Habitual Cropping - your worst enemy?

Hello campers!!!
If you've just joined us, I've decided to re-write the OP to hopefully reduce the number of confused responses - especially if you don't want to read all the posts.
The original, "thinking out loud" post is at the bottom in size 1.....feel free to enlarge it, if you want to read my first, slightly confusing words:

So, what's the point of this thread?
It started out as an idea. It literally just came to me, which is why some early responses were quite negative, because I didn't have a fully formed message....

Now, I do.
Really, this thread should be titled Do you habitually crop heavily in PP? If so, perhaps you're not getting all your gear could offer...

The premise is that we dSLR users can be a lazy bunch. Don't deny it
And we can then justify our actions until we're blue in the face.
But PROBABLY, the truth is, that *unless we have no other choice in the matter, (which I'll expand on next), the way to NOT get the best from our gear, is to think that cropping a shot in PP is just as good as pre-planning the shot before we press the shutter.
And I'll stick my neck out, and suggest further, that it's an addictive habit best avoided as much as possible.

Before the haters jump in, here are the "no choice in the matter" caveats:
* Want/need to crop to a square/other shaped format? Of course, there's no other solution when using a current EOS camera.
* Re-framing because something else/unexpected catches our eye? Excellent! And how lucky!!!
* Shooting at the extreme of a long lens, which still isn't quite long enough? This could be wildlife, sports, you name it. Sometimes, we simply take what we can.
* Sorting out horizons, doing a tiny trim to get the image "just so", etc? Nothing wrong there, either.
* Trying a new, funky cropped shape for creative purposes? Go for it! I love creativity, and it's nothing to do with my point.
* And I'm not a "straight out of the camera" is the ONLY way, nutjob either!

I'm sure there are a few more caveats, but back to the thread, and the "why"?

Well, just think about it.

If you don't think about your shots BEFORE lifting the camera; if you don't try to make sure the right/best lens from your bag is on your camera; if you don't consider what you're about to shoot, and why; if you don't take even one second to compose your shot through the viewfinder, so that it closely resembles the final image in your mind's eye, why are you using a dSLR with interchangeable lenses?

The Canon EOS system (and the dSLRs from all manufacturers) is remarkable in what it can do. Some things can be done in PP which boggle the eye.
But just making a little bit more effort BEFORE even picking up your camera bag(!), will, I suggest, pay you back a hundred times over.

Happy shooting,

Simon

skygod44 wrote in post #12797751
I've been thinking about this for a while, and decided to do a thread about it. And I was pondering where to put this...
...but it directly affects all digital camera users, so I think here is best.
So, on a regular basis I see threads where various dSLR owners knock other owners. Mostly it's about "technical" stuff like the size of sensors, photodiode density, ISO handling, fps, full-frame versus crop, and suchlike.
All fairly harmless in my opinion because ALL modern cameras are tremendous pieces of kit compared with early dSLRs, and fiddling with them is so much more accessible than film cameras due to instant feedback on the little screen on the back.
But what isn't harmless is our habit of thinking that if we spot any failings, well, we can fix those on the computer with a few deft clicks.
Of course, some areas of post processing enhance images tremendously...but I think one of the main reasons why so many photos we're seeing on the internet irrespective of the camera body/lens used, look really quite ordinary, is because too many people are missing a fundamental skill in photography, exactly because it's so easy to "fix" things in post processing.
And what is that skill?
Framing correctly - which means using your feet, and/or the right focal length lens for each situation.
Why is this, in my humble opinion so fundamental?
1) Because all the arguments about things like depth of field when comparing full-frame to a 1.6 or 1.3 cropped sensor camera are meaningless if the full-frame user habitually crops, but the cropped sensor user frames correctly.
2) Arguing that primes are better than zooms (or vice-versa!!!) is daft if either "group" habitually crop their images on the computer.
3) Complaining that a bird-in-flight shot looks too fuzzy is pointless if it's a 75% cropped image, shot with a 250mm lens when in fact you needed a 600mm lens.
4) "Wow! Your camera takes such noisy photos at ISO3200...it's terrible at 100% on screen!"
I could go on, but I think you get my point.
Frame correctly...don't crop.
Frame correctly.....don't crop!
FRAME CORRECTLY.....DON'T CROP!!!!!!!
Looking at the above examples in a little more detail:
In #1, the depth of field effect requires foreground and background. If the photographer crops too much, those two vital parts of the image are lost/reduced.
In #2, moving your feet/choosing the right lens (if a prime) or the right focal length (if a zoom) will maximise what the lens can do, irrespective of whether it's a prime or zoom on the camera. And knowing when to use either beats cropping on the computer hands-down.
Iin case #3, shooting birds-in-flight is very difficult. It's not "meant" to be easy, simply because you've bought a dSLR. Some realms of photography will take years of practice (and a lot of money!) for anyone to to have even a shot at becoming top of class.
And regarding noise? Looking at images on-screen at 100% and then picking fault should, IMO, result in a 25,000 volt electric shock going directly through the keyboard of the offender, because nobody in their right mind should crop to 100%, thus nobody is going to see such a photo!!!
Well, Missus Skygod is saying it's time for bed, so I'll leave this open for discussion, but in my film days, I always framed properly before even thinking of pressing the shutter button....
.....and I think we'd see a LOT LESS DROSS on the 'net if more digital camera users did the same.
btw, straightening horizons or trimming a slither to attain perfect balance is not what my advice is concerned with.
Cheers for now,
Simon

I generally agree, but there are two caveats. Some images look better at a size ratio different from the 3:2 sensor ratio. For example, many head or head and shoulders portraits look very good printed 8"x10", and you can only achieve this with cropping. Similarly, it is occasionally not possible to move so as to avoid distracting elements, so it makes sense to crop or otherwise remove them in PP.

You make valid points, but you need to be a little bit more realistic. You mention film, but it's impossible to get an exact 0% crop when making prints with an enlarger. And not everyone has a 100% viewfinder, so even with perfect framing there's always a chance that there are things around the edges that shouldn't have been there. Then if you have to rotate to fix a horizon, or do some perspective correction because you didn't have a tilt/shift lens, you're forced to crop a bit. Then if you want a different ratio other than the native 3:2 (like making 4:5 prints, or 16:10 wallpapers), you've got to do it there too.

Cropping is not the enemy here, it's the overuse of it. Just like the overuse of anything in PP is generally bad.

Cropping is not an enemy. Neither is it good or bad, right or wrong. It is simply another tool - a method - for achieving an effective composition.

Simon, I'm a little disappointed as you almost sound like one of those SOOTC nut-jobs. You assume that just because we have a camera we are blessed with "vision" at the time of capture...I'm a prime example of that not being the case.

Example is... back in the day, when I knew even less about composition than what I do now, I would look at a scene and know that somewhere there is a picture in that scene but I couldn't see it. What did I do...glad you asked.
Rather than use a WA lens I used a telephoto lens and took a ton of images of the scene and combined them in a panorama...then I was able to find the image I wanted and just cropped it out without loss of resolution.

It depends upon where you are on that Bell Curve of learning "vision".

chauncey wrote in post #12799167
It depends upon where you are on that Bell Curve of learning "vision".

I'd think it's an S-curve, not a bell curve.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #12799003
Cropping is not an enemy. Neither is it good or bad, right or wrong. It is simply another tool - a method - for achieving an effective composition.

+1.

I'd think that this would be a "normal" way for a photographer to shoot whenever it's possible. I personally am always quite happy when I can get a shot that doesn't require cropping or, for that matter cloning, or, for that matter exposure corrections, etc. I love it when a scene comes together in terms of composition and lighting!

Of course, my photographic "adventures" don't always land in that "sweet spot" -- I can't afford the 600mm lens I'd love to have, my focal length is limited to the 100-400 + 1.4x TC, 560mm, which, believe me, is not long enough! I tend to do OK at the wider end, but lemme tell ya, with wildlife shooting cropping tends to be a way of life. And, sometimes I can't get the right lighting for what I want to shoot. Well, you make your best call...and then that pesky "unwanted clutter" thing, yeah, it does happen, although many times if I can't avoid it I'll skip the shot or, if it's interesting enough, well, heck, take the shot and if it's worth the trouble to clone/crop/whatever, then, well, I prefer not to but whatever.

Of course that's just me. Maybe there are photogs out there who have a mentality that lets them make such decisions in post processing, to whom cropping, exposure corrections, cloning, etc is "no big deal". Maybe there are those who have a more relaxed attitude, in the same way that you hear people having a relaxed attitude toward image sharpness, the "don't pixel peep" crowd, whereas I personally know the difference between an image that is in the "range" of sharp focus, of being tack sharp, and one that is not, and I much prefer to aim for the first and look for the first and to ignore the others or "rate" them lower. But again, that's just me. And sometimes, the image you capture, no matter its technical flaws, will "speak" to you...

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #12799003
Cropping is not an enemy. Neither is it good or bad, right or wrong. It is simply another tool - a method - for achieving an effective composition.

+1 on this as well. I regularly crop my images to 8x10 as the full frame/35mm size does not print on any standard paper that is available (AFIK) without leaving a some sort of "white" border that must be "cropped" using a paper cutter.

Also, sometimes you are not always in a position to make the "perfect" image in the camera, particularly when it comes to wildlife photography, including BIF - you often have to take what you can get and deal with the results afterward - wild animals are not known to "pose" for their picture to be taken.

I do agree that composing in camera is the best situation when you can achieve it and I often try my best when I am shooting landscapes - I find I do my least amount of cropping with these, but a deer dashing across a meadow isn't going to stop while you compose "in camera"...I shoot in burst mode (AI servo - multishot) and take what I can get - sometimes it is just junk and never sees the light of day and other times I am significantly rewarded. MY 0.02¢ FWIW.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

Good to get some comments guys, and forgive me for being a bit sleepy when I wrote the first entry - maybe it wasn't worded very well.

So:
I see various fair replies, though, as always, some POTNers can't read to the end of a text before wading in with negativity. I did say that taking off slithers is not what this is about....and of course, if you want a square image, there's no other way to achieve that without cropping if you're using a Canon EOS camera.

But what I want to draw attention to, is how we can't get the best from camera and lens if we automatically think of cropping after we've downloaded to a computer.

@Tony:
Yes, I'd love a 600mm lens for birding, too.
But that's not going to happen soon...
The point of mentioning BIF photography was because it's almost an exclusive art-form, rather than a viable route for most dSLR users.
So heavy cropping shouldn't be done by someone with a 55-250mm lens, and then complained about.
It really isn't that easy to do....so don't stress about it. Do something else, would be my advice, until you know you want a 500 or 600mm lens.

And @Picture North Carolina and ssim, you're missing the point.
Cropping is, of course, a tool.
But HABITUAL CROPPING (and I mean heavy habitual cropping) is not the way to get the best from our gear....and I don't see many (any?) posts to newbies explaining that their hard-earned 70-200 f/2.8 won't "shine" if they constantly crop out 25% of the boarder.
Simply taking an extra second to frame a bit better before pushing the shutter button could really show what their pride 'n' joy can do!

And @Chauncey, I'm glad you said I "almost" sound like one of those SOOTC nutjobs.
That's not what I was saying.
The point is, the effects we're aiming for, using lovely dSLRs and expensive lenses might be thrown away/dramatically reduced if we habitually crop.
OK?
And perhaps a fair few members don't fully appreciate this - especially newbies.

Over to you....

skygod44, thanks for the clarification. I would agree that habitual heavy cropping defeats the purpose of having a collection of lenses that cover a variety of different ranges. I think that one of the skills that a newbie has to learn is what lens is the best to use under a given set of circumstances. I know when I started in film many moons ago, this was something that took me a while to figure out and even today, I find myself saying - "I should have used my 70-200 for that shot" instead of my ... whatever I used. The other thing is that sometimes if you don't have a lens that will give you the shot you want, then cropping an image may be the best way to get the results that you were looking for...but let's not make it a habit.

Regards,

WesternGuy

WesternGuy wrote in post #12802992
skygod44, thanks for the clarification. I would agree that habitual heavy cropping defeats the purpose of having a collection of lenses that cover a variety of different ranges. I think that one of the skills that a newbie has to learn is what lens is the best to use under a given set of circumstances. I know when I started in film many moons ago, this was something that took me a while to figure out and even today, I find myself saying - "I should have used my 70-200 for that shot" instead of my ... whatever I used. The other thing is that sometimes if you don't have a lens that will give you the shot you want, then cropping an image may be the best way to get the results that you were looking for...but let's not make it a habit.

Regards,

WesternGuy

Thanks back at you!

I think I need to make the next sentence bigger so as to be understood better, and if you don't mind, I'll quote you on it:
"Habitual heavy cropping defeats the purpose of having a collection of lenses..."

I agree heavy cropping is bad, but trimming is necessary.

Framing properly is always the best way to go.... but it's not always possible. The genre of photography you choose dictates that. For instance a portrait photographer will probably have way more time to compose and frame, verses a sports photographer. Way way to many people here forget the environment cannot always be controlled. I see complaints from people that in someones bird photo, the bird isn't looking directly at the camera..... it's not like you can just ask the bird to look. Or someone will complain in an auto race shot the photo would have looked better if the wheels were turned in a different direction maybe that is true.... but that is still a ridiculous comment. Or any random complaint that the photog couldn't possibly control in a million years.The point is not everyone can shoot in a studio where all the variables can be controlled. In fact not all of us want to. I like the element of surprise I get from nature photography. Equipment and time constraints are a fact, it's how we overcome obstacles, is what counts.

Even the best professional film photographers crop and manipulate/ed their photo's. Photoshop just makes it easier and less time consuming. For sure it is now "too easy" but lets not kid ourselves, it was/still is done. I do agree it is overly used. It is mush more desirable to achieve the photo full frame, or get the exposure correct, then to "fix it later". Rather then take good clean compositions we now just clone %$^@ out. There are far to many comments on here that this picture would look better if "so and so" was cloned out. Personally if you need to clone out more then 5% of any given picture you should not have taken the picture in the first place. Used sparingly it's a useful tool. But it is highly over used in this day and age.

Crimzon wrote in post #12803077
Heavy cropping is bad, trimming is necessary.....

Please forgive me for heavily cropping(!) your comment

As I said above, trimming is one thing. And understanding how/when to do that is certainly part of producing the best we can...
...but it's a heavy reliance on the cropping tool which is literally tossing away some of the "point" in buying lenses, as opposed to simply owning a 28mm and cropping out the bad stuff.

We've seen quite a few threads talking about a reduction in the quality of photos, rapidly replaced by an massive increase in the quantity of photos people can see around them.

And I feel that it's a good thing if more members appreciate that heavy habitual cropping ('cos it's so easy) will only add to the latter group.

I only crop for print and horizon straightening. The former moreso than the latter. I only have 8.2 million pixels at my disposal, and I don't want to waste them.