Habitual Cropping - your worst enemy?

My brains more or less trained to compose in the viewfinder. However nobody's perfect and a bit of cropping to achieve proper balance always helps. Cropping might simply be necessary with action shots, as I think someone mentioned because the subject might've moved somewhere else in the frame in the time it took to press the shutter.
I'm long time film shooter and I never paid any attention to making things fit any pre cut, pre proportioneded frame sizes. Whatever dimensions achieve balance and composition is it, but yeah, at least 90% of the shot I want is in the viewfinder already

I think I understand Simon's underlying statement about cropping in general, as I believe I have been guilty in a sense.

Cropping as a tool is fine and understood to be necessary at times, whether for style 4x, 3x, 8x, 1x1, etc... Also for "slivers', straightening, etc...

Where it does not work well is when heavy croping results in a photo that does not come out too well due to the fact that the resolution no longer supports the image as well.
At this point, composition/framing are of primary importance.

I have been guilty of shooting with a lens too short and hoping to crop and get what I was originally seeing. This is not easy to do, although the pp does help some, or multiple images stitched together.

Thanks guys for the latest, well thought out additions.

And I'm glad to read that you "get" the point.

I'm also an "ex" from the film days, and now don't own a film camera due to the hassle of development - but I did have a dark-room back in the late 1980s, attached to a modest studio, so I know all about cropping "back then".

It was easier to frame properly whenever possible and this meant that composition became much more natural and intuitive.

But with a digital camera it's much easier to shoot what looks OK, and then crop on a computer screen.

To re-affirm my thoughts, this can be OK, and at times, we have no other choice, but I'm confident that "aiming" not to crop heavily after downloading images to a computer will result in happier photographers producing higher quality images, more of the time, due to seeing what our gear (and in this, I'm really aiming at dSLR users more than P&S) is capable of.

Over to you....

skygod44 wrote in post #12807223
I'm also an "ex" from the film days, and now don't own a film camera due to the hassle of development - but I did have a dark-room back in the late 1980s, attached to a modest studio, so I know all about cropping "back then".

It was easier to frame properly whenever possible and this meant that composition became much more natural and intuitive.

But with a digital camera it's much easier to shoot what looks OK, and then crop on a computer screen.

So, you dont shoot film anymore because it's a hassle, yet (for some reason) you complain that some people crop because it's easier?!?

And I really don't get the point - this would only work in a studio or another controlled environment. Have you shot children playing outside? Animals running in the forest? Any fast-action sport? You do the best you can and then take advantage of the PP.

Granted I don't crop much, 5% of my good shots tops, it really grinds my gears when someone decides to mount their arbitrary high horse for no reason whatsoever...Do you really think that cropping is the reason so many photos on the internet are nothing special?!?

I've been guilty of heavy cropping myself, I admit it. Some times there is no way around cropping if you really want to get that shot. You take the shot and do with it whatever you can, if you can. I am limited to 400mm focal length and sometimes that's not enough when I am out shooting Birds or other wildlife.
I do have a 1200mm f/8 telescope that would get me in there a lot closer but I'm not about to carry around 27 pounds of extra weight. Besides it doesn't have Auto-Focus and it would be a PIA trying to pan along to shoot BIF Shots. Doesn't have IS either..

Thanks for the latest comments.

And altrus:
You really need to calm down and read the whole thread before writing so strongly.

My whole point is, that HEAVY cropping is removing aspects of a photo which - if taken with a decent dSLR and lens combination - are key features of that camera/lens combo.

So, being more careful with framing when possible (which, unless you're a serious wildlife pro, excludes wildlife photography, and some other specialist areas) before pushing the shutter button, is a GOOD THING.

If you think that's not true, or has anything even remotely connected to me being on my "high horse", I suggest you send me your 5D2 to show you what it can do, as it seems you're too perfect to want to learn anything anymore.

skygod44 wrote in post #12821396
If you think that's not true, or has anything even remotely connected to me being on my "high horse", I suggest you send me your 5D2 to show you what it can do, as it seems you're too perfect to want to learn anything anymore.

Am I too perfect to learn anything? Probably

Why did you start this thread?!? Out of the blue you decide to proclaim that cropping is bad - You offer no examples, no one asked you what you think about framing, I don't see any photos where you've used proper vs. not framing...It all sounds to me like a "high horse" thread.

I would love to send you my 5d2, but clearly you know nothing about the camera:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I really think SkyGod has an excellent point, don't miss it. He isn't talking about minor cropping here, he is referring to unnecessary heavy cropping. It wasn't until I read his post that I started to consider my own bad habits in that regard and realized he was making a good point. A point that will change my own shooting, I suspect. I too come from the film days and always cropped in the camera. When I changed over to digital and got nice camera bodies and nice lenses, I became a little lax and didn't pay as much attention to cropping in the camera. I realize from his post that I really DO crop too much unnecessarily, I just had never thought about it before. I will think about it more now because I think it will help some of my images. Great post.

atlrus wrote in post #12821762
Am I too perfect to learn anything? Probably
Why did you start this thread?!? Out of the blue you decide to proclaim that cropping is bad - You offer no examples, no one asked you what you think about framing, I don't see any photos where you've used proper vs. not framing...It all sounds to me like a "high horse" thread.
I would love to send you my 5d2, but clearly you know nothing about the camera:
Yeah, sorry I don't bring the full bag when I take my daughter to the zoo. And too bad they won't let me get inside the sanctuary so I can better frame my photo...

I love you atlrus....I really do.
Why?
Because you're showing us clearly why POTN is so important: you see, inside these "walls" we can speak our mind, open up to many people anonymously, and demonstrate what rational, clear-thinking people we are; while simultaneously striving to develop as human beings, and within that, as photographers.

Or, on the other hand, like your good-self, we can close our minds and think that (and I'm sad to say this) like you, we understand everything, have learned all there is to learn, know all there is to know, etc....

People like Sue (next post), can see the point.
If you can't, that's OK, too.
You're welcome to continue shooting giraffe from a long distance, cropping the shot heavily and thinking, "Boy! I'm so talented!!"
Please.
Be my guest.
And I'll continue to shoot professionally.

suecassidy wrote in post #12821812
I really think SkyGod has an excellent point, don't miss it. He isn't talking about minor cropping here, he is referring to unnecessary heavy cropping. It wasn't until I read his post that I started to consider my own bad habits in that regard and realized he was making a good point. A point that will change my own shooting, I suspect. I too come from the film days and always cropped in the camera. When I changed over to digital and got nice camera bodies and nice lenses, I became a little lax and didn't pay as much attention to cropping in the camera. I realize from his post that I really DO crop too much unnecessarily, I just had never thought about it before. I will think about it more now because I think it will help some of my images. Great post.

Hey Sue,
Thanks for the post. And thanks for taking the time to read through the thread to see the point - which, I'm really sad to see, is as-clear-as mud to some of our members!
Also, I wonder if ex-, or current film-users can see the potential "problem" (if I can call it that) in habitual heavy cropping, more easily than those who have jumped straight into digital - especially those with more dollars than brain cells.
Cheers for now,

Simon

I think you are missing the point Simon, why don't you try to learn something yourself?
The giraffe example illustrates the following points:

1. The ability to frame to your liking is NOT always a given. (I would love to hear your take on how would you have taken this shot differently.)

2. Heavy cropping does not degrade the image if you have the right equipment.

In addition, if I really wanted to go "fancy" with the giraffe, I could slightly tilt the crop, add some blur effect and make the crop look like it was taken with 200mm f/2.8

here is a good example of post processing that includes heavy cropping and delivers a good result: http://www.photosig.co​m/articles/1569/articl​e

As many other posters have said - cropping is neither good nor bad. Labeling someone a bad photographer based solely on the fact that they crop is nothing short of riding a high horse.

atlrus wrote in post #12825012
2. Heavy cropping does not degrade the image if you have the right equipment.

My issue is, I don't have a 5DMKii - framing the image right, then backing off a little, I think has helped me quite a bit. First out, I was getting what I wanted in the shot, then just cropping with wild abandon to make it fit, more or less to figure out how to really get what I wanted. Now, I have enough room to crop and print in various formats, without wasting the res my little T3 gives me.

Though, as you said, its not good or bad, just a tool, a little extra thought in the shot lets you use your tools better. Now I just need to think better....

atlrus wrote in post #12825012
I think you are missing the point Simon, why don't you try to learn something yourself?
The giraffe example illustrates the following points:

1. The ability to frame to your liking is NOT always a given. (I would love to hear your take on how would you have taken this shot differently.)

I seriously doubt Simon was referring to your situation, in this case, you were at the zoo with a lens of X focal length. IF, in taking that shot, you were zoomed in a far as you could possibly have been zoomed in and it was the only lens you had with you. I'm sure he'd have the same result as you. I can't speak for Simon, but I will anyway.

I THINK his point was that perhaps it was someone, using a 500 mm lens on that same shot. They framed it and included the baby giraffe, lots of the grass, the background, the foreground etc, knowing FULL WELL that they had no intention of including the baby in the finished shot, knowing full well that they were really just after the adult giraffe, knowing full well that they had too much foreground, background, negative space to the left and the right, but they chose not to use the full 500mm they had at their disposal because they knew they could "crop it in post".

Of course, photographers always want to have cropping options after the fact, so we shoot wide to allow for that, but I think what he is saying is "Think about it first, and don't waste pixels by UNNECESSARY cropping." I think it is good advice that somehow went off the rails in this thread.

With action shots, there is also the situation where one simply doesn't "see" the most interesting framing until you see it on the computer... you shot the lead rock singer, but when you look at the pic the singer looks drab but you "see" the fantastic drummer at the side. Man, I crop in a second to capture that look.

It's the same with sports - while you naturally follow and capture the main action, there can be some super facial expressions (or "different" action) at the side of the shot.

Or, as illustrated with the giraffe, when shooting a wide view there may be more than a single focus of interest.

I favor cropping to aid in focusing on the interesting location - and if that means suffering a bit of noise, well, life is sometimes noisy. But I'm an amateur, so my view can easily be categorized as such.

From film days (mostly with fixed focal length lenses), I try to identify the subject in a scene,
compose the subject, then shoot a little loose so I can crop to the desired aspect ratio.
I still have the mentality of shooting for prints so I allow for aspect adjustment, mostly
5/4.

suecassidy wrote in post #12825159
I seriously doubt Simon was referring to your situation, in this case, you were at the zoo with a lens of X focal length. IF, in taking that shot, you were zoomed in a far as you could possibly have been zoomed in and it was the only lens you had with you. I'm sure he'd have the same result as you. I can't speak for Simon, but I will anyway.

I THINK his point was that perhaps it was someone, using a 500 mm lens on that same shot. They framed it and included the baby giraffe, lots of the grass, the background, the foreground etc, knowing FULL WELL that they had no intention of including the baby in the finished shot, knowing full well that they were really just after the adult giraffe, knowing full well that they had too much foreground, background, negative space to the left and the right, but they chose not to use the full 500mm they had at their disposal because they knew they could "crop it in post".

Of course, photographers always want to have cropping options after the fact, so we shoot wide to allow for that, but I think what he is saying is "Think about it first, and don't waste pixels by UNNECESSARY cropping." I think it is good advice that somehow went off the rails in this thread.

Beautifully said Sue.
And I think it's best to let altrus simply get on with what he knows is best...

bubbygator wrote in post #12825344
With action shots, there is also the situation where one simply doesn't "see" the most interesting framing until you see it on the computer... you shot the lead rock singer, but when you look at the pic the singer looks drab but you "see" the fantastic drummer at the side. Man, I crop in a second to capture that look.

Quite agree!
My main business is concert photography (classical though - not rock/pop/etc.) and I sometimes get the chance to spot 2nd-clarinet pulling what looks like the "I really want to squeeze out a fart" expression, while I was aiming for the 1st clarinet!

Spot on!
Though the top sports photographers I chat to rely more on more on a "twin set", usually a couple of 1D4s (or 1D3s) with a long prime glued to one and a 70-200 glued to the other.
In that situation, they clearly are able to get almost any shot framed as near to perfect as possible.
Oh for that set up......

Nobody will push you into the "category" of amateur!
Your thoughts and ideas are more than welcome!!!!
BUT, back to my main point, do try when possible not to heavily crop in PP if you're deliberately aiming to take advantage of the high pixels and great depth-of-field control from a decent camera/lens combo.
Regards,
Simon

James Salenger wrote in post #12825865
From film days (mostly with fixed focal length lenses), I try to identify the subject in a scene,
compose the subject, then shoot a little loose so I can crop to the desired aspect ratio.
I still have the mentality of shooting for prints so I allow for aspect adjustment, mostly
5/4.

Hey James, good point!
And here's an example from me where I did just that.
I framed with the hawk near the top of the viewfinder as I wanted a long, narrow print.
It took about 6 attempts to get it, but I think it was worth it.
Cheers for now,
Simon

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.