The Ins and Outs of Creative Cropping

Words and Images Mike Longhurst FRPS

Whenever I see a photo club judge start his spiel by waving a couple of L shaped cardboard cropping guides about, I have to smile to myself. They’re probably going to tell the rank beginners that they shouldn’t have odd dismembered limbs of people, trees, or animals, intruding into the scene. No halves of words on signs, odd lamps, or things that make you wonder what’s going on offstage. There should be nothing that implies that this scene is not an artificially segregated thing, independent of the rest of existence.

And in many cases, of course, they’re right. Clutter and distractions are not just points-losers, they are also frowned upon in RPS distinctions and avoided by better photographers everywhere. The question “If it wasn’t there, would you want to put it there?” is a very relevant test of whether something is adding or subtracting from what you have shot.

But for me, that’s not the whole story, nor even sometimes the most important part of it. Cropping can alter the whole meaning of the picture and elevate it out of the mundane, but I think how and why to crop often needs to be learned, in the same way as any other photo technique.

That’s why I don’t advocate taking two big black or white Ls and placing them around the picture and sliding them in until all distractions are gone. What I have taught for the last 15 years or so is quite the opposite: ‘In-To-Out’ cropping. Forget what the picture shows, start with why you took it and what you most want the viewer to appreciate. You might say all of it, but be realistic, where do you want their eye to go to? What will give them the message at a glance? Yes, you might want them to take in a lot of detail, but you need to get their attention first. They need to know why they should bother.

Now if, like me, you learned your photography in the slide film era and you either got the framing right in the viewfinder, or wasted the shot, just be thankful that today’s huge megapix counts give us endless opportunities to shoot a bit wider and sort it out later.

I’ll start with a simple and very recent example where I just about got it right in camera. Faced with a wonderful old smithy in a castle, I naturally wanted the whole thing, but had the presence of mind (and the time there) to see that the tools themselves might be the stronger picture. If I’d only got the picture of the room and decided later that I’d really missed the point, I could have placed my real or imaginary crops round the main point of interest, the tools, got a perfectly respectable PDI [ed: Projected Digital Image] from a deep crop and depth of field would have been better too.

But what happens with a grab shot when you just have to go for it? This was part of my photo study of tourists in London a few years ago. I really didn’t need another statue doing anything, but as this girl looked up to aim a kiss, he turned and nose went into eye. No time, snap. Using ‘out-to-in’ cropping, of course I would notice the clutter on the right and either crop or clone, but does it need more than that? If I place my crops around their two heads, I really have all I need and a lot more impact. If I want to explain the scene a bit more, I can slide out as far as square and after that, I’m really struggling for reasons to go further.

As it was, I saw the project as a documentary one and mostly to be used in book format, so I left it uncropped, but if I wanted that for a candid competition, exhibition, etc then I’d crop. I’m really critically revisiting examples where I could have, probably should have, but often didn’t, because I did not see them as standalone images. Sometimes I use three different crops on an image for three different uses, where the point or role of the shot is different.

Let’s look at a couple more from the same project. I saw these two being rather dubious about the brown liquid they had been served as coffee. Another quick grab and, as a whole picture, I think you just have to work a bit too hard to get the point apart from the fact that I have half a person on the left and a big head in the way on the right. If I start by framing what I really want, their expressions, I really don’t have to move out too far and I think I can get away with the head. All the info is there.

Here’s a very simple one from the same project that really doesn’t grab you at all until the cropping helps. The obvious out-to-in crop is just to tighten it up a bit. But for me it is still not working. The only merit of it is the glance across from the woman on left to the couple. It is a spatial relationship and if I start by framing just the three of them, I really don’t feel much of an urge to add height. For me it is a letterbox idea. If it still fails, I’ll dump it and on to the next.

The next being another selfie, but here I was committed to locating it in London, so stayed wide, but I don’t kid myself that is the ideal solution for all purposes. So, starting with defining where the core “in” is, it is clearly a rectangle round their faces and phone. But then I’ve got a disembodied stick, so go out a bit to square and it is sitting nicely. But maybe I see her belt adding info and interest, so go down a bit and it becomes a rather fat upright. And there’s still a fairly hefty clue as to where it was taken.

In-to-out thinking really comes into its own with very complicated and potentially messy shots. This started out as just a group of tourists who seemed never to have seen a statue in mid-air before (yes, there are a few). I saw the lady gesticulating, but it was an instantaneous thing. As it is, it told the story I wanted, but again for any higher purpose than a record in a book, it would have to work harder. All I really need is her, him and to avoid a half person either side if I can. Solution, move out as far as square and no further.

But as I said at the start, there can be multiple solutions. For some reason here, I wanted that ‘no pigeon feeding’ sign in. I think it was to do with it being red. Then the other man in red ran across and I thought lovely, a red triangle. I’m still happy with that, but it does all detract from the simplicity of the central person and reflection, so starting around him, I can take out all except the bollards. Or I can move the right side out to square, leaving him on the third. And if I wanted to, I could make a square to the left and have a nice diagonal with him and the sign. I think in various ways, they all work.

Another that might work several ways is this real brain-teaser from my recent Bishopsgate / Shoreditch project. This wonderful building site screen just had to be shot and I clearly could do no more than have a ‘person walking by’ (PWB). If I have to use a PWB, I am usually very picky and need them to enhance the thing somehow, but how? I was happy to shoot wider and confront the issue of a lamppost, gap over the top, bright pavement and superfluous yellow sign later. It was all about the PWB for me. When I saw where this man's head was going to pass through, I was sure I had something that could work with enough in-to-out thinking.

So, really the minimum I need is his head in the loop and some whirly pattern. That works for pure visual art. Extending right to include the sign adds to the story and works too. Going down to his feet and possibly cloning out a bit of pavement makes it a nice candid and more like a “Street” shot and left alone works as a record describing the area.

Having already confessed I don’t always follow my own rules, I thought I’d end on one where I absolutely refuse to. This was part of my project on Bankside, where I was looking at light and shade caused by all the railway bridges and arches in the area. I shot the candy stripes on that wall many times, but couldn’t really do more than rip off someone else’s art. Then one day I saw a figure that I could catch just emerging into the light. My personal style is always to get a lot in and try to manage it visually. Also, to not pretend that what I’m showing is detached from the rest of the world – it is part of a continuum.

So, from in-to-out, the most obvious thing you need is him and shadow from corner to corner making a nice letterbox with strong diagonal. But in this case, I’m trying to show what Bankside is all about, not nab little visual art shots that could be anywhere. Plus, I love the sheer weight of the girders above him. However, if I take the logical left end of the stripes and go up to include girders, I get a total mess. So, for my purposes, it all stays.

I was down at a camera club last year listening to a discussion on a very complicated shot of a fairground, with cropping angles being waved about and it really didn’t seem to be getting anywhere, so at length I piped up with “Why not think about it from in-to-out?” Problem solved. Instant focus on what it was really all about and the solution became clear to all.