Do you crop a lot or not so much?

[Mikep996]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of the items that is often discussed in all digital camera forums is the ability of a higher MP and/or larger sensor to provide a greater capacity for cropping/enlarging.  I have pretty much always shot digital as I shot slide film...I get what I shot and that's that.  As a consequence, I haven't personally seen the need for a great number of MP's since I usually don't crop much.  As an example, below is a pic I shot in front of the Royal Crescent in Bath yesterday.  The first is straight out of the camera,  an unmodified DNG though reduced to 1600 pixel width/converted to JPG to be able to post here.  The second pic is about as much cropping as I would normally do with same DNG converted to B/W (since I've been fooling with B/W lately) also at 1600 width/Jpg.  

So just curious, do many folks typically crop "extensively?"  Obviously, as has been discussed, the ability to do so can reduce the number of prime lenses needed depending on the subject/intent of the pic.  

Though not part of the point of the post, FWIW, lens was the 21mm f3.4  Super Elmar shot wide open at 1/4000 sec, ISO 200.  No aux finder used, just estimating the field of view using the rangefinder.  I find that if I "look around" in the rangefinder I can determine the FOV pretty much as accurately as my Voight 21/25 VF can.  But most of the time I just look in the RF and 'estimate' how much more I'll get in the pic.

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Arrow]

I often do crop because of aspect ratio. In many cases, I like 4:3 and 1:1 better than 2:3. 

[evikne]

Just now, Arrow said:

I often do crop because of aspect ratio. In many cases, I like 4:3 and 1:1 better than 2:3. 

Same here. I often crop from 2:3 to 3:4 to achieve a better composition. If I keep the original aspect ratio, it is not always possible to cut away something from the left or right without removing imortant details at the top or bottom. 

[Boojay]

Rarely when I'm using my M, mainly I'm slower and more methodical, mostly I've chosen the lens to suit the situation, so crops are always pretty minor if any, though more likely with wide angles.  With the SL2 it's a different story.

 

 

 

[Kwesi]

I grew up having to show the sprocket holes of the film on prints at school to prove that the image wasn't cropped.

Because of this I always compose in camera.

[Luke_Miller]

With 35mm film and early (low resolution) digital, significant cropping was not really an option.  So with my D/SLRs I invested in assorted longer lenses that would allow me to get my composition in camera.  I have now reached the age where those longer (heavy) lenses are no longer that much fun to use.   The modern high resolution bodies change the situation for me.  Now I can use shorter and lighter lenses, crop to get the compositions I want and still have the resolution I need.  This is why the M10R interests me.  With it I can get a field of view via cropping that would otherwise require a focal length that is not practical on an M body.

Purists will often decry this and I respect their point of view.  But if one does not print very large (and few do these days) what is the point of a 40-60 mpx camera other than its cropping ability?

Edited July 24, 2020 by Luke_Miller

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To borrow a phrase (perhaps apocryphal) from a Russian Ilyushin pilot: "I pay for whole runway - I use whole runway!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7q3j69-SHM

If I pay for 24 (or 40, or 64) megapixels - I'd like to get what I paid for.

Especially with large gallery prints.

Thus I have trained myself to shoot for the whole picture over 50 years (and indeed still scan my 6x6 film to include the natural black border). It's a discipline. Cropping often means "I bought (or brought) the wrong equipment."  Or "I was too lazy to hustle my butt to the correct shooting location." It is not what I plan for.

However, I also had a picture-editing instructor who said "Always crop until the picture SCREAMS in protest - then back off a little. Wasted newsprint is expensive!"

So I just try to avoid it when possible, and do it when necessary.

 

[Erato]

 less than 1%

[LBJ2]

A very practical question. Overall, for me it depends on the content, distribution medium, light available, lens used( or mistakenly used) and frankly how much I screw up the intended composition. Also, some times while editing I'll find another story in the composition that a crop might help emphasize, or for example crop out people that walked unexpectedly into my scene which has resulted in saving some important deliverables particularly for event work. 

*I use another kit (Sony) for Birding and Wildlife. I crop many or  sometimes all of these images extensively. 

FWIW, I often find plenty of room to crop 24MPs FF, but more MPs often enables even more crop-ability when needed in my work flow. I currently work with 24MPs and 61MPs FF cameras and upon reflection tend to crop my M10 photos less. 

[lct]

HCB school here so almost never... but i cheat from time to time . 

[250swb]

The HCB school of thought is that as a journalist you don't crop your own pictures anyway, cropping is the work of the picture desk, but you do make an effort to not give them an excuse to crop. There is nothing more rigorous about it than that. Of course if you use 6x6 that was designed with the intent of cropping whichever way you wanted, but photographers soon found the square format equally good for landscape and portrait as it is. I think a bit of cropping is ok from time to time, but more than a bit and it shows as false and can become a habit. 

As for the OP's example, I prefer the uncropped image, the cropped one has that 'trying too hard' look about it.

[pippy]

I'm very much from the Old School of composing in-camera as much as possible and really don't crop much from an image as-shot but if the image is more aesthetically pleasing when cropped to a greater degree then of course I'll crop. I've never met a single pro who hasn't cropped an image if it improves the composition.

One thing which drives me crazy is non-horizontal horizons so if I've screwed-up missed the 'ideal' by a degree or two then that will pretty-much always be recified in post. Also as I shoot quite a lot of stuff with buildings etc. then I might use the 'Perspective' (i.e. replicating rising/falling front) tool in Ps; subject-matter and end-use dependent.

Philip.

Edited July 24, 2020 by pippy

[Jeff S]

I compose with the hope of a print in mind, so am generous at the edges in order to custom cut the window mat to overlap the print area and to align precisely with the desired picture edges.  Beyond that, I do whatever it takes to get the desired pic, which often is not exactly a 3:2 aspect ratio, nor perfectly in line with the practical and allowable shooting position and mounted lens field of view.
 

If possible, I prefer no cropping to provide ultimate IQ, but nobody viewing my prints knows or cares about techniques; just the final result. It’s all about ‘seeing’ and judgment...before, during and after capture, even including final print display conditions.

Jeff
 

 

[onasj]

Cropping is an important post-processing tool, as is color correction, stitching, etc.  As the resolution and per-pixel image quality of our cameras continues to climb, cropping becomes more powerful and more practical.  Here is a 5.4% crop (!) of the full-size image shown in the next post.  There's very little I like about the full-size image, but I like the crop.  In this case, cropping out 5.4% of the captured frame still supports a high-quality image because the original was captured at 14204x10652 pixels (151 MP).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[onasj]

Uncropped original of the above:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Mikep996]

Nice crop and shows that there can be a "good" picture within what initially may be thought of as a 'throw-away!' Perhaps my view of little/no cropping (from my slide film days) needs revisiting! The crop clearly demonstrates that there may be hidden "art" in a photo if you are talented enough to look for it!  

[250swb]

30 minutes ago, onasj said:

Cropping is an important post-processing tool, as is color correction, stitching, etc.  As the resolution and per-pixel image quality of our cameras continues to climb, cropping becomes more powerful and more practical.  Here is a 5.4% crop (!) of the full-size image shown in the next post.  There's very little I like about the full-size image, but I like the crop.  In this case, cropping out 5.4% of the captured frame still supports a high-quality image because the original was captured at 14204x10652 pixels (151 MP).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I guess the two people will be happy, but it still looks like a crop, so thumbs up for getting the image one way or another, but some desperation evident in how it looks to another photographer.

[pop]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb 250swb:

how it looks to another photographer.

I realize that we're in a photo gear centric forum, but apart from the crowd here: why should anyone care how a photograph looks to another photographer?

[250swb]

4 minutes ago, pop said:

I realize that we're in a photo gear centric forum, but apart from the crowd here: why should anyone care how a photograph looks to another photographer?

It only really matters if you are saying on a photo forum (remember where you are) how good it looks at the same time you are talking about cropping, it doesn't matter if a client or your family think it's wonderful.

Edited July 24, 2020 by 250swb

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, I will crop to whatever degree it takes to get a half decent image out of the shot. If the crop is extreme, though, I am quite likely to delete it on review, simply because it looks like a crop, because of the perspective at least. I agree that the image of the embrace in onasj's post looks like a crop, but it is nevertheless valuable for the moment it captures. I have many crops like this, but the subject has to carry its own significance to save it from my DEL button. 

It is too easy, though, to say you should zoom with your feet to getter a better shooting location. If you're on a hill or in a high building, the best shooting location may well be in mid air, or somewhere dangerous.

I almost always crop to straighten horizons and correct building verticals (as long as I intended them to be vertical in the first place). When I used an M, I always cropped, because I couldn't trust the framelines, so always shot generously. Leica M viewfinders have many virtues, but WYSIWYG framing is not one of them.

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by LocalHero1953