Cropping

On first look at the posted shots they appear a little flatter than they did in Photoshop, but as this subject is very much a work in progress I will leave them as they are.

I am now posting the original full frame for comparison.

David

David, though I understand, I think, the thinking against heavy cropping with birds, I don't have a problem with it, and I think this crop does work well. The head of the bird is a little soft, but otherwise you still have good detail. I think it must always be difficult with a bird against a background like that, but if that's where they spend their time that's where they're going to be.

I personally don't have a problem with cropping an image, though I know many people do, but I have no idea what their justification is. Sometimes it is the only way to get an image at all, and book and magazine editors appear to have no problem with it either, as long as the image is good enough for printing, and certainly published images on the web do not appear to suffer too much from cropping. The subject of "full frame", "uncropped" images makes me chuckle, as i often see images claiming to be full frame when the laws of physics determine they cannot possible be. e.g. I see images of a small bird, very large in the frame, claiming to be full frame, so they have obviously been taken at the limit of minimum focus to fill the picture so much, and yet they have full DoF, which is not physically possible at the claimed f4, the image needing to be around f11 to achieve full DoF across the subject. Also, many "full frame" images appear to have been taken with a very strange sensor, as many published "full frame" images appear not to have a 3:2 aspect ratio.

Cropping an image can increase the apparent DoF, and also give a more pleasing composition, so i have no problem with it, as long as it is processed correctly. If you are printing images at 30x20cm then yes, a full frame image is preferable, if not, i do not see a problem.

Looks fine to me David. I take the same approach to most of my work anyway. The subject is smaller but at least there's more depth of field.
Cheers
JohnR

Hi David

First off, good on you for being up front about your approach. There is a lot of debate on this topic but for me the bottom line is about being honest - as it is about baiting, digital manipulation, etc.

Technically, it is down to what you want to do with the image, I guess. Cropping for the web is very different to cropping for printed publication in terms of the technical limitations. Obviously. If a photographer isn't concerned with printed sales then a web portfolio can be made to look stunning with the aid of cropping. I guess if an image is requested for print as a result of being seen via the web then heavy cropping may prove to be counterproductive.

In an ideal world the images we make would be perfectly framed in camera but as your image here proves, conditions don't need to perfect in order to produce a successful and usable picture. For some togs however it important to fill the frame in the field to prove how skilful they are at the field-craft side of nature photography. Then there are the demands of picture agents who require a minimum size - this is largely what concerns me and informs what I keep for commercial consideration. However, my collection of personal favourites (some kept as momentos) may not be technically sufficient for submission to picture libraries or magazine editors.

Horse for courses?

Cheers,
Chris

I like the cropped version very much, there is plenty of detail, good colour and the background or setting is really pleasant. I would far rather look at this version than the original..... and it's a super bird too.

If it works for you and your happy with it then crop. It has always been done and always will be.
Steve Fletchers comment puts it far more succinctly than I can. I too have seen images poste as full frame but with 'added canvas' . . . . . how is that full frame? Perhaps that photographer should have excercised more fieldcraft and moved back a bit!

Hi David,

For me, it is perfectly acceptable record image of a nice bird. If you are only ever going to show it over the internet at around the resolutions provided here then it is good enough.

It is your image and if you prefer to show it to the world in a cropped form rather than an un-cropped form, then as the "artist" I would say that is your prerogative.

Cheers

Austin

Technically, I guess, it's perfectly possible to create a nice image from a one-to-one 'pixel level' crop when posting on the web, but the same image would make for a poor quality print. So cropping is only limited really by the finished medium.

I've mentioned previously that I'm not a big fan of large crops as I feel (amongst other reasons) that they showcase the excellence of the lens/camera more than that of the photographer. I know people say that they have to crop because they can't get close to the subject but that's the thing about wildlife photography - it's bloody difficult!!

Your first image is very nice to look at and perfect for posting on a bird forum where it's all about the bird. But on a photography forum where you want critique on your work then the second image is the one to post - apropos of which, I think is too centrally composed for my taste). Posting a shot that's as close to the original as possible and getting critique based on that is a much better way to improve ones photography I've found - someone might even be able to advise you on how to get Shore Larks within reach!

This, of course, is just my opinion so I hope no-one reading this takes offense.

Simon

Oh, and Robert...I posted a shot a few months ago described as "full frame with added canvas" and would really like to know how you would have liked me to word it


Simon

Regards the "anti cropping " school of thought, this is possibly eminating from anyone old enough to have used film rather than purely digital and submitted images for editorial or competition use. You couldn't crop in those days, getting close to a subject was extremely difficult and sorted the men out from the boys, or probably more correctly the nature photographer with field craft from the average photographer.

These days you "spank" your credit card to a tune of £3.5k for a big lens, another £.5k for a crop sensor camera and Bob's your uncle with a bit of digital manipulation you can sit 100 feet away from a subject and get a half decent image.

From a subject welfare point of view there is a lot to be said for cropping, you can stay well outside of a subjects approach comfort zone and record more natural behaviour.

Swings and roundabouts - like most things there is no single correct answer.

Regards the "anti cropping " school of thought, this is possibly eminating from anyone old enough to have used film rather than purely digital and submitted images for editorial or competition use. You couldn't crop in those days, getting close to a subject was extremely difficult and sorted the men out from the boys, or probably more correctly the nature photographer with field craft from the average photographer

As an old git who has used film in all formats since 1962, developing my own film and printing images at aged 7, i would strongly dispute the fact you cannot crop with film, of course you can, people have been doing it since the invention of the enlarger, its not called that for nothing !!!!!!!

These days you "spank" your credit card to a tune of £3.5k for a big lens, another £.5k for a crop sensor camera and Bob's your uncle with a bit of digital manipulation you can sit 100 feet away from a subject and get a half decent image.

I agree with your statement, but personally, never having had a credit card i wouldnt know where to start when it needs spanking.

I do not mind cropping and your image works well cropped. Of course it helps to have decent IQ in the first place, try that with an ISO1600 shot and see what happens? Pick and chose you images and you can crop, for small prints or web. Whatever works for you.

I think that this subject should have been brought up in the discussion forum and not the image critique gallery (apologies for being pedantic).

I think as others have said that getting closer to the subject should be the aim and there are plenty of good photographers on this forum that can advise on this. Whether or not they are prepared to help you is another matter...I thought this forum (maybe in the discussion forum we now have) is the place for this and the area where we can help each other improve our own types of nature photography?

I think as far as the integrity of the photographer is concerned anyone that crops to whatever degree should state this information so that the viewer is not misinformed....and I think this should apply to all manipulations i.e. PS work / focus stacking / HDR / blending etc...

Personally I haven't got a good shot, cropped or otherwise of a shore lark and this looks well presented, so well done for that.

Ian