Cropping

Dalantech wrote in post #18952775
You really don't see a difference in composition or lighting between those two shots?...

OK, here's one at 1.5x:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ALe7​uJ Tree House V by John Kimbler, on Flickr

Still not cropped, still a single frame, and exactly the same species. Also better composition and lighting than the older photo I posted earlier.

Of course I see a difference in the areas you just mentioned. Second image is significantly better in those aspects. We are however, discussing cropping so in that context a 5-fold difference in magnification kind of musses the topic wouldn't you agree?

I seriously doubt there is any photographer that visits this site that isn't continuously striving to get better at their particular area of photography, and to varying extents doing just that. Saying what you say regarding improvement is fine but improvement over time is a general trend for most photographers I would think. For certain, in your particular area of photography getting a higher magnification lens makes improving a bit easier.... just like some of the lenses I have help me be a better landscape photographer.

You're being argumentative (granted we both have at points in this thread).

My original statement/advice is that cropping isn't a goal but if you need to do it, do it. Your original statement (taken on the whole and not specific phrases in it) in my opinion implied a disdain/laziness/quali​ty of work blanket over those who crop... then you went on further to say that the ONLY reason to crop was if a client wanted a different aspect ratio.

Now looking at PIECES of what you originally said, you weren't saying anything different than what was already said previously, but the tone of the post as a whole read differently to me and apparently other people than myself as well. To the extent I misinterpreted what you said my bad, fair enough for you?

I've been a member on this site for over 10 years, and for the first time I've gotten in one of these back and forth "discussions" that serve no purpose beyond the original points made on both sides. I told you what I perceived as "wrong" in what you posted earlier. I'll take your word for it that it wasn't the intent, regardless of the way it "sounded". Case closed.

Now, regarding your comments on "people" being insecure, or that your "points hit too close to home" I'll say again that you seem to be implying that those "people" whomever you are referring to are somehow less invested/diligent or more lazy than you are with respect to photography. I can't speak for everyone but I can assure you my security isn't based on anything to do with a camera, and certainly not anything some unknown person on the internet says regarding the cropping of images. Now let it go.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18952762
If there is a quality drop off between your second photo and your third picture, I can't see it on my screen.

I do believe Dalantech's point does apply to me. For example, in this first picture I made a bunch of horrible mistakes. Cut off the top of the pipe, camera strap visible and my right foot is visible. These are things I should have noticed while framing, but I seem to develop tunnel vision and only see my subject. So to share the photo with my facebook groups, I did a bunch of cropping. The second photo is only 9% of the first (475 kB). On the other hand you do see a lot of detail in the frog that is invisible before cropping. I got lucky with this one because there is not much quality loss of the subject. I make mistakes like this more often than not. I know I would be a better photographer if I followed Dalantech's advice.

On the other hand this was probably about as close as I could get to the frog without scaring it. I doubt I could have used my Canon with macro at 1:1 distance. So at least I got something, even if it could have been better.

Hosted photo: posted by Terry McDaniel in
./showthread.php?p=189​52762&i=i57150825
forum: Macro

Hosted photo: posted by Terry McDaniel in
./showthread.php?p=189​52762&i=i82118434
forum: Macro

Absolutely, all of the things you mentioned apply here. No imagine another circumstance...

Imagine you happened to be walking by with your camera and one lens, just a little walk around shooting session. You happen to notice the frog, but you are standing there with a crop frame camera with a 10-22 zoom attached. CERTAINLY not the lens you want for a shot like this one, but the only one you have with you. In fact, it is entirely possible that the the closest composition you can achieve with that lens might still show your foot, or if you put the frog at the bottom of the frame, perhaps a person standing on the other side of the pipe from you. Lots of possibilities there.

So, do you walk away because you don't have the tools you really need, or do you take the shot because you think it's a cool looking frog? Either one is fine and okay, and the latter probably doesn't give you a money shot... then again maybe it's a rare frog you just found so taking the shot is worth it.

Yup, somehow we went from cropping to using completely different and more expensive gear and then also lighting needs/setup and experience. Two mutually exclusive topics. A good photographer can make due with a 100L to make spectacular images, even cropped, and a bad photographer with an MP-E can make terrible results, even if framed "perfectly" in camera.

And I certainly am not insecure about my methods and results, I am very happy with them and am willing to go head to head with anyone, due both to my confidence and experience and gear, and perhaps a bit of ignorance of how bad I am, but I am ok with that.

"The pursuit for perfection never has an end and will eat endless number of hours, because it can never be realized, so manage your time on earth accordingly."

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18952762
If there is a quality drop off between your second photo and your third picture, I can't see it on my screen.

I do believe Dalantech's point does apply to me. For example, in this first picture I made a bunch of horrible mistakes. Cut off the top of the pipe, camera strap visible and my right foot is visible. These are things I should have noticed while framing, but I seem to develop tunnel vision and only see my subject. So to share the photo with my facebook groups, I did a bunch of cropping. The second photo is only 9% of the first (475 kB). On the other hand you do see a lot of detail in the frog that is invisible before cropping. I got lucky with this one because there is not much quality loss of the subject. I make mistakes like this more often than not. I know I would be a better photographer if I followed Dalantech's advice.

On the other hand this was probably about as close as I could get to the frog without scaring it. I doubt I could have used my Canon with macro at 1:1 distance. So at least I got something, even if it could have been better.

Hosted photo: posted by Terry McDaniel in
./showthread.php?p=189​52762&i=i57150825
forum: Macro

Hosted photo: posted by Terry McDaniel in
./showthread.php?p=189​52762&i=i82118434
forum: Macro

Exactly good example! I think your last statement sums it up. Could one do better at a shot? Yes. Can one crop out extraneous stuff and get a bit "closer" to the subject? Yes again, not an issue.

Your cropped shot is very nice indeed, and yes, getting with 5-6" would have likely spooked the little guy. Nice capture!

I appreciate y'all taking the time to give me feedback.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18952813
I appreciate y'all taking the time to give me feedback.

Sorry it all got derailed!

Dalantech wrote in post #18952876
Sorry it all got derailed!

It's an internet forum.

My last word on cropping, at the risk of someone taking issue with it...

Roughly eight years ago there was a fairly well known macro photographer that took some amazing macro photos (mostly jumping spiders). I was chatting with him via Flickr mail and told him that I liked his work but that his images were too tightly cropped, and that he might want to look into getting the framing that made his work popular without cropping. He kinda brushed me aside, and looking back on it I think he might have been under a Non Disclosure Agreement. A few months later his work was published by a popular photography magazine (hint) and I was honestly excited for him, and the discipline at large. Finally macro photography was gonna get some serious exposure, and maybe people outside the discipline would take it seriously*. Macro was going to get the respect it deserves!

The images reminded me of pixelated genitalia in a Japanese porno.

They weren't that bad, but the quality of the shots looked pretty low because they were too cropped. Since then I haven't seen a major photography magazine publish an amateur's macro photos. A few exceptions if someone manages to shoot a new species or a new behavior. But no multi-page spreads of a single macro photographer's work.

It's not too difficult to make a photo that looks good on the web -computer screens are pretty forgiving. But if you want to see your work in print someday then go easy on the cropping tool in post.

*Note to everyone: If you want to get into a discussion about why macro isn't taken seriously outside of the discipline then please start a separate thread.

Dalantech wrote in post #18952887
My last word on cropping, at the risk of someone taking issue with it...

Roughly eight years ago there was a fairly well known macro photographer that took some amazing macro photos (mostly jumping spiders). I was chatting with him via Flickr mail and told him that I liked his work but that his images were too tightly cropped, and that he might want to look into getting the framing that made his work popular without cropping. He kinda brushed me aside, and looking back on it I think he might have been under an Non Disclosure Agreement. A few months later his work was published by a popular photography magazine (hint) and I was honestly excited for him, and the discipline at large. Finally macro photography was gonna get some serious exposure, and maybe people outside the discipline would take it seriously*. Macro was going to get the respect it deserves!

The images reminded me of pixelated genitalia in a Japanese porno.

They weren't that bad, but the quality of the shots looked pretty low because they were too cropped. Since then I haven't seen a major photography magazine publish an amateur's macro photos. A few exceptions if someone manages to shoot a new species or a new behavior. But no multi-page spreads of a single macro photographer's work.

It's not too difficult to make a photo that looks good on the web -computer screens are pretty forgiving. But if you want to see your work in print someday then go easy on the cropping tool in post.

*Note to everyone: If you want to get into a discussion about why macro isn't taken seriously outside of the discipline then please start a separate thread.

Your story makes me curious, are you saying the images in print were actually pixelated? That seems pretty extreme (from a cropping standpoint) even if they were printing an 8x10 full page image. As an aside I'm surprised the image you are referring to got through the editing phase for the magazine, seems like they would stop things like that before print. There is no doubt there has to be enough resolution for the intended output for sure.

jcothron wrote in post #18952891
Your story makes me curious, are you saying the images in print were actually pixelated? That seems pretty extreme (from a cropping standpoint) even if they were printing an 8x10 full page image. As an aside I'm surprised the image you are referring to got through the editing phase for the magazine, seems like they would stop things like that before print. There is no doubt there has to be enough resolution for the intended output for sure.

They lacked detail, and were "grainy". Like I said it wasn't as bad as being pixelated to the extent that you couldn't make out the image, but it was bad. IMHO it set macro back, way back.

I licensed 20 of my images recently to a Swiss government agency and they wanted all of the files in TIFF format, and I'm not so sure that they are actually printing them.

I strongly disagree with your claim that the photographer you're talking about set macro photography back at all. I credit them for bringing macro photography for a wider audience. I have encountered numerous macro photographers, including myself who credit that photographer for getting them interested in macro photography. I think it is awesome what they have done for the growth of our hobby.

To keep this comment from being entirely off-topic:

I do my best to frame the image in the view finder, but at high magnifications and at some of the contorted angles I have to be in to get some photos my compositions can almost always be improved. I would say 97% of my macro photos have been cropped to improve composition. If I didn't allow myself to crop I wouldn't have my favourite images!

That's what works for me personally. I can appreciate the benefits of not cropping, but for my style of shooting it most often is not an option.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18952788
Yup, somehow we went from cropping to using completely different and more expensive gear and then also lighting needs/setup and experience. Two mutually exclusive topics. A good photographer can make due with a 100L to make spectacular images, even cropped, and a bad photographer with an MP-E can make terrible results, even if framed "perfectly" in camera.

And I certainly am not insecure about my methods and results, I am very happy with them and am willing to go head to head with anyone, due both to my confidence and experience and gear, and perhaps a bit of ignorance of how bad I am, but I am ok with that.

"The pursuit for perfection never has an end and will eat endless number of hours, because it can never be realized, so manage your time on earth accordingly."

With an MPE it is very easy to get bad results - it is not a friendly lens - I like it but it is tricky.


This album on flickr - not mine, shows how cropping can be great.
https://www.flickr.com …/albums/7215771​1611200066

Dalantech wrote in post #18952887
It's not too difficult to make a photo that looks good on the web -computer screens are pretty forgiving. But if you want to see your work in print someday then go easy on the cropping tool in post.

Interesting I didn't know that. This was cropped (I think) and is the only thing I have ever had printed - because it was the most interesting thing that we saw on a young entomology meeting in London - not because it was such an amazing photo.
It was in the AES Bugclub magazine
(It is Dryophilocoris flavoquadrimaculatus in case anyone is interested - and very few people have photographed it)

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tbCn​62

I print 13x19 all the time at home since it is so cheap (and larger online, like metal prints and canvas) and cropped images come out beautifully, details and all. Don't let the negative Nancy's tell you you can't crop and get a good photo, an APSC is a crop of a FF, a FF is a crop of MF, etc and is no different really than cropping yourself, like taking a 1.6 crop from a 5dsr versus a 7d2.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18954422
I print 13x19 all the time at home since it is so cheap (and larger online, like metal prints and canvas) and cropped images come out beautifully, details and all. Don't let the negative Nancy's tell you you can't crop and get a good photo, an APSC is a crop of a FF, a FF is a crop of MF, etc and is no different really than cropping yourself, like taking a 1.6 crop from a 5dsr versus a 7d2.

A 1.6x crop of a 5Dsr would give you a roughly 18MP image, and the 7D2 has a 20MP sensor so your example isn't realistic. It would be tough, if not impossible, to tell the difference...

To everyone: What you do when you take a photo is up to you, and I'm not trying to tell you how to shoot. But I stand by everything I said about cropping. IMHO cropping should never be a standard part of your post processing.