Nostalgia & History > Editing Other People's Train Photographs: Cropping

The other day I showed you one scan of a Roger Puta slide with and without an offensive a guy wire.
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,3858164,3858164#msg-3858164
I asked you if you thought the guy wire should be left in or taken out.  A good discussion ensued with a wide range of opinions.

Today I'm asking another question, again of one of Roger's slides.  This one is of NKP geeps taken in November 1964 at an unknown location, which I hope someone can make known to me.

1. Uncropped as Roger took it.
2. Cropped.  Why Roger didn't walk closer and take the picture, I do not know.  Maybe there was a gate which he shot over.  He had a fixed focal-length, view-finder camera so he could not zoom in.  Roger usually took rather tight framed roster shots. 

I cropped it because there was a lot of uninteresting stuff around the geeps including that distracting road.  Also the geeps would be larger.  And I could make the photo obey the Photography Rule of Thirds*.  If there had been interesting scenery around the geeps, or structures, or some obvious reason Roger left the area around the geeps in the photograph, I obviously would not have cropped it.

But I did crop his photograph.  Do you agree it should be cropped?

Marty Bernard

* http://digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds/

---

---

I think your cropping is appropriate. It removes the irrelevant, distracting foreground from the main subject, which is the locomotives. In this particular photograph, what has been eliminated from the bottom, would not help in determinating the location either.

We had some discussion of this a while back:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,3552261

For archival purposes, I think it makes the most sense to scan everything that's there, edge to edge, at maximum resolution and with as little "interpretation" as possible (i.e. resist the urge to brighten, increase contrast, color correct, noise-reduce, etc.  You can do that stuff later in an editor, but you can't "undo" it if it's baked into the original scan).

For posting, I will usually crop an image so that particular details I'm asking about are visible.  While it's always nice to include everything for the folks who might spot something of interest in the far left background, we are limited to a width of 1000 pixels on here, and you're not going to be able to resolve every detail visible in the original at that size. 

There's a compelling argument to be made that you should never crop someone else's work out of respect for their "artistic intent," which is another reason why the archive copy should include the round corners and fuzzy edges.  With a photo where the intent is pretty clearly documentary, however, I don't think it's too great a sin to post a version cropped so that the rivets you're asking about are countable in the 1000 pixel version.

If you are posting a "whereizit" where you honestly don't know the location and are looking for an answer, then you probably want to show as much as possible.  Cropping to abide by the "rule of thirds" or removing poles and wires for artistic reasons does no good if it sacrifices details someone could use to actually recognize the location.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/15 04:18 by Evan_Werkema.

Yes, the crop makes up for the 70mm lens the photographer did not have at hand when the original image was made.

Great scan quality as well.

Posted from iPhone

Cropping to me is totally acceptable.  You haven't altered the scene, so (Speaking theoretically) if I went to the same spot tomorrow, I could get the same photo.  Removing a wire or other permanent distraction and not noting that would lead me to think there is a nice clean photo location that I saw depicted, and isn't really true.

Oakway Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Removing a wire or other permanent distraction and
> not noting that would lead me to think there is a
> nice clean photo location that I saw depicted,
> and isn't really true.

But you could remove the wires and dsitractions from your photos too and trick the next guy!  (-:

Marty 

do whatever you want, it is your effort, but if you want to know the loction you need to leave as many clues, by cropping you may make it harder

I wonder if that's Frankfort IN.  Dan Tracy

The cropping is OK, but I'd be more concentrated on photoshopping the trash and litter out of the scene.

Rule of thirds needs to be played in the vertical axis as well so the locomotives are going somewhere.  

What a shame your friend didn't move a few yards left, and loose the brown shed/building out of the scene, behind the loco

Too much sky in your crop, Roger's photo is more balanced.

Best regards,

Rob L.

Since we were not there we cant be sure if that was even possible to move to the left. Maybe there was a fence, another building or maybe some freight cars that would make imposdible to avoid the shed in the background. Yea it would have looked better but since he didnt move left we have to be thankful for what is shown.
shortliner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a shame your friend didn't move a few yards
> left, and loose the brown shed/building out of the
> scene, behind the loco

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/15 09:25 by biff.

Crop looks fine to me. The only objection you'll get is from the members of the Mud Puddle Documentation and Preservation Society. They probably won't notice, since they're all headed for South Carolina for the next few days. 

I do, however, have some minor qualms about removing guy wires and the like from photos. Truly minor qualms, since I've done that myself with some of my own photos. 

Evan_Werkema Wrote:

> For archival purposes, I think it makes the most
> sense to scan everything that's there, edge to
> edge, at maximum resolution and with as little
> "interpretation" as possible (i.e. resist the urge
> to brighten, increase contrast, color correct,
> noise-reduce, etc.  You can do that stuff later
> in an editor, but you can't "undo" it if it's
> baked into the original scan).

Evans' comment hit home with me.  Although not a member of our local small suburban historical society, one of its members, a good friend, has had me 'fix' and 'save' a number of historical town pictures, some dating to the 1800s.  On those photographs, I did everything from play with contrast and lighting to 'bring out' lost details.  One photography, ca 1880 of the stone quarry workers had been 'broken' and the printed surface gone.  I meticulously cloned everyones' coat/sleeve/tool and even rock formations to fill in the gap. 

Surprisingly, it never dawned on me to crop any of those pictures.  Although the photographers 'artistry' was mostly in getting everyone positioned and having everyone stand absolutely still for a couple of seconds (in bright sunlight!), the surrounding 'details' are as important as the men in the image.  Everything from simple pole derricks to the power shed and the cables between them are important to the picture.  Cropping them out to 'focus' on the men is not an option.

However...in the photo posted at the top of this thread, I think cropping is appropriate.  Losing some dirt, a puddle, litter, and other distracting clutter from the image definitely improved the result.  But like the prior discussion about a guy wire removal, everyone has an opinion.  I think I would have cropped this picture a bit different than Marty, to preserve both wheel stops as the 'information' that the locos are on a stub track was isn't noticable.  Also, as there is little 'important' information in the background, cropping doesn't significantly alter the intent of the picture.  However, had the background been something 'important' such as an identifiable structure, even a crossbucks or a small shed, then I'd strongly limit my cropping or not crop it at all.  

One of the other 'issues' with cropping is photo dimensions.  For my own photography, I typically crop to 2x3 dimensions, although there are many times I'd like to simply cut the end off the picture and that's it.  The problem comes when printing them.  Ever see what happens when a 4" x 5.25" picture gets printed?  Too much white space! 

As for location, the lack of trees would suggest generally west of Bellevue, OH, but that's all I can offer. Possibly a former LE&W or Cloverleaf location.