Is real-time photographic composition obsolete?

Thank you for the comments. They are very interesting and give me insight into the human condition. Old habits die hard, and challenges to them often provoke irrational emotional responses. I think those who grew up on film are loathe to drop their old ways (especially when they're been doing them for decade upon decade ;) ).
Absolutely, Slarpy! Here's a cross-disciplinary insight that vigorously substantiates the "old habits die hard" paradigm you've advanced. Substantial evidence has shown that "an economic recession can lead to “scarring”—that is, long-lasting damage to individuals’ economic situations."

A generation that grows up in a period of low stock returns is likely to take an unusually cautious approach to investing, even decades later. This risk-aversion is actually maladaptive in more prosperous times. And across the board declines in discretionary spending/consumption remain long afterward, amplifying recessionary effects and prolonging downturns. Apparently, shell-shocked people remain shell-shocked years, even decades later!

By analogy, in-camera framing is also maladaptive because it limits your choices later. Nevertheless, people continue to treat it with reverence.
However, I believe that -- other than obvious things that can be controlled only at the time of shooting such as perspective -- in-camera framing is dead and, in fact, does your clients (if any) a disservice. It's like trying to compose the final version of a film/video as it's being shot. That's not what directors do. They get "footage, footage, footage" and then they rough it out in post, then go for a final cut.

Taking a big step back, getting everything plus some in the frame, and then doing your editing on a computer later is the way of the future. And actually, it's the way of the present.
Quite right! Unfortunately, far too many people are stuck in the past.
Sure, if you need a high-res poster-size pic, you're going to want to use as many pixels as possible. But still, as sensors get more and more capable, smaller and smaller crops will become available.

Don't limit yourself by a mentality of the past, born of the technology of the past.
True, very true. But a fossil embedded in rock wouldn't be able to change its shape even if its life depended on it, would it? ;)

The one thing Father Time can't do is turn back the clock.
 
Last edited:
They are very interesting and give me insight into the human condition.
You're a case study yourself ...
Old habits die hard, and challenges to them often provoke irrational emotional responses. I think those who grew up on film are loathe to drop their old ways (especially when they're been doing them for decade upon decade ;) ).
Can't wait to see your next dollop of enlightenment.
Don't limit yourself by a mentality of the past, born of the technology of the past.
Ironically, accurate framing is much easier today with live view off the sensor than it was in the past. I only owned one film SLR with a 100% viewfinder late in my film photography; prior to that, they only ever showed a portion of the frame. I also shot with a couple of cameras that had parallax errors. Modern technology makes it easier than ever to get it right in the camera; to use as much of that sensor as possible.

I wonder ... do you also advocate sloppy exposure and adjusting in post, rather than ETTR ? After all, who needs to exploit the capabilities of the sensor ? They're so good that you can just use part of their capabilities.
  • Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Last edited:
sounds like you have never shot side by side studio shoots with one camera 2x the pixel count of the other and cropped to find it doesnt work the lessor pixel camera smashes the larger for image quality and detail.

cheers don
 
No. Since I like much more taking photos than spending hours in front of a computer correcting them I always try to frame and expose the best way I can so to reduce the amount of post-process required.

I do crop sometimes, but generally is very slightly or just to change format (3:2 to square for instance).

On top of that if you shoot with a wide angle and aggressively crop something that is not in the center you can end up with some distortions that could be not that easy to correct and not much pleasant to the eyes.

In the end I take photos because I've fun doing it, and the fun for me is to think about the photo I take, find the right subject, select the best point of view, frame it carefully, select the right exposure and get the best result I can directly out of the camera. I don't have much fun spending hours in the dark in front of LR/PS, so I try to minimize that.

I don't think at all it's an obsolete approach.
 
Thank you for the comments. They are very interesting and give me insight into the human condition. Old habits die hard, and challenges to them often provoke irrational emotional responses. I think those who grew up on film are loathe to drop their old ways (especially when they're been doing them for decade upon decade ;) ).

However, I believe that -- other than obvious things that can be controlled only at the time of shooting such as perspective -- in-camera framing is dead and, in fact, does your clients (if any) a disservice. It's like trying to compose the final version of a film/video as it's being shot. That's not what directors do. They get "footage, footage, footage" and then they rough it out in post, then go for a final cut.

Taking a big step back, getting everything plus some in the frame, and then doing your editing on a computer later is the way of the future. And actually, it's the way of the present.

Sure, if you need a high-res poster-size pic, you're going to want to use as many pixels as possible. But still, as sensors get more and more capable, smaller and smaller crops will become available.

Don't limit yourself by a mentality of the past, born of the technology of the past.
This doesnt quite add up.

There's more to composition than cropping. Changing focal lengths changes the dimensionality of the picture- i.e. longer lenses "flatten" the picture, shorter lenses "deepen" it... so from that alone there's a feel different focal lengths deliver you can't get from cropping. AOnnd more importantly, there's the issue of DoF. Even with an infinite resolution camera, you can't crop a wide angle shot to get the subject isolation of a long fast lens, which is a legitimate photographic technique. I can understand "overshooting" by like 10-20%, but cropping out like 70, 80, 90% out of the majority of your shots is a bit ridiculous. Only slightly less ridiculous than demanding everyone abide by your limitations of photography, and passive aggressively marginalizing anyone who deviates. Get over yourself
 
I find myself still falling into the trap of framing my photos as I'm taking them. Which is so 5+ years ago.

Has everyone else trained themselves to take a giant step back, shoot the entire scene, and then crop, frame and compose in post-production?

Gotta remember it's easy these days -- with massive pixel densities and unparalleled editing software -- to create the scene long after releasing the shutter. Gotta remember that the photo in the camera is only the rough draft, the raw footage. Editing comes later.
For me it depends on the camera I'm using. With film SLR's (and film for me meant slide film processed and mounted by the film manufacturer) and shooting JPEG's with a DSLR, my preference is to frame my shot at the time of shooting and not make any later changes. With my recently acquired Sigma DP2s, I shoot raw, loosely composed images that are cropped to my preference in an image editor. There are two reasons for this; one is that I simply can't see the image on the LCD screen well enough to compose carefully, and the second is that the Sigma's 41mm equivalent focal length is too wide to be pleasing to me. However, when cropped to a 16:9 format or a 3:2 ratio with a field of view equivalent to what would be obtained with a 45mm or longer equivalent focal length, the end result is very pleasing.

"Finding the picture" in this way is actually a very old technique. A 1922 booklet called The Exhibition Print suggested making an 8 X 10 inch proof of your negative, then using a pair of L-shaped masks to find the best composition within that space. The author said not to be afraid to be quite ruthless in what you trim away, even if that meant using a 1 by 1 1/2 inch area out of the 8 X 10 original.
 
Has everyone else trained themselves to take a giant step back, shoot the entire scene, and then crop, frame and compose in post-production?
No. I don't see that as a desirable goal.
Gotta remember it's easy these days -- with massive pixel densities
Sure ... and when you crop, you're effectively shooting with a smaller sensor. No thanks. (If I wanted to do that, I could shoot a system that uses a smaller sensor, carry a smaller kit, and quite possibly enjoy sharper lenses (lenses designed for smaller image circles are often sharper per unit area than lenses designed for larger image circles).

I do, however, occasionally kick myself for failing to shoot wide enough to allow for software perspective correction in some shots or for aspect ratio crops. I recently shot a class picture and should have shot wide enough to allow cropping to 8x10 aspect ratio for prints, but am stuck at 2:3.
+1

I just shot a cake smash on Saturday . . . and if you've shot a cake smash, you'll know that perfect framing is not the 1st thing on your mind. Once the cute little child starts digging into that cake, you only have so much time to try to grab your keepers. LOL. Shooting wide gives me the opportunity to get the shot . . . AND . . . have some creative control over it, although after the fact.

And as you pointed out . . . shooting wide helps to give more options to printing.

I've gotten in the habit of shooting wide so that I can crop out a 4x6 shot for customers (since I assume that since this is the cheapest option that many will want to do this), but I crop it in such a way that if they want to print out a 5x7 or 8x10, there is enough extra space at the ends to be chopped off for the 5x7 or 8x10. To give customers the option to do this, there is no alternative except to shoot wide when taking the shot.

It's not like this wasn't done in the past.

The photographer that shot my wedding shot with a Bronica SQ. It is a square format camera. All 5x7, 8x10 prints are therefor a crop of the original. That was the way he worked back then. I was figuring that this would be the way that I would be shooting . . . but then this digital thing came along.
 
Last edited:
Is there value in sometimes taking a photo just a little but larger for captioning, or for space to fix a broken horizon ... sure. Is there value in action or wildlife in just getting the shot and worrying about the exact framing later?... Sure.

But just shooting and creating a composition later is, on a certain level, offensive to me. The idea misses big parts of photography like wide angle distortion vs telephoto compression, and all sorts of related ideas.

But most importantly, I personally want to spend as little time as possible in front of my computer. I'd rather be out taking photos, thinking about what I want to accomplish, moving around and rethinking a scene, and otherwise enjoying myself.

Sitting in front of a monitor is something I wish to avoid. I'm not a movie director creating a salable product. I am partaking in photography for my own benefit and pleasure.
 
I believe this is largely at root of your concerns.

Photographers have been cropping for a long time (at least since the advent of enlargers, as opposed to contact printing), that's a fact, and one lost by the orthodox photography set. But it is also true that those who consider themselves Photographers, capital P, tend to value composing within the frame(or, in someone like HCB's example, finding the image within the frame after shooting a lot of frames...). And hence the discussions about various formats/aspect ratios. And even the orthodox who secretly crop a bit tend to keep it to a modest level. This is absolutely a fine way to do things.

I am not a Photographer, but someone trained in painting and drawing who also uses a camera and all the old processing tools (wet) and even more so the new, digital ones. Thus my relationship to the aspect ratios/formats of capture devices is one which entails seeing them as mere data which I then will manipulate or not as I see fit according to some other criteria which involve the end product as a cultural artifact. I just don't care that much about cropping or aspect ratios/formats. If I am making a painting, every aspect of that making is something I decide (for reasons), including whether it is square or something else. This has nothing to do with compositional decisions, because they are governed ultimately by the overall shape and size of the thing and how I decide (or am guided) to develop that in context. This is also an absolutely a fine way to do things.

What is interesting, and this is not only true of Photography, but of all human endeavors--- politics, religion, & etc--is how the orthodox see the question in black and white terms, which are typically cast as right or wrong, with little to no tolerance for other perspectives. The situation becomes fraught with angst (or violence...).
 
Hi Slarpy,

sure we could have robots photograph the whole world all the time (well, we do have this, between satellites and surveillance cameras ;-).

And then we would "just" take a huge amount of time going through all these images, and then crop what we like.

But the problem is, TIME is a scarce commodity. Actually it is our MOST scarce commodity.

So anyone who acts as you suggests, namely basically doesn't frame anything in particular, in the hope of framing later, would be wasting away their most scarce commodity. Not logical.

Mind you, no one is doing this. Thankfully

I find myself still falling into the trap of framing my photos as I'm taking them. Which is so 5+ years ago.

Has everyone else trained themselves to take a giant step back, shoot the entire scene, and then crop, frame and compose in post-production?

Gotta remember it's easy these days -- with massive pixel densities and unparalleled editing software -- to create the scene long after releasing the shutter. Gotta remember that the photo in the camera is only the rough draft, the raw footage. Editing comes later.
 
I find myself still falling into the trap of framing my photos as I'm taking them. Which is so 5+ years ago.

Has everyone else trained themselves to take a giant step back, shoot the entire scene, and then crop, frame and compose in post-production?

Gotta remember it's easy these days -- with massive pixel densities and unparalleled editing software -- to create the scene long after releasing the shutter. Gotta remember that the photo in the camera is only the rough draft, the raw footage. Editing comes later.
Wrong on so many levels....

Angle of view
DOF
Composition
Lighting
 
I find myself still falling into the trap of framing my photos as I'm taking them. Which is so 5+ years ago.

Has everyone else trained themselves to take a giant step back, shoot the entire scene, and then crop, frame and compose in post-production?

Gotta remember it's easy these days -- with massive pixel densities and unparalleled editing software -- to create the scene long after releasing the shutter. Gotta remember that the photo in the camera is only the rough draft, the raw footage. Editing comes later.
Cropping was, is , and will always be, a poor excuse for improper framing in the first place. It's a sign of laziness, not a sign of the future. No "training" required.

That said, I crop all the time...:)
 
Cropping was, is , and will always be, a poor excuse for improper framing in the first place. It's a sign of laziness, not a sign of the future. No "training" required.

That said, I crop all the time...:)
LOL!

+1

LOL!

Take care & Happy Shooting!
 
I'm so glad to see that extremism lives on DPR. I don't think the OP meant that one should ignore composition altogether in camera. That would be a ridiculous interpretation.

Leaving room to crop was advice I was often given when shooting film. That said, I want to use as many of the pixels as I can. Attempting to use all the pixels often results in having to discard all the pixels.

As some others have pointed out, the amount of room I give myself depends on they type of shot.

Even on a tripod with a level on the camera, I want enough room to use various aspect ratios, if practical, and to straighten. Sometimes the picture doesn't look straight even when the camera is level and some tilting is in order.

The center focus point on almost any camera is superior to the others. With the advent of 18MP, I gave up using outer points, which I never liked, and got away from "focus and recompose" for people or things that move. I focus and crop. It makes the capture so easy and the IQ so much better when the best focus point is used as well as the best part of any lens on the most important part of the subject, which then is easily moved from the center of the frame to one of the thirds.

Faster moving objects get even more room. For sports or birds, I use all focus points and continuous focus. The camera does a pretty good job following object if they move out of the center of the frame, even with the theoretically obsolete 9 point AF.

With the exception of the last group, as I approach using half of the pixels, I consider my capture technique to be poor. Much under half on action, and I consider that poor capture technique as well. I also don't like it when there is no room to crop. Like all things, it is a matter of balance.
 
Anyone who regards cropping as anything other than a last resort in an emergency, is not a photographer.

dave
Then what was Alfred Eisenstadt, if not one of the great photographers of the last century.

You may have seen Alfred Eisenstaedt's work. He took the famous photo of the sailor kissing a nurse in Times Square at the end of WWII. In the first minute and a half of this documentary about the photographer, we see him showing us one of his first pictures. It looks like a 12 x 16 print that he created by putting the large sheet of film in a frame and exposing it to the sun. No cropping. Like you, he "was rather satisfied" with the results "until an acquaintance of his said 'but look you can enlarge this here and you can do this and this.' Enlarge?, Alfred asked, what does this mean? His friend then showed him a contraption of a wooden box with a frosted light inside that you can move up and down (It was an enlarger with which, like in digital post processing, one can selectively crop parts of the frame onto the print) "and it was at that second when the photo bug bit me and I saw enormous possibilities."

Throughout his long career that went into the 1990's, he still used only a normal focal length prime lens on his rangefinder. Eisenstaedt 'saw the enormous possibilities' of enlarging and cropping - and not as a last resort either.

 
Some people enjoy the sport of capturing the image they want in camera, and they prefer to do little or no PP.

Some people enjoy PP as part of the creative process.

And some people are primarily interested in the end result and will use whatever tools are available to produce the image they want.

All three are equally valid approaches to photography. Anyone who wants to argue about this is an idiot. But I suppose DPR would be a lonely, quiet place without us.

If the final image is what you care about most, then it makes sense to leave a little extra room for cropping, lens correction, and changing the aspect ratio. Nothing new about this. When I worked at the layout desk on a daily newspaper back in the days of Tri-X (and manual typewriters) the photographers never framed their shots tightly, knowing we'd crop to fit. We'd dodge and burn and airbrush, too, if deadlines allowed.

This idea that film required photographers to get the image right in camera -- that was true for amateurs who ordered prints from Fotomat. It was never true for pros, except those who did it voluntarily because that's how they preferred to work. Choice, people. It has always been about choice.
 
Standard print sizes encompass a number of different aspect ratios. I, like most who sell their work, always shoot wide enough to cover all the different ratios that a client may order.
Exactly. And it's not just prints where this matters. A pro shooting for publication won't keep clients for very long if he/she is always shooting too tight to give the art director some layout freedom. This is one of the first things you learn if you're shooting for money.

The whole "I never (have to) crop" commandmant/mantra/prejudice, which seems to have evolved in street photography circles and spread like a virus from there, is goofy and always has been. It confuses work process with artistic merit.
 
I'm so glad to see that extremism lives on DPR. I don't think the OP meant that one should ignore composition altogether in camera. That would be a ridiculous interpretation.
Ridiculous indeed.... and also the OP's exact interpretation as shown by this clarification.


"In camera framing is dead" - OP's own words. Not, "higher resolution enables more flexibility", or whatever more reasonable interpretations you are trying to project onto the OP. He is being ridiculous and should be treated accordingly.
 
I find myself still falling into the trap of framing my photos as I'm taking them. Which is so 5+ years ago.

Has everyone else trained themselves to take a giant step back, shoot the entire scene, and then crop, frame and compose in post-production?

Gotta remember it's easy these days -- with massive pixel densities and unparalleled editing software -- to create the scene long after releasing the shutter. Gotta remember that the photo in the camera is only the rough draft, the raw footage. Editing comes later.
One of the reasons I went with a larger sensor with apsc is I like the high quality of the images. I like having the extra pixels in case I need to crop but throwing away pixels also means throwing away light. I prefer to compose the best I can during the shot.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top