Focal length or cropping?

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So I take it that some here simply own one wide-angle lens, a high MPixel camera and nothing else?🤔😉😆

[Jeff S]

For me it’s not about the gear. 😉

Jeff

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ernstk]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

So I take it that some here simply own one wide-angle lens, a high MPixel camera and nothing else?🤔😉😆

Pretty much.

I own a 21/2.8 Elmarit and a 35 'Lux pre asph but the Elmarit probably gets used 75% of the time, on my M-P 240 (not very high megapixel these days).

I think almost every image I've taken has been cropped.

Ernst

[Ernstk]

5 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

No.  Some of us, it seems, prefer to compose full frame.  There's a difference.

 

It's entirely subject dependent.

For landscape, architecture and portrait photography, I agree.

I shoot mostly street, where precise framing is anathema. You see, or sometimes just sense a moment, then try to capture it. There is just no time to step back, reflect, frame carefully, then shoot.

Using mostly my 21mm I can shoot intuitively, sometimes from chest or hip level, then finalise how I want to represent what I saw by cropping it to suit.

Ernst

[Photoworks]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

So I take it that some here simply own one wide-angle lens, a high MPixel camera and nothing else?🤔😉😆

https://www.instagram.com/peterturnley/

all his recent years of photography are done with M10 and 35 lux. Crop and add a black border 😆

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!

 

[pgk]

5 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

all his recent years of photography are done with M10 and 35 lux.

1 hour ago, Ernstk said:

I shoot mostly street, where precise framing is anathema. You see, or sometimes just sense a moment, then try to capture it. There is just no time to step back, reflect, frame carefully, then shoot.

Using mostly my 21mm I can shoot intuitively, sometimes from chest or hip level, then finalise how I want to represent what I saw by cropping it to suit.

I have to be honest and say that if you are into 'approximate' photography, as this sort of street photography is, then a key element - composition - may well be out of your control and this may be rectified by cropping. But this is a 'special case' and the vast majority of photographs take are not taken in this way, so cropping them is quite simply about rectifying poor initial composition.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This debate has been fertilised indirectly by high megapixel cameras, and directly by Leica's Q series, where cropping is facilitated and encouraged.

I often crop from one of my Q2 images, but I always plan the composition and (approximate) crop at the time I take the photograph.

[Ernstk]

22 minutes ago, pgk said:

I have to be honest and say that if you are into 'approximate' photography, as this sort of street photography is, then a key element - composition - may well be out of your control and this may be rectified by cropping. But this is a 'special case' and the vast majority of photographs take are not taken in this way, so cropping them is quite simply about rectifying poor initial composition.

It's not 'approximate photography'. That's quite offensive. Nor is it a special case. Cropping isn't rectification, it's choosing how I reflect what I saw.

You were equally dismissive about the idea of owning one wide angle lens. Maybe you could share why that upsets you so much?

It would be good to see your statistics that show that street photography is a 'special case'. Can you share them?

Please try to understand that the dynamics of street photography are quite different from static subject matter. That's why I said that this discussion is subject dependent.

Ernst

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Ernstk

[250swb]

A photographer is like a farmer and your Leica lenses especially are your prize bulls, you paid a lot for them and they are there to do a job. But one day you stand back and think ‘I know, I’ll just crop their bollocks off because all this rearing of cows is just too much trouble’. 
 

And that is where we are at with cropping from a prime lens. But it’s the way photography is going, everything is becoming too much trouble and from a serious endeavour for many it’s migrated to become a pastime that has to be made as convenient as possible. And while all photographers can cite circumstances for some crops isn’t persistent cropping the cut off between doing the pastime/hobby/serious hobby/ or job properly and one step removed from using your iPhone?

Edited June 1, 2023 by 250swb

[pgk]

14 minutes ago, Ernstk said:

It's not 'approximate photography'. That's quite offensive. Nor is it a special case.

It most certainly is 'approximate'. If you can't frame the image and rely on cropping then you are intentionally taking a wider view with the aim of cropping it. The wider view is inherently approximate because obviously it has got to be. There is no offence (intended or otherwise) because is a simple statement of fact. It is a special case because whilst some shoot street it is not a common genre these days because what was street' in the past is not now. The 'street' has changed. I personally know quite a lot of photographer but none who shoot 'street' amateur or professional.

[IkarusJohn]

10 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

As someone who considers content, composition and light to be the most important factors in a photograph, I'm not convinced of the importance of the lens. Yes, it makes a difference, but IMO is secondary. Can you post or refer us to examples where a better choice of lens (in terms of FL vs cropping) would have made a significant difference to the final image? 

Edit. A challenging thought. An interesting image (one that you want to keep looking at) is the least improved by a better choice of lens FL (vs cropping). The difference such a choice makes is much more important for an uninteresting image, because there this nothing else worth looking at. Perhaps those images you see where the lens choice appears to be wrong are obviously so because they have nothing else in them worth looking at?

Hi Paul,

Yes, I agree entirely on content, composition and light; but for me the focal length, aperture and depth of field are inherent in composition, and are part of my thought process.  

I cannot post examples, as you request, as my thoughts have built up over the years of looking at others’ images and my own.  What triggered this thread was my ambivalence to the 35mm field of view and a desire to get my head around this focal length (also my constant switching between 50mm and 75mm).  When reviewing the 35mm images thread, I was struck by how only some compositions really suited this focal length, and others not so much.

I’m not really interested in “Great shot” posts, and I am reticent about making critical (attempting to be helpful) comment on images that I think don’t work.  The former waste bandwidth and the latter tend not to go down well.

My post was simply a think piece, sharing what had been building for me for a while.  The lens does not need to be critical, and if zooms and cropping work as part of composition, that’s fine - it just misses something for me, where composition is critical.  

Perhaps if I put this another way, it will make sense - in the myriads of photos posted here, some are just technical examples showing the strengths or weaknesses of a lens.  These are generally helpful.  Of the others, it is the composition (subject, light, field of view) that I notice - not the camera or the lens.  Some others just exhibit the lens (overly shallow depth of field and flare being the main culprits) or the complete lack of any personal or innovative interpretation of a scene (technically good, lacking in interest - chocolate box images).

That, and there are just some cameras and lenses I love to hold and use - they do tend to inspire, in some very shallow way.

 

7 hours ago, tom0511 said:

easy: M+21-28-50

Yep, or M10-D, 21 (Summilux) - 35 (APO Summicron) - 75 (Summilux)

The 28 choices are Summilux or Summaron and a 50 APO Summicron.  I guess size and weight are an issue, but manageable if I only take out one lens at a time.  Considering a second body (Monochrom), but this might all get too confusing - too many choices, I won’t take any pictures at all, so perhaps just the M10-D and 35 APO Summicron.

Constraints drive creativity …

Cheers
John

[Olaf_ZG]

I don’t really believe in this cropping afterwards thing. Probably I am old school.

Don’t get me wrong: I do crop, either to another format (fe square), either to crop sth out (instead of ps-sing it out) or to level an image if I was sloppy.

I can’t imagine shooting all at 28mm and later on crop to taste. For that reason, the Q doesn’t work for me.

Within three weeks I will go ten days to the seaside: my first longer trip since years. For weeks I am already contemplating which lenses and cameras to take. Luckily for you, I didn’t post this question yet 😎

[Olaf_ZG]

56 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

https://www.instagram.com/peterturnley/

all his recent years of photography are done with M10 and 35 lux. Crop and add a black border 😆

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!

 

Sorry, but I do not believe that Peter is not choosing his compositions carefully.

He might crop, but for sure will try his utmost to get it right in the camera.

[pgk]

10 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

 Can you post or refer us to examples where a better choice of lens (in terms of FL vs cropping) would have made a significant difference to the final image?

I can certainly state that I used to use the 24mm Elmarit on the M8 but I was never totally satisfied with the results which, whilst they nera enough mimicked a 35mm lens on full frame, I always felt left something to be desired. I could go into the reasons but its not really worth doing so. Suffice it to say that once I had a 35mm lens (initially a Summicron) on the M9 I was much happier with the end result.I could of course have simply kept shooting on the 24mm and cropped ......

[KFo]

For representational and distant subjects the difference between a crop and full frame becomes a fine point.  There are many examples on this forum that illustrate this. 

For me, often preferring to work close, the difference between being close (or the right distance) and flat out being in the wrong spot is enormous.  I cannot crop to the correct position or distance to resolve this typically.  Also working with deeply "defective" lenses (the Canon 28 f/2.8  LTM for example) the effects outside the centre of the frame are important.  The lack of sharpness, the vignetting all are part of my vision now.  Cropping can leave out some of these “defects” which I worked hard to find, understand, and utilise.

M10P Canon 28 f/2.8 LTM no-crop

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!

Some images, particularly those made when working with people (or the version of street photography I enjoy) can’t be made from a distance and cropped to suit.  There is, or can be, a certain engagement and presence that goes both ways between the photographer and subject when you are close.

Leica Summicron 35 ASPH no-crop

But what is the point really?  You need to know what is important to your vision and your work. If cropping works for you, then do it.

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, Olaf_ZG said:

He might crop, but for sure will try his utmost to get it right in the camera.

I know he does because he was next to me as I was setting up a portrait. We had the same image, his must have been larger because I had a 50mm and he had a 35mm.

Later he published a collection of images for a gallery and I was the image cropped 50% to match the rest of the story, I looked good.

But I think his work is quite nice and interesting, he captures atmosphere and special moments. He always has one camera and one lens.

[Susie]

12 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

A folding canoe and a cleft stick for messages.

Only if he is going to Ishmaelia, Lord Copper.

Boot, of the Beast

[Susie]

I do wonder if the easy cropping thing started to gain momentum with the arrrival of decent zoom lenses, and is now carried on with high resolution sensors and a wide angle lens.  Although I do use different lenses to frame the image, for me, probably most important reason for carrying and using different focal length lenses is to  be able to influence the perspective of the scene I am photographing, hence my carrying wide, medium and long lenses.

[IkarusJohn]

38 minutes ago, Susie said:

I do wonder if the easy cropping thing started to gain momentum with the arrrival of decent zoom lenses, and is now carried on with high resolution sensors and a wide angle lens.  Although I do use different lenses to frame the image, for me, probably most important reason for carrying and using different focal length lenses is to  be able to influence the perspective of the scene I am photographing, hence my carrying wide, medium and long lenses.

I must confess to a difficult relationship with zooms.  With my SL, I have the VE 24-90 zoom, and it’s very good.  When I travel with this camera, I also take my 21 Summilux, with L-M adapter, and APO Elmarit-R 180/2.8, with L-R adapter and 2x converter, and filters - quite a load, but it’s weather proof and takes quite a beating.  I’ll be taking that combination to the Cookies next month.

But, given the choice of a zoom or a prime, I’ll take the prime every time … old habits born of poor zooms, missing the discipline of a fixed focal length, or subconsciously preferring the image quality out of a good prime?  Don’t know.  Maybe just prejudice.  I do crop minimally to straighten horizons or to remove distracting additions - the framelines in M cameras are little more than approximations, afterall.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LocalHero1953]

4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Yes, I agree entirely on content, composition and light; but for me the focal length, aperture and depth of field are inherent in composition, and are part of my thought process.

Quoting this extract just for concision! I agree with you - choice of focal length is an element in composition, both because it is related to standpoint and perspective, and because of the relationship to depth of field - but I'm not convinced it is important in its own right, unless striving for strong effects (and yes, I have taken portraits with the focus just on one eye).

I do not crop to achieve an apparent focal length. But I have no problem at all with cropping an image to achieve the composition I want and saw when I took the shot, especially if that composition is not critically dependent on depth of field effects. A large proportion of my landscape-oriented shots are cropped to 16:9, and I often crop portrait oriented shots to 5x4.

But (my name is LocalHero1953 and) I make mistakes: I am congenitally incapable of holding a camera level, I fail to see the water bottle in the corner of my shot, and I'm guilty of a number of other fundamental errors - I will crop if I can rescue an otherwise good/usable/interesting image by doing so.

Nor do I see anything precious in unused pixels: they're like the paint Leonardo left on the palette after painting the Mona Lisa: just unimportant (to me).

Edited June 1, 2023 by LocalHero1953