Have mobiles made traditional crops less important?

EdinburghGary

EdinburghGary

Reply not Report
Suspended / Banned
Messages
19,271
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Updated question
Does the subtle or not so subtle influence non stop staring at a vertical screen have an impact what we now perceive as normal or pleasing in terms of spacing, crops, negative space etc?

Photo taken yesterday. I prefer the traditional crop and would expect it to be the chosen format if printed, on a wall etc.

But more and more I find myself cooking a "second take' for use on vertically held mobiles. And I dunno, sometimes they are way more impactful.

Does that make the original shot and crop inferior? Or just inferior when viewed on a vertical small screen? Would a 16:9 vertical print work well?

Slow work day, sorry :)



2024-12-12_11-19-30.jpg


1000032071.jpg
 
Last edited:
EdinburghGary said:
Does that make the original shot and crop inferior?
Click to expand...
I don't think so.
The original has 'everything', to look at and take time over, the vertical crop lacks the substance of the original.
A bit like much of modern technology itself, transitory and quickly forgotten. :)
 
There are no fixed sizes in art, what ever suit the image, da Vinci didn't stick rigidly to "the golden rule" . I have an wide panorama on my wall.

The original photo would be 1:1, then technology moved film to 3:2 early digital 4:3 , modern phone 19:6, traditional would depend on when you started to take photos I guess.
 
The horizontal shot better matches the way we see the sun in the sky, unless we happen to be a lizard. :)

But most of the people I've seen taking photos with their phone rarely seem to even think of rotating it at all, let alone choosing a crop ratio. And most of the people I see with a DSLR, these days the camera of choice by professionals, newcomers to photography, and a still fairly large percentage of tourists, seem to take most of their shots in landscape orientation. Most often with the camera held up in front of their eyes, using the LCD to frame the shot. It's tempting to think that most of the 16x9 vertical shots are taken by people who don't know much about cameras and photography, but people who are expert enough to make YouTube tutorial videos do use vertical examples a lot; whether that's because they think it better matches the subject and scene, or whether they want to match mobile photographers' expectations, isn't obvious.

Two other observations: 1) I think that people who only or mostly use their phone think of cropping far less than they think about the crop factor. Until they get serious about photography. 2) Just because it's a phone camera app, it doesn't have to be 16:9.

All of my camera apps are set to 4:3. If I want 16:9, I crop afterwards rather than rely on shaky hands to frame properly. I've had a lot of fun shooting 1:1 as well.
 
Delphin said:
There are no fixed sizes in art, what ever suit the image, da Vinci didn't stick rigidly to "the golden rule" . I have an wide panorama on my wall.

The original photo would be 1:1, then technology moved film to 3:2 early digital 4:3 , modern phone 19:6, traditional would depend on when you started to take photos I guess.
Click to expand...
100% this, the crop size is part of the artistic interpretation just as much as any other choice around the final version, whether colour grading, contrasting etc etc.

Having said that I have moved from cropping per picture to using a consistent 4x5 crop. It's an interesting size of crop and it imposes a certain discipline on me. Point is though, it's a choice not any sort of rule.
 
I usually take both - and share the one that fits where I expect it to be viewed.

On Instagram you can usually slice it up so that you have for example a 5:1 ratio in 5 squares, then maybe the whole thing with borders as the last image in the carousel.
 
Betterpolo said:
Point is though, it's a choice not any sort of rule.
Click to expand...
Abso-bluidy-lutely.

There's too many people who confuse their personal choices with "the correct way". Do what you want and let others do what they want.
 
Another thing to mention is the new Pentax 17 film camera which shoots in portrait mode by default specifically with Insta/social media in mind. I'm unaware of any digital camera being the same, would be a bold move if they did. (caveat here that I'm unaware of a lot of things)
 
What's a traditional crop? 10x8? 6x4? 7x5? 5x4? 1x1?

I'd say that to some extent, home printing using A series sizes makes more difference.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I don't understand the question. Shoot whatever aspect ratio suits the picture, or whatever your camera/phone has by default and crop later if you want to.

Or heed Eddie and The Hot Rods:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weQ4oNk7Pqc
Click to expand...
Maybe I didn't ask the right question. It's more about the subtle or not so subtle influence non stop staring at a vertical rectangle screen might be having on what we now perceive as normal or pleasing in terms of spacing, crops, negative space etc.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Maybe I didn't ask the right question. It's more about the subtle or not so subtle influence non stop staring at a vertical rectangle screen might be having on what we now perceive as normal or pleasing in terms of spacing, crops, negative space etc.
Click to expand...
Maybe that applies to younger folk, but I can't say it applies to me. My attitude is definitely horizontal. :)
 
EdinburghGary said:
Updated question
Does the subtle or not so subtle influence non stop staring at a vertical screen have an impact what we now perceive as normal or pleasing in terms of spacing, crops, negative space etc?

Photo taken yesterday. I prefer the traditional crop and would expect it to be the chosen format if printed, on a wall etc.

But more and more I find myself cooking a "second take' for use on vertically held mobiles. And I dunno, sometimes they are way more impactful.

Does that make the original shot and crop inferior? Or just inferior when viewed on a vertical small screen? Would a 16:9 vertical print work well?

Slow work day, sorry :)



View attachment 440799


View attachment 440801
Click to expand...
Very gimmicky with little to ensure it will last.
 
garryknight said:
The horizontal shot better matches the way we see the sun in the sky, unless we happen to be a lizard. :)

But most of the people I've seen taking photos with their phone rarely seem to even think of rotating it at all, let alone choosing a crop ratio. And most of the people I see with a DSLR, these days the camera of choice by professionals, newcomers to photography, and a still fairly large percentage of tourists, seem to take most of their shots in landscape orientation. Most often with the camera held up in front of their eyes, using the LCD to frame the shot. It's tempting to think that most of the 16x9 vertical shots are taken by people who don't know much about cameras and photography, but people who are expert enough to make YouTube tutorial videos do use vertical examples a lot; whether that's because they think it better matches the subject and scene, or whether they want to match mobile photographers' expectations, isn't obvious.

Two other observations: 1) I think that people who only or mostly use their phone think of cropping far less than they think about the crop factor. Until they get serious about photography. 2) Just because it's a phone camera app, it doesn't have to be 16:9.

All of my camera apps are set to 4:3. If I want 16:9, I crop afterwards rather than rely on shaky hands to frame properly. I've had a lot of fun shooting 1:1 as well.
Click to expand...
Essentially they know even less that this also is a prime source for camera shake
 
EdinburghGary said:
Maybe I didn't ask the right question. It's more about the subtle or not so subtle influence non stop staring at a vertical rectangle screen might be having on what we now perceive as normal or pleasing in terms of spacing, crops, negative space etc.
Click to expand...
My eldest lad uses film only (and has a real eye I might add!). A large proportion of his pictures are portrait. I'm actually going to ask him your question :)
 
artyman said:
The thing that annoys me is people videoing in vertical format. I don't watch my TV on it's side so why shoot that way .. Grrrr
Click to expand...
I was once editing a video at work, using multiple sources.

And one of them sent in a vertical format. I asked whether her tv at home was vertical? The screen on her desk? But she couldn’t understand what she’d done wrong.
 
artyman said:
The thing that annoys me is people videoing in vertical format. I don't watch my TV on it's side so why shoot that way .. Grrrr
Click to expand...
I totally get that feeling. Sometimes we however get asked to shoot a video for instagram and tikok and for whatever reason people are supposed to use a phone to watch that crap. Here comes the crop. Luckily for me next one should be a lot easier because Resolve studio is supposed to just crop it and even adjust framing automatically saving me hours with keyframing. But to be fair I'd much rather be doing proper YT and advertising work.
 
garryknight said:
Most often with the camera held up in front of their eyes, using the LCD to frame the shot.
Click to expand...
Since getting the mirrorless I am 99% shooting this way. I only wish we got phone size screens or larger!

I shot a whole real estate job today without once looking at the electronic hole.
 
Phil V said:
So you think that in the very near future the ubiquitous use of phones will disappear?
Click to expand...
No but it is still very gimmicky. Plus the skill of those taking pictures with a phone is at the lower levels bordering on rubbish with no skill needed except to press the on button.

Most or or to me seem to be for self promotion or on a drunken night out. How many of these actually finish up as prints, again very few. A case of here today and gone tomorrow.
 
Each to their own i guess.

With the examples above, i much prefer the landscape view. More pleasing to the eye. Great composition.
 
Rodinal said:
How many of these actually finish up as prints, again very few. A case of here today and gone tomorrow.
Click to expand...
So you have set the bar arbitrarily.
Rodinal said:
No but it is still very gimmicky. Plus the skill of those taking pictures with a phone is at the lower levels bordering on rubbish with no skill needed except to press the on button.
Click to expand...
And used only your ‘opinion’ to decide that nothing meets your arbitrary bar; it’s all rubbish and that’s the end of that. :thinking:

Unfortunately you’re of the opinion that your rose tinted view of the past is ‘the truth’ and your hatred of all things 21st century is completely rational. :tumbleweed:

You’re massively wrong on both counts. Almost to the point it’s funny. Just because something is printed, does not mean it’s good.

In the 1960’s not all photography was done by camera club bores agonising over temperatures to produce perfect ‘art’. Then as now, most photos were taken by people who would never describe themselves as photographers using their instamatics to take holiday photos that ended up in a shoebox.

And even the amateur ‘photographers’ were largely rubbish by modern standards. Because the measure was:
  • Is it in focus
  • Is it correctly exposed.
And because that required an element of skill, most of them never got beyond that.
And the ‘photographers’ that did get beyond it were then led into creating boring cliche images to show off their ‘skill’. So local archives are full of pre digital pictures that are frankly awful photos.

So, you’re right that most photographs produced on phones are rubbish. But that’s nothing new. Most photographs have always been rubbish.

So to blame the medium or the tools is completely erroneous.
 
Last edited:
TimHughes said:
dunno about the aesthetic, but it's good for business - it's an extra fee for additional videos and photos shot specifically for vertical social media sharing :)
Click to expand...
Easy money too if you shoot open gate and pop some frame markers on. Two birds, one stone.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I totally get that feeling. Sometimes we however get asked to shoot a video for instagram and tikok and for whatever reason people are supposed to use a phone to watch that crap. Here comes the crop. Luckily for me next one should be a lot easier because Resolve studio is supposed to just crop it and even adjust framing automatically saving me hours with keyframing. But to be fair I'd much rather be doing proper YT and advertising work.
Click to expand...
Most* people will be watching YouTube and TikTok on a phone. Held vertically. So it make sense to make content for those vertical.

I believe that half of internet accesses are done by phone, so websites should take account of that and be able to cope with vertical phone accesses.

*Most - more than half...
 
The vertical format is one of the reasons I tend to dislike phone images.
My wife takes lots of shots with her phone & rotates the phone to landscape when that fit the subject. Why this is beyond most users is beyond me!

IMO digital has made cropping much more relevant. When shooting film last century, a crop effectively meant special printing of the image (most films came back with 6x4" prints)
It was very rare to cut one of those smaller!

Today's photographers are more likely to have zooms to a wide range of views, often with digital zoom (internal cropping) continuing on where the optics run out.
 
Ed Sutton said:
You need to ditch this creativity killing belief that skill is a primary essential.

Imagination beats skill every time.

It's never too late to change.
Click to expand...
I never thought of that,... but wait... You can imagine that you are a TT winner in the Isle of Man. Imagination is a wonderous thing but some things do need skill and that takes skill. No not winning every time, possibly even never. if you don't have the skill to carry it out. The skill needed is not only a primary essential it is possible a way of staying alive Skill 1 Imagination 0
 
Phil V said:
So you have set the bar arbitrarily.

And used only your ‘opinion’ to decide that nothing meets your arbitrary bar; it’s all rubbish and that’s the end of that. :thinking:

Unfortunately you’re of the opinion that your rose tinted view of the past is ‘the truth’ and your hatred of all things 21st century is completely rational. :tumbleweed:

You’re massively wrong on both counts. Almost to the point it’s funny. Just because something is printed, does not mean it’s good.

In the 1960’s not all photography was done by camera club bores agonising over temperatures to produce perfect ‘art’. Then as now, most photos were taken by people who would never describe themselves as photographers using their instamatics to take holiday photos that ended up in a shoebox.

And even the amateur ‘photographers’ were largely rubbish by modern standards. Because the measure was:
  • Is it in focus
  • Is it correctly exposed.
And because that required an element of skill, most of them never got beyond that.
And the ‘photographers’ that did get beyond it were then led into creating boring cliche images to show off their ‘skill’. So local archives are full of pre digital pictures that are frankly awful photos.

So, you’re right that most photographs produced on phones are rubbish. But that’s nothing new. Most photographs have always been rubbish.

So to blame the medium or the tools is completely erroneous.
Click to expand...
Arguing black is white again I see?
 
Rodinal said:
Arguing black is white again I see?
Click to expand...
To be fair, I think Phil's point is quite nuanced. Far less binary than phone = bad and printed image = good.

I'm totally with you that the majority of single click, phone photos have little thought and little skill but as Phil says, the only thing that's changed is these examples used to be taken on film with an automatic compact and printed at the local pharmacy to be piled in an physical album for memory whereas now they're just catalogued in social media albums.

As for skill vs imagination? I don't think they exist in silos but in symbiosis. I've always had an imagination which has driven me to try and hone my skill to execute what's in my head. Obviously people will always differ on which one of the two they lean into more but the key for me has been to respect both and try to respect them in equal measure.
 
artyman said:
The thing that annoys me is people videoing in vertical format. I don't watch my TV on it's side so why shoot that way .. Grrrr
Click to expand...

I've seen people watching horizontal YouTube videos on their upright phone. Maybe they don't know that the screen can rotate even when the app they're using isn't a game.
 
Rodinal said:
Plus the skill of those taking pictures with a phone is at the lower levels bordering on rubbish with no skill needed except to press the on button.
Click to expand...
The problem with all generalisations is that they're seldom correct...

...which could well apply to the statement I have just typed! :thinking:
 
Rodinal said:
I never thought of that,... but wait... You can imagine that you are a TT winner in the Isle of Man. Imagination is a wonderous thing but some things do need skill and that takes skill. No not winning every time, possibly even never. if you don't have the skill to carry it out. The skill needed is not only a primary essential it is possible a way of staying alive Skill 1 Imagination 0
Click to expand...

I understood @Ed Sutton to be referring to "imagination" in the sense of creative vision and storytelling when crafting a compelling photograph, irrespective of the camera being used—not as mere wishful thinking or fantasy.

To illustrate with the TT example, consider two individuals capturing the same moment at the race finish line—one using a smartphone camera and the other wielding a state-of-the-art mirrorless camera. If the person with the phone creatively uses angles, lighting, or framing to tell a dynamic story, their photo could resonate more powerfully than a lifeless, technically perfect snapshot from the mirrorless camera.

In photography, imagination elevates an image from ordinary documentation to art, in my view.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Updated question
Does the subtle or not so subtle influence non stop staring at a vertical screen have an impact what we now perceive as normal or pleasing in terms of spacing, crops, negative space etc?

Photo taken yesterday. I prefer the traditional crop and would expect it to be the chosen format if printed, on a wall etc.

But more and more I find myself cooking a "second take' for use on vertically held mobiles. And I dunno, sometimes they are way more impactful.

Does that make the original shot and crop inferior? Or just inferior when viewed on a vertical small screen? Would a 16:9 vertical print work well?

Slow work day, sorry :)



View attachment 440799


View attachment 440801
Click to expand...
An interesting question.

I like vertical shots, and I like long narrow vertical pictures like the traditional japanese scroll paintings e.g (just a random search https://www.artelino.com/articles/traditional-japanese-scroll-paintings.asp). I probably take more vertical and square pictures than horizontal.

As I have never scrolled through photographs on a phone, I don't know how prevalent vertical pictures are (I thought square was the standard for mobile phone pictures), but I am aware of seeing many people with mobile phones, and iPads, turning them horizontally to take pictures, at viewpoints or places like National Trust Gardens.

Not everyone who takes photographs is a "photographer" and for "photographers" framing, and orientation should be dictated by the subject and the aesthetic of how the subject needs to be constrained by the frame. The effect of scrolling through vertical images on a phone, is likely to depend on how much additional "learning and awareness" time has ben spent looking at photographs in books, exhibitions and other places, as well as the photographer's underlying knowledge and understanding of composition.

I actually, have almost the opposite question: why are they so few vertical pictures produced, by people who consider themselves photographers.

While I've never scrolled through photographs on a phone, I often scroll through photographs on an iPad, and I use the iPad horizontally, because I feel the vast majority of photographs are in the landscape orientation and the 3:2 ratio. A ratio I hate, but I understand the desire to crop in camera, or to have a practice based on working with a specific picture ratio.

Is this just laziness, because most cameras are designed to be used horizontally? Is this a bigger threat to "considered composition" than photographer's looking at vertical photographs on a mobile phone?

Are "photographers" just as guilty of normalising the horizontal 10x8 (or 3:2 equivalent), because it was "convenient"; as non-photographers are of normalising the vertical mobile phone image, because of it's convenience.

I would like to think that good photographers can go beyond this mechanical and artificial influence on how they make their photographs.
 
Rodinal said:
Arguing black is white again I see?
Click to expand...
Your posts reminded me of my auntie some time ago.

She was the self appointed ‘matriarch’ of the family, and was aghast should we ever point out that her old fashioned views were racist etc. but that’s not the main point.

When I turned 30, as a full grown married father of 2, she thought she should mark the occasion by giving me a birthday card.
The envelope for which had beautifully written Philip Roy (surname). I asked ‘Who’s Philip Roy?’ As I have never had a middle name (my dad’s middle name was Roy).
Her response? ‘You are, ya daft sod!’
And no amount of me arguing that I’d know if I had a middle name could convince her she was wrong.

C’est la vie.
 
She was a good judge of character then? But there again everyone is entiteld to an opinion!
 
Last edited:
I really don't like using mobile phones for photography but when I do use one to take pictures I use it as I would a camera, I decide if I want landscape or portrait orientation. I think from what I've seen many people just don't and will shoot portrait orientation just about all the time and that includes the many teenagers I see at the seaside happily snapping away with their phones. It just seems to be how they do it these days and as the pictures will be looked at just about exclusively on their phones I think it sort of makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top