fine. This applies even if you're presenting something as truth - so long as it doesn't distort the essential meaning.

Secondly - and to the photographic principle at last - what I think cropping is really about is a question, and a decision, on what to show, and what not to show.

Whereabouts do we crop in to 'clean up' the image?

How can we crop to make this picture bolder, or improve that one's composition?

Can we crop away more, closer, more cleverly, to tell the story better, or make clearer what we are trying to show?

And so, ultimately, back to the question which comes up so often in these articles***:

What is it we are trying to show? What is the picture about?

*Let's be honest - sometimes I create a wayward, tight or kooky composition only because I've had to remove something hideous elsewhere from the shot! See the notes on 8a/8b.

**I would just suggest that the truth is not neutral - we only see the result of choices and decisions about what is to be shown, even if the choices are purely aesthetic.

***Knowing the answer to it is one of our aims as photographers. For these purposes, knowing it enables us to make an effective crop.