Cropping

[colcut]

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is the right forum so if anyone wants to re-direct me thats fine.

The problem I have is in relation to advice which is often given in photo mags when a picture is being criticised. It is often recommended that a picture should be cropped in a certain way to exclude something which is distracting or to improve compostion.

The reasoning I understand but what I cannot get my head round is the resulting size of the picture after cropping. Very often it seems that what is left, from what I assume to be at least an A4 size photo, will require substantial manipulation to get back to the point where an A4 print will be obtained and that print will not be to a very good standard because of interpolation.

Does it really mean that the picture is a write off and that the only way to achieve a usable print would be to return to the scene and take a fresh picture with the suggested cropping in mind. Alternatively do you undertake the cropping and live with the result after resizing to A4 or larger.

Any views, thoughts, opinions and particularly advice will be very welcome.

Regards
Colin

[ghosh]

hmm... May be you should use a higher mega pixel camera.

[strmrdr]

it can be fun sometimes getting the right size and a good crop.
sometimes you have to play with the size of the image which helps.
other times you just have to print a less than the best crop ... maybe 1 person in 100 will ever notice most times anyway.....

[Radtech1]

... is the resulting size of the picture after cropping. Very often it seems that what is left, from what I assume to be at least an A4 size photo, will require substantial manipulation to get back to the point where an A4 print will be obtained and that print will not be to a very good standard because of interpolation.

There are some very good software solutions for interpolation, one is Blow Up (http://www.alienskin.com/blowup/index.html) and another is Genuine Fractals (http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2). Still even without software my 10D (6.3 megapixels) I could crop down to about half of that and print 8 x 12s assuming that I had hit the focus.


Does it really mean that the picture is a write off and that the only way to achieve a usable print would be to return to the scene and take a fresh picture with the suggested cropping in mind.

Regards
Colin


Interesting thought. I have actually done so, but not with the idea of cropping in mind, but because I had gotten some good shots there before, and it is likely I will get some good shots again. I eventually end up with the crop that the scene wants.

When looking at the aesthetic reasons to crop, Luminous Landscape has an interesting essay on the topic. HERE IS THE LINK. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/und-crop.shtml) In the final analysis, you must let the image and it's message tell you where to crop, not the shape of the sensor.


When I was printing film, I cropped everything. And by that, I mean everything. I used one of these:

http://h1.ripway.com/Radtech1/4BladeEasel.jpg

A Four Blade Easel, which meant that I would print only the area where the interest was, without regard to aspect ratio. I always viewed the negative as containing the image plus periphery. Unless I had a specific need (assignment, to fit a certain frame, etc) I don't think I EVER printed in a 3:2 aspect ratio. Or any other even numbered aspect ratio for that matter.

Now with digital, for some reason, it is SO HARD for me to crop. I don't know why. Once I open the shot in Photoshop, it seems as though every pixel is sacred. So now, it is with a conscious effort that I break free of the 3:2 boundaries.


Rad

[bieber]

We don't have quite the resolution we did with film now, and now, unlike with film, you can view and appreciate each and every pixel, and fully feel how much you crop.

On the other hand, do remember that the larger print, the farther away it will probably be viewed. The smallest I've ever felt safe cropping from my 20D was to take an 8x12 format crop vertically from a horizontal image; stretching all the way from top to bottom. It looked a little fuzzy at 100% view, but when I have it printed (gonna take it in in a couple days), in all likelihood, it won't be really noticeable unless you put your nose to the paper.

[ghosh]

With films we never had such problems, but with films we never had those advantages too.

just little of the topic!

[Bill Boehme]

A cropping tip that I picked up on this forum is to crop out rather than crop in. To further explain: Typically, one draws the cropping box and then shrinks it in on the subject as much as they feel comfortable in doing. The problem is that it can be agonizing in cropping something out that way. When one crops out, the procedure is to start off with a very small crop box on top of the point of interest ... then enlarge the crop box only enough to get the necessary parts of the subject. The shading around the crop box makes it less tempting to include a bit more. If necessary, increase the shading.

[ghosh]

Thanks bill boehme for the idea.

Ghosh

[colcut]

Thanks everyone for your views and advice.
I'm currently using a 10D and whilst a few more pixels would be nice I'm loathe to give up a camera which works fine and has given good service so far. Plus from what I read more pixels doesn't always mean finer prints.
I'll try your various suggestions.
Thanks again.
Colin

[spaceCow]

I would not give up on your 10D either. I started concentrating on doing 8x10 prints and found that I could not acceptably crop a lot of my older exposures down to 8x10. My carefully composition of the 6x4 frame meant that I put interesting bits in both edges.

Another way to deal with unusual crops is to cut your own custom mats. Isnt that what mats are for?