Cropping

To each his own, but what makes you a better photographer is not getting hung up on some predetermined rule to the point that you sacrifice what could have been a more pleasing image by adhering to it.

I stand by my original response.

All cropped... and living... and taken carefully and not lazily... and manually focused.

Be an impressive set up regarding magnification if you could produce Springtail images without cropping unless of course you want to show them in their surroundings.

jcothron wrote in post #18950411
To each his own, but what makes you a better photographer is not getting hung up on some predetermined rule to the point that you sacrifice what could have been a more pleasing image by adhering to it.

I stand by my original response.

If there are other compositions that can be had just by altering the framing (cropping does that) then I'll see them in my mind, and subject willing I'll take them. If I crop in post and see another way that I could have framed the scene then it's too late...

Quick couple of questions about cropping: some say their photo is a 100% crop. How is that determined? I would guess you could divide the finished file size by the original file size to get a percentage, but wouldn't a 100% crop be the original size? Next, some critters or subjects are so small that even when photographed at 1:1 you still can't see much. I would think cropping is pretty much necessary for that situation. For example, I posted a two Lacewing photos the other day, one was a true 1:1, and the other I heavily cropped all the way down to its eye, so you could see the strange reflection pattern that Neuropterans often have. That reflection pattern was not easily visible in the 1:1 photo.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18952155
Quick couple of questions about cropping: some say their photo is a 100% crop. How is that determined? I would guess you could divide the finished file size by the original file size to get a percentage, but wouldn't a 100% crop be the original size? Next, some critters or subjects are so small that even when photographed at 1:1 you still can't see much. I would think cropping is pretty much necessary for that situation. For example, I posted a two Lacewing photos the other day, one was a true 1:1, and the other I heavily cropped all the way down to its eye, so you could see the strange reflection pattern that Neuropterans often have. That reflection pattern was not easily visible in the 1:1 photo.

Regarding your cropping question, exactly. While it is never a goal to take a shot with the idea of "gee I can't wait to crop this" (because you will lose resolution) there are cases where you can't get the image you want otherwise. It has nothing to do with laziness, nor vision... it has to do with reality.

For macro work it may be the situation you mentioned with the lacewing, because unless you have a macro lens that goes to greater than 1:1, or extension tubes, etc you just aren't going to get that close to the eye.

For landscape work, you may not be able to "foot zoom" due to a variety of factors. You may be standing on the edge of a cliff, or you may be standing at the edge of a deep drop-off in a body of water or a stream among other real obstacles that there is no reasonable way to work around. In those cases you work with the situation you have.

Bottom line: I don't think many people go out with the goal of taking images to crop them, and obviously the more work you do on the front end to prevent the need to crop will save resolution in the master image which is always a good thing. When you need to do it though, there is no good reason to sacrifice what you wanted to convey just to be able to say "well I didn't crop it, so that's why you see that big dead limb encroaching in the frame at the bottom of the image. If it is distracting and you can't work around it from a composition standpoint when taking the image, then crop it out.

Regarding the 100% question there was a thread on this forum at one time that dealt with exactly that topic. There are a lot of opinions and ideas about what 100% means. For me personally it means you are viewing the image on a pixel per pixel basis. In other words, if I crop an image to e 1600 pixels wide, then display it here at 1600 pixels wide... you would be looking at a 100% crop. On the other hand if I crop and image and it is only 800 pixels wide, then display it here at 1600 pixels... it has been upsized by software somewhere along the line and you are really looking at 2 pixels for each original pixel... which in my mind means you are not looking at a true 100% when compared to the original image size.

Almost all images you see on this forum have been down-sized, because the maximum viewing size is 1600 on the long edge, and most images (cropped some or not) are starting with far more resolution than that.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18952155
Quick couple of questions about cropping: some say their photo is a 100% crop. How is that determined? I would guess you could divide the finished file size by the original file size to get a percentage, but wouldn't a 100% crop be the original size? Next, some critters or subjects are so small that even when photographed at 1:1 you still can't see much. I would think cropping is pretty much necessary for that situation. For example, I posted a two Lacewing photos the other day, one was a true 1:1, and the other I heavily cropped all the way down to its eye, so you could see the strange reflection pattern that Neuropterans often have. That reflection pattern was not easily visible in the 1:1 photo.

Normally when people say 100% crop, they mean zooming in so that each pixel is one dot on the monitor. It is what Lightroom gives when you press Z. Lightroom calls that 1:1 and also 100%.

When you crop and post such an image, it may or may not be displayed at 100% on the viewer's device.

Thanks for the replies. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, since the pixels on a camera sensor are smaller than the pixels on a computer screen, Lightroom makes each pixel larger.

I've never tried Lightroom, or any of the programs you have to buy. I primarily use Photo Gallery, it fits my level of expertise. I don't think it's even available anymore. If this computer ever crashes I'm in trouble. I've tried a couple of programs that work with RAW, but in the end I can't tell any difference in the final photo.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18952277
Thanks for the replies. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, since the pixels on a camera sensor are smaller than the pixels on a computer screen, Lightroom makes each pixel larger.

I've never tried Lightroom, or any of the programs you have to buy. I primarily use Photo Gallery, it fits my level of expertise. I don't think it's even available anymore. If this computer ever crashes I'm in trouble. I've tried a couple of programs that work with RAW, but in the end I can't tell any difference in the final photo.

Sort of, the pixels on your screen are indeed larger than what is on a sensor, but Lr (or other programs) don't enlarge them at 100% view it is just displaying that specific sensor pixel and it happens to be a larger area on your screen. That's at a 1:1 view of course. If you enlarge it or zoom in more then it is splitting that sensor pixel over one or more screen pixels, which is why it begins to look pixelated.

jcothron wrote in post #18952183
Bottom line: I don't think many people go out with the goal of taking images to crop them, and obviously the more work you do on the front end to prevent the need to crop will save resolution in the master image which is always a good thing. When you need to do it though, there is no good reason to sacrifice what you wanted to convey just to be able to say "well I didn't crop it, so that's why you see that big dead limb encroaching in the frame at the bottom of the image. If it is distracting and you can't work around it from a composition standpoint when taking the image, then crop it out.

Some of the people who write for Popular Photography (just to name one magazine) I would categorize as graphic artists and not photographers. They use the camera to give them an outline that they are going to "paint" in post, and the vast majority of the articles are on how to fix mistakes in post that you really shouldn't be making. Cropping is something that they claim should be a part of your post processing, that you should always crop. As a result two things have happened. The first is that a lot of people don't care about properly framing the subject with the view finder cause they're just gonna crop anyway (my stance is that you should only crop if you absolutely have to). The other problem, and I think this one is bigger, is that the general public thinks that post processing is just to fix mistakes. There are three questions that I get asked by photographers (who don't shoot macro) and non photographers alike when I'm at a show selling prints:

1) How much time did you spend in post? The perception is that the longer I take to edit a photo the lower the quality. For me post processing is an extension of what I'm doing with the camera, and if I make a change to one I have to change the other. The only mistake I consistently correct for is exposure (can't shoot in manual exposure mode all the time). Truth be told I spend more time rubbing out dust spots. Plus I shoot RAW and therefor have to "develop my film".

2) Is the image cropped? Again the perception being that if it's cropped then I made a mistake with the view finder, or maybe there won't be enough pixels for a really large print.

3) Is it focus stacked? This one is controversial, since the perception by the general public is that a focus stack shot falls into the category of a computer generated image (not really a photo) and takes a lot of time to post process (post processing is "bad", see #1).

Again that was the general perception, and not how I view any of it.

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18952277
Thanks for the replies. So, if I'm understanding this correctly, since the pixels on a camera sensor are smaller than the pixels on a computer screen, Lightroom makes each pixel larger.

I've never tried Lightroom, or any of the programs you have to buy. I primarily use Photo Gallery, it fits my level of expertise. I don't think it's even available anymore. If this computer ever crashes I'm in trouble. I've tried a couple of programs that work with RAW, but in the end I can't tell any difference in the final photo.

Other programs have the same feature. Irfanview, for instance, calls it "Original Size" in the menu system, and when displayed that way, shows 100% along the bottom. FastStone has a 100% button that displays the pic so that one pixel of the photo is one dot of the display.

jcothron wrote in post #18952183
When you need to do it though, there is no good reason to sacrifice what you wanted to convey just to be able to say "well I didn't crop it, so that's why you see that big dead limb encroaching in the frame at the bottom of the image. If it is distracting and you can't work around it from a composition standpoint when taking the image, then crop it out.

What people will say is that you see that big dead limb because they are a "natural photographer" as if that's a viable excuse for poor composition. IMHO if there is a foreground element that's gonna ruin the shot then maybe you should look for another angle, or find something else to shoot. I don't crop just so I can say I don't crop. I don't crop because I put a lot of effort into nailing the framing with the view finder...

Looking at the "dead limb in the corner" example, some say go somewhere else and get a better angle, some say crop it out. Depending on which camera I'm using I can zoom out a bit and remove the dead limb. Is that any different than cropping it out later??

Dalantech wrote in post #18952298
Some of the people who write for Popular Photography (just to name one magazine) I would categorize as graphic artists and not photographers.

I wouldn't disagree

I agree with that as well, but that isn't really what we are talking about here.

Well if you are going to do it at all, and it couldn't be done during the shot, post is where it has to be no? I never said "that you should always crop". In fact I have stated more than once that it shouldn't be a goal, and certainly shouldn't be done because you are "lazy". It doesn't change the fact that there are times when it is needed. Whether you see that or not is your personal view and you are entitled to it. That doesn't make anyone else wrong, lazy, or less accomplished than you happen to be... or vice versa.

That's basically what I have been saying from the first post. You may be correct regarding what the general public thinks I can't speak for everyone so I don't know. I don't personally know anyone who thinks post processing is something to be done to fix mistakes however. Do mistakes get fixed in post? I'm sure they do. Do thinks get cloned out? Of course. Could some of those "things" have been otherwise accomplished while taking the shot? Again of course. There are times when the "perfect composition or set-up" isn't realistically possible however. Your view is, perhaps you shouldn't take the shot then. That's fine and again is your opinion. Of course there may be a GREAT shot there except for that one thing you can't control... and that is where cropping has a place.

I've never been asked that question by a person buying a print, and very few times by anyone other than another photographer. Whose perception? Yours or the person asking? If it is the person asking and they are not a photographer I wonder what foundation that viewpoint would be based on. If it is you yourself, then again that is your perception and you are welcome to it.

I don't disagree with any of that....I think we all spend our time with dust spots though to be fair it doesn't seem a big issue since the original 5D, that and taking practical steps to keep the sensor dust free.

Again I'm not sure where or who has this perception, it is not something I'm accustomed to hearing. Of course there is always the reality that there may not be enough pixels for a large print, although I think that has been drastically reduced with higher resolution sensors.

I don't think the general public has a clue what focus stacking is, although I do think it is fair to say it isn't quite the same as working with one image file as far as "photography" is concerned. I've done it, not a huge fan of it primarily because it takes a while regardless of what software or method you use. I can see and understand the reason some people do it though. Macro in particular are shot at very close distances with shallow depth of field. If you close down the aperture enough to get a larger DOF you are also introducing diffraction. Whether that amount of diffraction is acceptable or not largely depends on the end use. Most of the people I know that use focus stacking are doing so to prevent image degradation created by very small apertures, and still achieve the depth of field needed for the image in question.

Again it isn't my particular cup of tea, but who am I to decide that everyone else is wrong for doing it?

Honestly, at least in this thread, the only person I've seen that has this negative perception of cropping (in particular) is you. I didn't disagree with what you originally said, as a goal... which I believe I actually said in my original post in this thread before you jumped in. Hey I get it, there was a time I wouldn't crop a shot for anything, whether I could get the image I really wanted by moving, waiting, changing lenses, etc. or not. I started following quite a few successful photographers however, and you know what? Every one of them did what it took to get the most aesthetically pleasing image, and if the only way they could achieve it was by cropping...they cropped. Back when 10mp seemed like a lot of resolution, they cropped.

I shot a Green Lynx Spider recently sitting on it's nest. It wasn't serious work really, testing out limitations of a camera more than anything. Fact of the matter is, this spider was about 5 inches back inside a rolled up leaf, with about a 1 inch opening. Now I could have not shot the spider, sure. I chose to shoot it however, and there wasn't much that was going to be done about the surrounding out of focus area created by the tunnel of leaves.

That area is/was pretty darn distracting, but I seriously doubt the spider would have agreed to waltz out to the end so I could get a good full frame shot of him. So I cropped off the distracting out of focus areas. Wonderful shot? no, but then again I wasn't trying to get it on the cover of Nat Geo in the first place.

Where I DO think you are wrong is somehow implying the idea that anyone who crops just doesn't work hard enough to get the image right in the camera. Or that they don't have the vision they should have had before composing the shot in the first place. There are quite a few accomplished photographers on this site, far better than I am.. and far better than you as well. To insinuate that they are lazy or lack vision, work ethic... or whatever it is you tried to imply in some of your posts is off target and pretty darn presumptuous.

As I said in my original post, and still say. Cropping shouldn't be a goal, or a crutch... but if you need to do it don't throw away and otherwise good shot just because you want to adhere to some puritanical rule that doesn't really exist in the first place. Someone can stand on the idea of purity by not modifying what comes out of the camera all they want, but before they try to espouse their traditional photographic values I would suggest they check out what a guy named Ansel Adams did with many of his images in the darkroom.

I'm not going to argue the point any more. You are more than entitled to your opinion and process, and so is everyone else. For what it's worth I think you have some great images. I also expect you might have quite a few more if you would loosen your stranglehold on the rules a bit more. In part, becoming a great photographer is learning when and how to break the rules otherwise everyone would have the same images. I'm still learning and always will be, and part of that learning process is not disregarding methods others may use.

Dalantech wrote in post #18952300
What people will say is that you see that big dead limb because they are a "natural photographer" as if that's a viable excuse for poor composition. IMHO if there is a foreground element that's gonna ruin the shot then maybe you should look for another angle, or find something else to shoot. I don't crop just so I can say I don't crop. I don't crop because I put a lot of effort into nailing the framing with the view finder...

And what I'm saying is that many times in my 52 years I've been in situations in which there isn't another angle, hell you may have a 3 foot circle to stand in and that's it. So if you want... walk away, and to be fair there are MANY times I have walked away as well. Every once in a while though I see something I'm going to capture and not walk away... even if it means I have something distracting where I don't want it.