On Cropping

This is a thing that pops up from time to time. I'm pretty sure that if you search this blog you'll find me talking about it, possibly saying contradictory things. The argument, when it's stated coherently, goes something like this:

If you find yourself cropping after the shot is made, in the sense of trying to find a way to crop the picture so that it works properly, then you have failed. This is because you did not get a functioning picture to start with, when it was possible to change certain elements (your position, the timing) to make the picture as much as it could be. If you happen to find a crop, now, that functions, it is extremely unlikely that the picture is all that it could have been. Had you seen the best crop in the moment, you would likely also have seen that a slight movement to the left, and exposing a beat earlier, would also have improved the thing.

This is a fine argument. I have made it myself.

It contains a planted axiom, to wit: every picture you make should be as good as possible in and of itself. This is the "single iconic image" fallacy.

The single iconic image is dead, it's an irrelevancy. Almost no serious photography is presented in this way any more. Everything is a series, a porfolio, a book, a sequence, a collection of related pictures. There are exceptions, of course, but they're rare, and often as not they're simply a single picture removed from its context because 20 Important Pictures sells more easily and for a larger gross amount than an Important Collection of 20 pictures.

Given that, we now have a situation in which exploration after the fact is a vital part of the process.

On the one hand, you probably need to (eventually) have some sort of coherent idea when shooting, otherwise your pictures are just a jumbled mass of unrelated crap. Which you still might be able to dig something out of, to be fair, but it's probably harder, and it's not likely to be as good as if you'd shot with an idea in hand.

On the other hand, in the detail of work of building sequences and collections, you will almost certainly find that the original crops were frequently wrong. Frames which anchor the idea, or set a theme, might be perfect as-is. Frames that provide the harmony, that connect one motive to the next, frames that echo a theme, these will probably need to be reworked.

This same applies to all aspects of the picture that can be reworked in post. Indeed, it would often be advantageous to reshoot the thing entirely, but this may not be possible. When not possible, a re-crop, a rework of tonality, a different dodging scheme can come in to help a picture pull its weight in the context it finds itself.

In a way, these two statements are the same:

Re-cropping in post is bad, it indicates a failure to have a clear idea of the frame when you shot it. Dodging, burning, tonal adjustments and so on, however, are OK when used to clarify the original idea. The clear idea allowed you to properly place the elements in the frame as it shot, post processing should merely clarify, refine, expand upon, and emphasize the important aspects of the idea(s) you started with.

Trying to find an idea in a mass of pictures indicates a failure to have a clear idea of the work when you shot it. Cropping, tonal adjustments, and so on to individual pictures in post is OK when used to clarify the original idea. The clear idea allowed you to correctly shoot material to support it, post-processing of individual frames as well as arranging those frames should merely clarify, refine, expand upon, and emphasize the important aspects of the idea(s) you started with.

The first applies to what I maintain is a nearly dead form, and the second applies to what I claim is the universal form of modern serious photography.

However, let me remark that the single iconic image lives on, at least for me, in those anchor frames, the pictures that set the themes and ideas. It is the other pictures that must be bent to fit.

I think. Not sure. But it sounds good to me at the moment.