Is cropping a digital image dishonest?

My intent is always to portray the World as I see it.

Sometimes that is possible with one frame, sometimes it requires more.

Sometimes a long exposure, sometimes lots of short ones...

I do not set out to deceive but I do produce images that are not precise moments in time and space.

Is that dishonest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayland

My intent is always to portray the World as I see it.

Sometimes that is possible with one frame, sometimes it requires more.

Sometimes a long exposure, sometimes lots of short ones...

I do not set out to deceive but I do produce images that are not precise moments in time and space.

Is that dishonest?

---

IMHO, no.

Bruce

+1 to the "fine unless it tries to deceive" school of though, and I'm very happy with Wayland's position.

One pet peeve. I quite regularly see a full face image of an animal (strangely, it's often a grey wolf, in b&w), which is a technically excellent image. The problem I have is that if the photographer had tracked the animal, or hid for days in a hide, that's one thing. If they have turned up at their local zoo, then for me, that's another. The quality of the image is the same, of course.

So, I would like the caption to say how and where the image was taken, as well as the EXIF details.

I won't mind if this is a minority view :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidedric

+1 to the "fine unless it tries to deceive" school of though, and I'm very happy with Wayland's position.

One pet peeve. I quite regularly see a full face image of an animal (strangely, it's often a grey wolf, in b&w), which is a technically excellent image. The problem I have is that if the photographer had tracked the animal, or hid for days in a hide, that's one thing. If they have turned up at their local zoo, then for me, that's another. The quality of the image is the same, of course.

So, I would like the caption to say how and where the image was taken, as well as the EXIF details.

I won't mind if this is a minority view :)

---

Good point.

Bruce

It just goes to show that intent and integrity often have more of a part to play than the actual "truth" though doesn't it?

It's interesting how everyone voted as opposed to how the debate continues on this topic. I think the topic of SOOC photography should be added to religion and politics as topics that one should simply avoid. Unless you just enjoy a good argument :)

I don't know how the poll is going because I haven't voted, but I am interested in the course the debate is taking because Simon started this poll in response to comments I made here (https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...hread30354.htm) about his suggested crop of my image. I said, to me it felt a bit dishonest to remove 90% of an image and present it as full size image. This is the kind of 'heavy crop' Simon is referring to in the question.

ALL IMAGES HAVE BEEN CROPPED... When a photographer decides to frame an image in a certain way, that image is cropped to eliminate portions of the overall view which a photographer doesn't want to include in his or her image.

Whether the photographer crops in camera or in post processing is, IMO, a moot question.

If the cropping is done to specifically be fraudulent, that is dishonest. Like the news cameraman who keeps covering the same six people who showed up for the town meeting in order to indicate that there was a crowd.

However, some manipulated images, like this one are just fun...

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...0Montage-L.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

ALL IMAGES HAVE BEEN CROPPED... When a photographer decides to frame an image in a certain way, that image is cropped to eliminate portions of the overall view which a photographer doesn't want to include in his or her image.

---

I disagree. The image doesn't come into existence until it is captured by the photographer. The world lies before us, but obviously, the entire world cannot be captured in a single photograph, so choices have to be made about what to include or exclude. This is composition.

When you open the image on the computer you might see some peripheral elements that you don't want and decide to crop them out. That is typical practise. The question is how much do you remove? Do you cut away 90% of your image and present the remaining 'postage stamp' as the image you intended to capture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

ALL IMAGES HAVE BEEN CROPPED... When a photographer decides to frame an image in a certain way, that image is cropped to eliminate portions of the overall view which a photographer doesn't want to include in his or her image.

Whether the photographer crops in camera or in post processing is, IMO, a moot question.

If the cropping is done to specifically be fraudulent, that is dishonest. Like the news cameraman who keeps covering the same six people who showed up for the town meeting in order to indicate that there was a crowd.

However, some manipulated images, like this one are just fun...

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...0Montage-L.jpg

---

I absolutely agree. Selective cropping every time I take a phototgraph. Why have a zoom lens if you cannot be selective and avoid parts of the scene you do not want in the image? There have been plenty of times that I have had my wide angle lens on the camera and rather than swap to my normal lens have taken a photograph that I know I will crop slightly in PP. Personally I find this thread may be more relavent to someone's personal beliefs than to photography.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FootLoose

The image doesn't come into existence until it is captured by the photographer.

---

But the image that comes into existence for the viewer is the one that the photographer decides to exhibit. In creating this image he must be allowed the freedom to use his skills, techniques, and artistic interpretation to whatever extent he deems necessary in order to realise his vision. The photographer's honesty or dishonesty exist neither in his images nor in their production, but in the claims that he makes about them.

Philip

(P.S. "he" could, of course, be "she", etc.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrB

dishonesty exist neither in his images nor in their production, but in the claims that he makes about them.

---

Words of wisdom. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FootLoose

Do you cut away 90% of your image and present the remaining 'postage stamp' as the image you intended to capture?

---

That's exactly what Arnold Newman did when he made his iconic image of Pablo Casals. Was that being dishonest? Not in my mind.

Let me turn the Apple cart upside down: :D

Photographers capture images – computer operators create images.
Any created image is an illusion of distorted truth, a photographic image and not a photograph. ;)

Actually, as far as digital photography is concerned, photographers record data.

Computer hardware, software and operators turn that data into images...