Cropping

Terry McDaniel wrote in post #18952307
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??

Other than you don't lose the resolution by "zooming" no.

Then again I only carry one zoom lens, and it isn't typically the one I would run into such issues while using.

jcothron wrote in post #18952325
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.

All I said was that cropping can lead to a lazy habit of not framing with the view finder, and boy did it strike a nerve with you -so badly that you felt the need to analyze and read into my every word. You came really close to making a straw man argument -I never implied that anyone was lazy, only that cropping could lead to lazy habits. There are a lot of valid arguments for cropping a shot, but if you're cropping every image in post then maybe it's a problem. It would be for me, but I hold myself to some pretty high standards. I don't care what you, or anyone else, does before or after post...

jcothron wrote in post #18952326
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.

At no time did I say that you couldn't crop, or that all cropping is bad. Everyone has to set their own quality standards, and that's one of the reasons why the term "keeper rate" is totally subjective...

Dalantech wrote in post #18950299
That's the only reason to crop. Client wants a square print then the client gets a square print...

I too have printed poster size images taken with a 12MP camera. But when I'm shooting with a 24MP sensor I still want to send as many pixels to a printer as possible. Cropping actually held up well if you shot medium or large format film back in the day. As a 35mm slide shooter I went of my way to compose with the view finder.

Getting good as a photographer is all about pushing yourself, and cropping can lead to lazy habits...

The implication is there, whether you view it that way or not. "Getting good as a photographer...lazy habits". Yeah that reads to me like you are putting yourself above "those who would stoop to crop".

Dalantech wrote in post #18952334
Everyone has to set their own quality standards, and that's one of the reasons why the term "keeper rate" is totally subjective...

True statement, but then again.. the basis for all of this is "I don't crop" thereby leading to the suggestion that your particular quality standards are higher than everyone else's...and I seriously doubt it.


Yes, I may be reading more into your words than you intend, but on the other hand you might want to consider than perhaps your words indicate something you didn't intend.

In any event, enough beating a dead horse there isn't anything to be served by it.

All good

I crop about every single time to compose and cut off parts I don't want, and I am by no means lazy, if anything I do more work to get the exact result I want. Sometimes you don't have the luxury to nail each and every shot either, so to try to put labels on and boundaries around what people do to get their final result is pretty darn silly.

jcothron wrote in post #18952338
The implication is there, whether you view it that way or not. "Getting good as a photographer...lazy habits". Yeah that reads to me like you are putting yourself above "those who would stoop to crop".

Nope. Simply said that cropping could lead to lazy habits like not framing with the view finder cause you're just gonna crop in post anyway. Didn't direct that comment at anyone in particular and yet you chose to get defensive...

I push myself to constantly improve. Part of that commitment is to do my framing with the view finder and not the cropping tool in post. Because I push myself I've gone from this shot that I took in 2007:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/F3W3​Z

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2h6U​EUt

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18952497
I crop about every single time to compose and cut off parts I don't want, and I am by no means lazy, if anything I do more work to get the exact result I want. Sometimes you don't have the luxury to nail each and every shot either, so to try to put labels on and boundaries around what people do to get their final result is pretty darn silly.

The OP asked for advice about cropping, and I gave mine. But the limits that I set are on myself, and I don't care what you or anyone else does. But by pushing myself I've made a lot of improvements to the quality of my images, and there's a huge difference between the photos I took a decade ago and the images that I take today. Part of that improvement process, for me, is to not crop in post as a normal part of my post processing. If you're getting defensive about the standards that I've set for myself then that's your problem...

Cropping is subjective, as is everything else in photography.

Dalantech wrote in post #18952657
The OP asked for advice about cropping, and I gave mine. But the limits that I set are on myself, and I don't care what you or anyone else does. But by pushing myself I've made a lot of improvements to the quality of my images, and there's a huge difference between the photos I took a decade ago and the images that I take today. Part of that improvement process, for me, is to not crop in post as a normal part of my post processing. If you're getting defensive about the standards that I've set for myself then that's your problem...

You failed to make it a personal opinion or your own rules when you stated your opening statement toward the general public, and thus I think this is why you are getting push back perhaps? So it's good you have set your own limits that work to reduce any personal laziness or fails to improve your skills, but there isn't one rule by which all will abide by.

It is generally accepted that one should try to frame in camera as best as possible, but there also equally valid reasons for shooting more loosely and cropping later. So in principle you are making good points, but associating this with laziness and failure to improve ones skills is invalid.

Dalantech wrote in post #18948581
None of my images are cropped. IMHO cropping in post can lead to lazy habits when shooting, and cropping in post will not hone your composition skills but framing with the view finder will. Also while composing a scene with the camera other compositions will pop into my head. So get in the habit of nailing the composition with the view finder and cropping only when absolutely necessary.

When done properly with good technique, there would be no perceptible difference in a framed result in camera and a cropped result later, given the parameters that one doesn't crop too much (subjective) and one knows how to deal with any artifacts from that cropping (skill in post process along with proper tools). Today's cameras make this possible, in the olden days of 10Mpx or lower resolution cameras, it would be harder to to crop and still have something that could print in a publication on a consistent basis.

Here is a real case. I could not frame any tighter, I was very near MFD, and the crustacean pictured (pill bug) was moving around and I had to shoot more loosely to get the shot. It was nearly impossible to obtain the provided cropped result from the camera directly. The cropped result, by the way, still has enough resolution to fit a magazine at 2400 x 3000, so shooting loosely and cropping later leads to a better product here. This seems to happen more often than not. This wasn't being lazy, it was being very decided about how I was going to shoot this and still get what I wanted, down to the lighting I was using.

Now if I want to crop deeper and not care about an 8x10 size and just have something about 1500px wide for the web, I can go farther, but this starts to go past my own personal limits for cropping, because now we are at 100% at the pixel level. I try to stay with 70% cropping limits for my own results.

I would suggest to others to not use 100% pixel level crops as a replacement to a dedicated 1:1 macro lens, but others may disagree there too.

Dalantech wrote in post #18952654
Nope. Simply said that cropping could lead to lazy habits like not framing with the view finder cause you're just gonna crop in post anyway. Didn't direct that comment at anyone in particular and yet you chose to get defensive...

I push myself to constantly improve. Part of that commitment is to do my framing with the view finder and not the cropping tool in post. Because I push myself I've gone from this shot that I took in 2007:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/F3W3​Z Bees in wildflowers series 1-3 by John Kimbler, on Flickr

To this one taken this year:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2h6U​EUt Blue Mason Bee III by John Kimbler, on Flickr

Both single frames, and both of them uncropped. Could that second image be better? Absolutely, and I'm still pushing myself to improve (especially post processing cause that's where I'm currently the weakest). But my standards are just that, they're mine. What you do is up to you.

I’m not discussing this anymore, but comparing a shot with a 1:1 macro to one taken with a 5:1 mp65? Is not a measuring stick of skill but of magnification.

Perhaps people that aren’t as in to macro can’t afford your 5:1 lens. Consider that when you apply your stance on cropping or anything else to others.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18952696
Now if I want to crop deeper and not care about an 8x10 size and just have something about 1500px wide for the web, I can go farther, but this starts to go past my own personal limits for cropping, because now we are at 100% at the pixel level. I try to stay with 70% cropping limits for my own results.

I would suggest to others to not use 100% pixel level crops as a replacement to a dedicated 1:1 macro lens, but others may disagree there too.

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=189​52696&i=i251801418
forum: Macro

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.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18952694
You failed to make it a personal opinion or your own rules when you stated your opening statement toward the general public, and thus I think this is why you are getting push back perhaps? So it's good you have set your own limits that work to reduce any personal laziness or fails to improve your skills, but there isn't one rule by which all will abide by.

Nope. Stated everything as opinion. From my initial post...

Me thinks there are some insecure people in this thread and I hit a little too close to home for them, or they just don't know what In My Humble Opinion means...

jcothron wrote in post #18952697
I’m not discussing this anymore, but comparing a shot with a 1:1 macro to one taken with a 5:1 mp65? Is not a measuring stick of skill but of magnification.

Perhaps people that aren’t as in to macro can’t afford your 5:1 lens. Consider that when you apply your stance on cropping or anything else to others.

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