Always edit in the viwfinder- as far as possible.
Yet, being a Pentax user since the 60's, all my
perfectly-framed-in-the-viewfinder shots need cropping anyway.

...and I can't bring myself to allow for the Pentax viewfinder, and risk
losing a vital element.

Nowadays, I guess I use about 4.5 of my 6 Mpix.

--
Jeff R.

Generally, I only crop the amount necessary to get the proportions of the
paper, i.e. 8x10, 11x14, A3, etc.
That being said, sometimes I find that, compositionally, an image works
better with additional cropping, and to a point, I'll do that.

Always to get the maximum effect I'm looking for in the image and I
don't stay with the normal ratios.  I do what ever makes the most
esthetically pleasing image to me.

*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

                             -James Nachtwey-
                        http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Like you, I'm a "frame filler" and most often use the entire shot in
print.  Having said that, I have no reservations about post cropping out
clutter or cropping to enhance presentation.  For that matter, cropping
out 10% - 20% in a dimension has little effect on the resolution of an 8
x 12 print.

I shot 1st Communion portraits for a pro last year and he was very
pleased with my framing.  He had a pro working for him who usually shot
MF (6x6) and who left enormous room around the 35mm shots for the 1st
communions.  He said that the other fellow was so used to 6x6 and fat
framing that he had trouble making tighter framed shots.

Cheers,
Alan.

I shoot a lot of indoor volleyball.  I really don't have time to frame
properly and still get the shot unless I'm shooting one particular
player and can follow her rather than the play.  So cropping is a
wonderful capability that digital has made easy.  Since most of my work
goes to web sites or video, the cropping does not seriously affect
quality.

I sometimes crop completely in the viewfinder, but in a lot of shots,
magazine editors want space around the central subject to display
heads, captions, whatever they choose. Thus, space is left for what the
paying customer wants. Because probably 60-70% of my work is aimed at
magazines, that kind of shooting gets to be a habit (but it is more
desired with certain types of magazines than others, so the habit can
also become a problem).

I've found that with full vehicle shots, extra space around the subject
is a help. For individual features of the vehicle, tight cropping,
often tighter and shaped differently than the sensor, is wanted...but
in other cases, filling the frame is fine, leaving final crop to the
graphics department.

For some kinds of articles, say on woodworking tools, filling the frame
at close up ranges is great. Recently, I did a piece on a jointer that
uses cutters that are about 3/8" square. I went macro with those, next
to a dime, and also did a near macro shot of the entire 8" wide head.
The latter was cropped.

Worked really well.

It differs, in other words, depending on what the customer wants.

When taking candid photos of people I usually leave some vacant space around
the subject to allow for movement.  Means I usually crop some of the shot
afterwards.

Toa

Maybe this was a question mostly for pros, but anyway, here are my
amateur practices:

I crop routinely in two different sets of situations.

1) When I know that I won't have the  time to frame properly, or when
I take a close candid shot without looking into the viewfinder,  I go
wider than reasonably needed so not to miss anything, and crop
afterwards. Maybe very few pros would take candid shots this way, but
in my experience a fraction of human subjects - perhaps 10% in total,
going up to say 30% in teenage boys - are only possible to photograph
in anything that even vaguely resembles a normal likeness if they are
not aware that a shot is being taken when it is.

2) When I shoot wildlife, I consistently use cropping, sometimes quite
heavy cropping. Regardless of glass, you never get close enough to
small, shy birds...

Otherwise, I sometimes crop lightly to improve the composition, and
occasionlly crop more heavily to rescue one subject in the image if
this subject comes out very well, and the other one is blinking or has
an otherwise unsuitable facial expression.

But of course I always try to frame as competently as I can within the
existing time constraints.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.

Personally, I like to minimize cropping. But for some things, like tiny
birds far away or whatever, it's unavoidable. It'd be nice to have the
glass to shoot them, but I don't, and so I shoot RAW and upsample the
image during conversion. Then I crop what I need to. This gives much
better results than enlarging a cropped image, especially if the
original image was a JPEG.

It depends on what the client wants. I've always shot tight, whether it is 4x
5, or dSlr. However, several clients really like a bit of space, in case the
layout changes. When I shoot for these, or suspect that a new client might be
of this mindset, I leave some space - it saves having to do much Cloning in
Photoshop. With 4x5, I'd usually shoot to the Polaroid, knowing that there was
about 1/8" in. all the way round.

As for your assistant, they may not have felt comfortable doing a tight, in-
camera crop. Depending on how much cropping you need to do, resolution should
not suffer. I think that it is just a different mindset by the photographer,
and, if I were shooting for a new client (in this case you), I would probably
frame a bit more loosely, unless you directed me to do my "normal" thing.

Provided that the work is good, there should be few problems.

Hunt

When shooting digital (Four Thirds) or large format (4x5in) I fill the
frame with the subject and don't usually do any cropping.  With 35mm I
usually crop from one or both ends to bring the shot to a 1:1.25
ratio, for example to print on 8x10inch paper.

With 12 on 120 (6x6cm) I have to crop *every* shot to get to 1:1.25.
As far as I can recall I have never used a 6x6cm image uncropped.

It sounds like your man is used to shooting medium format.

 

I try to do all my cropping when I shoot, but sometimes it's just impossible
to do.  As you have discovered, the less you have to crop the better,
whether using film or digital.  Just depends on the camera how much you can
get away with when you do crop -- a combination of sharpness and pixels,
which is why some cameras will give you a better image even if the pixel
count is lower.

Your contracted labor may like to give their shots a bit more breathing room
to work with.  Also make it a bit easier when you need to come up with an
8x10, which will always cut off the top or bottom of the image if it's too
tight.

Of course, I crop, either eliminating part of the image or framing the
shot loosely, if it improves it or I have to allow for copy and/or
inserts.

And you're not one of those fanatics who considers cropping 35mm (or any
format for that matter) some kind of sacrilegious act, to burn in
Hell, if you do? Filed out that old 35mm carrier to get to the entire
image, didn't you?  I had so much fun playing with you guys' heads when I
was a young student photographer years ago.  Thanks for all the fun. ;-)

Stefan

IAFFAP (I am far from a pro), but I never print a photo without cropping.
What's the chance I framed it just right while shooting (often in a hurry).
I'll tell you - it's very unlikely!

Also frames and mattes are more widely available and cheaper in standard
sizes.  So if I like a pic I always crop to 8x10 or 11x14, to frame with
matte.  Otherwise I might go broke.   I save the money to by ink, paper,
frames, and new lenses.

To me, not to crop, would be like not using levels (for enhancing
"lighting"), color saturation, sharpness, etc. before printing.  What's the
chance that the shot was taken just right in regards to those qualities.
I'll tell you.  It's not likely!