Posted by Brian Irving on April 21, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Hi everyone
Yesterday I posted an image of a Hen Harrier and some of the feedback interested me. It was based around the term 'large crop' being an issue or a nit. I thought that a discussion regarding this would reveal some views.......
I have been shooting digital since 2003 and started with a 2.9 magapixel SLR, with this few pixels large crops were out of the question. I see a large crop as anything between 50-70% of the image being used and 50-30% discarded. I shoot with a 10.3 megapixel camera and a 50% crop would give me 5 megapixels or thereabout.
The Nikon D2X is equipped with a half sensor crop 12-6 megapixels and it was sold using that as a marketing tool. Yesterdays Hen Harrier was cropped at 60% and in my view did not reveal any problems regarding detail or pixelation. I am comfortable with the outcome and do not see it as a 'nit', I may be convinced otherwise, I am open minded and look forward to your views.
Regards
Brian
Posted by Ben Micklem on April 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I think you got lots of comments on the cropping aspect as you hadn't said that it was a 60% crop. If you had, I guess people would put forward other things- as there is definitely something else losing you sharpness. It isn't sharp at less than 1/3 of a megapixel (the size you posted), so the camera's resolution (or the crop) is not the main problem.
I don't think you mentioned how you were supporting the camera. This would be the first suspect.
Hi Brian,
I'm always doing big crops, the Mandarin I posted today is a 90% crop, about 1.5 megapixels of the original 12.
I had a play with your harrier pic, just did some more sharpening and shadow highlight adjustment, it's what I would expect from a cropped flight shot in dull light.
Tim
Posted by Sean Bolton on April 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Hi Brian
To me cropping is a standard part of post processing. In the digital era this is another tool and perfectly valid in my opinion. It is often difficult with nature photography to perfectly frame a shot. You might just get one chance to photograph a subject and if you are too far away or haven't got the ideal lens at the time then cropping is a tool to fix this in post processing.
With flight shots it is often easier to track with the centre AF point and then crop afterwards to get a more ideal composition.
Cropping can often greatly enhance a composition and is part of the 'artistic' process of photography.
The amount you can crop will depend on the end result. For high resolution stock files or very large prints then you probably don't want to crop too much. But for web images and small prints upto A4, then it is often possible to crop considerably and still maintain a high quality output.
regards
Sean
Posted by Paul Inglis on April 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Hi Brian,
From my own point of view! I don't crop heavily simply because my post-processing is well, you know, c**p (Rubbish). I tend to prefer getting it right in camera and the less I do in Lightroom, Photoshop, etc…, the better! Others however on this forum can knock spots off me and render a good image as a wonderful one! I haven’t the patience with processing images – l preferred the old days in the sense that I could just send the rolls to the labs but now the digital era has caused me more work! Getting there slowly, oh so slowly! Love digital though, could never shoot film again!
Also the camera used can also determine the outcome, i.e. the D2Xs that I shoot with is great below 400 iso but above that it’s as noisy as hell! If I crop say 25% of an image at 100 iso, then no problem but if I crop 50% at 800 iso then everyone knows it was a large crop, whether I said or not! The D300 is a different kettle of fish at 800 iso a 50% wouldn’t be so noticeable! This is an extreme example, because in reality the difference between the two is very small but to the trained eye, noticeable, if you catch my drift!
Cropping is a daily occurrences and one that should be undertaken for compositional reasons. It’s not an evil thing to do! But remember you are posting on a photography forum where people are very adept and can pick up on the slightest thing – in my opinion it helps us improve! In the real world with ‘Joe Public’ (non-photographers so to speak), are more inept (not being nasty here!), take my family – they say every image is wonderful, then I post here and shock horror it wasn’t! (Ok extreme again but you get my drift!).
For me I liked your Hen Harrier shot as it was! Cropped or not!
Brian,
Poor light (i.e lack of natural contrast sharpness) and a slow shutter speed leading to critical unsharpness have made your file pretty poor quality. Cropping it has magnified the faults as well as magnifying the subject. Noise levels look to be excessive.
I won't sit on the fence here when it comes to cropping. I don't like cropped shots and I kick myself every time I have to crop a shot to improve it's composition. I do not include cropping to get a pano in this, but digital zooming is a sure way to lose quality in any shot.
John
Posted by jack chapman on April 21, 2008 at 4:11 PM
when i commented on the shot saying i thought it looked like a large crop i wasn't suggesting that was a nit in itself but the resulting loss of image quality due to it, however i happily stand corrected that this wasn't the real reason
as for cropping as a negative thing, it's is another case of each to his own, while some accept it as something they do for most images and even plan for, i find my own sentiments on cropping well articulated by j mactavish and hate it when i have to do it, in my mind i see it as learning curve ( the better i get at instinctive in-camera comps the less i will have to do it)
Depending on the subject, cropping is an inevitability. Most bird photos require some sort of cropping, if they dont then the shooter is probably the Invisible man. I can photograph 2.6 metre wingspan Vultures any day and get full frame shots, but a 12 centimetre Subalpine Warbler for example, is a completely different story. I think the Hen Harrier shot at 1/320 was quite remarkable, considering the wariness and speed of these birds.
Well I'm not sure I'd agree that most bird images are in need of cropping.
The way I look at is minor cropping is a valuable creative tool, to: 1) Occasionally improve composition where the bird was perhaps too central in the frame, often from making the decision to use the faster and more precise center focusing point, rather than miss the shot by using the slower and less precise outer point (at least in my experience with a 20D/5D/100-400mm combination). 2) To improve the composition of a bird in flight, again for the above reason. 3) To improve the overall image because another format to what the camera produces, gives a stronger and more pleasing image. 4) To trim a few pixels off an edge where those of us using less than 100% viewfinders have been caught out
5) To trim a few pixels off an edge to give a print with a nice even margin all round
I guess on the odd occasion cropping an image to get a bigger subject size is one option,especially if it's something a bit special, but personally I tend to shove them to the back of the hard drive as a nearly but not quite image with the added incentive to, a) try again b) save towards a bigger lens c) accept defeat.
Besides who says every image has to be a frame filler.
Regarding posting images that have been substantially cropped. Personally I think that should be stated along with the technical details. Primarily because any critique/suggestion for improvement would be more accurate. Secondly, because I think it's important in giving a more accurate picture as to how the image was obtained. For instance someone may see a frame filling image and think to themselves, wow, what an outstanding shot, the photographer must have gone to great lengths and skillfully got up close, when all along it could just be a fraction of the image that'll only just stand up as a tiny jpeg on the web, but wouldn't be of much use for anything else.
Just my 2 pence for what it's worth and not directed at any images/photographers specifically.
Posted by Andy Shepherd on April 21, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Hi Brian,
My comment of "Big Crop" was merely an observation based on the lack of quality in the image , I think big crops are down to personal taste , not my cup of tea though , if I can help it.
No offence was meant by the use of the "Nit" word , so please don't take any.
ps
Just out of curiosity are you the same Brian Irving that sold a Sigma 500mm to my mate Gary at a service station on the M1 ???
Regards
Andy...
Posted by Dave Cordery on April 22, 2008 at 1:40 AM
I must say that cropping is a subject I have thought about quite alot since I have been part of this forum. The way that I see it, if you have a 500/600mm lens the need to crop is almost removed. However, with the likes of someone like myself who is just not able to make budgets go that level, the need to crop is there in almost every shot. But then as everyone knows the moment you do that you enhance the good and the bad.
I did not crop my recent two efforts to see the reaction of the environement type shot. It does not seem to have as much appeal as a close up shot..
So we are back to cropping, is it right or wrong and how much is OK. I certainly would like some feedback to that question?
At the end of the day, I am sure that alot of people on this forum just want to find ways to improve their pictures and if that requires the need to crop so be it.
If I as a rookie couldn't crop my shots, I'd seldom produce anything that I liked the look of. I totally agree with the aspiration to get the shot that I want to see occupying all the available pixels but with the amount of time and the amount of skill at my disposal that just ain't going to happen very often. Lots of other things impact on image quality too as has been alluded to above and trying to get them all right or as close to right as possible is a massive challenge - but I guess that's partly what makes this hobby such fun.
Cheers
Tim
Posted by Paul Williams on April 22, 2008 at 7:31 AM
My musings for what they are worth……
I have no problem with cropping, if the resulting image is fit for purpose then I don’t think it should be an issue. Personally however I try to avoid cropping if at all possible, its one thing to produce good looking low res 700px wide images for web use but something else entirely to produce his-res 5000+px images for stock agencies or printing. The latter is the direction where I’d like my photography go and having to substantially crop an image simply wont cut it and becomes very frustrating!..........mmmm.....that'll be why I'm broke having spent all my money on gear
Paul
Posted by Dawn Monrose on April 22, 2008 at 7:58 AM
Good to hear everyone's views on this. I agree with Paul, as long as the image is fit for purpose, then some cropping is ok. I dislike big crops, but then sometimes I do it just to see what the image could be like... The boxing hares on my website for instance - I've had lots of really nice comments about it, but it's a massive crop and just isn't usable, (well maybe for a postage stamp... ) Having said that I'm trying to get it up to a 12X8" to show in my exhibition...but I'll wait and see how it prints...
It is amazing just how close you have to be to something to get it a good size in the frame, even with a 500mm... So I do tend to snip a bit off to improve composition, and get a bit closer, but it's a balancing act so as not to lose too much quality. Sometimes I find the 500mm too close...and other shots that I would have cropped I've been told are just right (for stock) So I guess it does depend on usage.
Cropping is fine.... if your conscience will carry it ok
I too crop many of my images for compositional reasons and also to sometimes show the detail in a shot. Not to everyones taste at times, but I'm fine with that. But for my own satisfaction, I know that a cropped image is sometimes practically useless if someone wanted a print (fortunately, no one does ) My personal satisfaction comes from a full frame shot and I know I've nailed it and it can be used to print at a fairly large size, but these aren't always possible as we all know.
ALso techs that describe "cropped from landscape to portait" indicate a 50% crop which is massive, but if quality is acceptable, a lot of people seem comfortable to show the image at 200k.
I agree cropping should be stated in the tech details but it's hard enough for some people to put the basic techs in let alone more info!
Crop away, that's what I say...... as long as it looks acceptable
Posted by Brian Irving on April 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Thanks for all the input and thanks to Tim for improving my image. I have no firm conclusions on the matter it would seem that everyone has a slightly different view if not poles apart!
As for me, a large crop gave me my first usable image of what is a rare and beautiful animal, that is the basis of my wish to share it with you rather than to 'bin-it'. Critical sharpness is something I am about to take up with my optician (eye test), maybe I will spot softness with new specs!
Thanks again for sharing your views, this forum is without doubt a place of learning.
Discussion
15 repliesYesterday I posted an image of a Hen Harrier and some of the feedback interested me. It was based around the term 'large crop' being an issue or a nit. I thought that a discussion regarding this would reveal some views.......
I have been shooting digital since 2003 and started with a 2.9 magapixel SLR, with this few pixels large crops were out of the question. I see a large crop as anything between 50-70% of the image being used and 50-30% discarded. I shoot with a 10.3 megapixel camera and a 50% crop would give me 5 megapixels or thereabout.
The Nikon D2X is equipped with a half sensor crop 12-6 megapixels and it was sold using that as a marketing tool. Yesterdays Hen Harrier was cropped at 60% and in my view did not reveal any problems regarding detail or pixelation. I am comfortable with the outcome and do not see it as a 'nit', I may be convinced otherwise, I am open minded and look forward to your views.
Regards
Brian
I don't think you mentioned how you were supporting the camera. This would be the first suspect.
I'm always doing big crops, the Mandarin I posted today is a 90% crop, about 1.5 megapixels of the original 12.
I had a play with your harrier pic, just did some more sharpening and shadow highlight adjustment, it's what I would expect from a cropped flight shot in dull light.
Tim
To me cropping is a standard part of post processing. In the digital era this is another tool and perfectly valid in my opinion. It is often difficult with nature photography to perfectly frame a shot. You might just get one chance to photograph a subject and if you are too far away or haven't got the ideal lens at the time then cropping is a tool to fix this in post processing.
With flight shots it is often easier to track with the centre AF point and then crop afterwards to get a more ideal composition.
Cropping can often greatly enhance a composition and is part of the 'artistic' process of photography.
The amount you can crop will depend on the end result. For high resolution stock files or very large prints then you probably don't want to crop too much. But for web images and small prints upto A4, then it is often possible to crop considerably and still maintain a high quality output.
regards
Sean
From my own point of view! I don't crop heavily simply because my post-processing is well, you know, c**p (Rubbish). I tend to prefer getting it right in camera and the less I do in Lightroom, Photoshop, etc…, the better! Others however on this forum can knock spots off me and render a good image as a wonderful one! I haven’t the patience with processing images – l preferred the old days in the sense that I could just send the rolls to the labs but now the digital era has caused me more work! Getting there slowly, oh so slowly! Love digital though, could never shoot film again!
Also the camera used can also determine the outcome, i.e. the D2Xs that I shoot with is great below 400 iso but above that it’s as noisy as hell! If I crop say 25% of an image at 100 iso, then no problem but if I crop 50% at 800 iso then everyone knows it was a large crop, whether I said or not! The D300 is a different kettle of fish at 800 iso a 50% wouldn’t be so noticeable! This is an extreme example, because in reality the difference between the two is very small but to the trained eye, noticeable, if you catch my drift!
Cropping is a daily occurrences and one that should be undertaken for compositional reasons. It’s not an evil thing to do! But remember you are posting on a photography forum where people are very adept and can pick up on the slightest thing – in my opinion it helps us improve! In the real world with ‘Joe Public’ (non-photographers so to speak), are more inept (not being nasty here!), take my family – they say every image is wonderful, then I post here and shock horror it wasn’t! (Ok extreme again but you get my drift!).
For me I liked your Hen Harrier shot as it was! Cropped or not!
Poor light (i.e lack of natural contrast sharpness) and a slow shutter speed leading to critical unsharpness have made your file pretty poor quality. Cropping it has magnified the faults as well as magnifying the subject. Noise levels look to be excessive.
I won't sit on the fence here when it comes to cropping. I don't like cropped shots and I kick myself every time I have to crop a shot to improve it's composition. I do not include cropping to get a pano in this, but digital zooming is a sure way to lose quality in any shot.
John
as for cropping as a negative thing, it's is another case of each to his own, while some accept it as something they do for most images and even plan for, i find my own sentiments on cropping well articulated by j mactavish and hate it when i have to do it, in my mind i see it as learning curve ( the better i get at instinctive in-camera comps the less i will have to do it)
The way I look at is minor cropping is a valuable creative tool, to: 1) Occasionally improve composition where the bird was perhaps too central in the frame, often from making the decision to use the faster and more precise center focusing point, rather than miss the shot by using the slower and less precise outer point (at least in my experience with a 20D/5D/100-400mm combination). 2) To improve the composition of a bird in flight, again for the above reason. 3) To improve the overall image because another format to what the camera produces, gives a stronger and more pleasing image. 4) To trim a few pixels off an edge where those of us using less than 100% viewfinders have been caught out
5) To trim a few pixels off an edge to give a print with a nice even margin all round
I guess on the odd occasion cropping an image to get a bigger subject size is one option,especially if it's something a bit special, but personally I tend to shove them to the back of the hard drive as a nearly but not quite image with the added incentive to, a) try again b) save towards a bigger lens c) accept defeat.
Besides who says every image has to be a frame filler.
Regarding posting images that have been substantially cropped. Personally I think that should be stated along with the technical details. Primarily because any critique/suggestion for improvement would be more accurate. Secondly, because I think it's important in giving a more accurate picture as to how the image was obtained. For instance someone may see a frame filling image and think to themselves, wow, what an outstanding shot, the photographer must have gone to great lengths and skillfully got up close, when all along it could just be a fraction of the image that'll only just stand up as a tiny jpeg on the web, but wouldn't be of much use for anything else.
Just my 2 pence for what it's worth and not directed at any images/photographers specifically.
My comment of "Big Crop" was merely an observation based on the lack of quality in the image , I think big crops are down to personal taste , not my cup of tea though , if I can help it.
No offence was meant by the use of the "Nit" word , so please don't take any.
ps
Just out of curiosity are you the same Brian Irving that sold a Sigma 500mm to my mate Gary at a service station on the M1 ???
Regards
Andy...
I did not crop my recent two efforts to see the reaction of the environement type shot. It does not seem to have as much appeal as a close up shot..
So we are back to cropping, is it right or wrong and how much is OK. I certainly would like some feedback to that question?
At the end of the day, I am sure that alot of people on this forum just want to find ways to improve their pictures and if that requires the need to crop so be it.
Regards
Dave
Cheers
Tim
I have no problem with cropping, if the resulting image is fit for purpose then I don’t think it should be an issue. Personally however I try to avoid cropping if at all possible, its one thing to produce good looking low res 700px wide images for web use but something else entirely to produce his-res 5000+px images for stock agencies or printing. The latter is the direction where I’d like my photography go and having to substantially crop an image simply wont cut it and becomes very frustrating!..........mmmm.....that'll be why I'm broke having spent all my money on gear
Paul
It is amazing just how close you have to be to something to get it a good size in the frame, even with a 500mm...
Sorry to ramble - great topic
I too crop many of my images for compositional reasons and also to sometimes show the detail in a shot. Not to everyones taste at times, but I'm fine with that. But for my own satisfaction, I know that a cropped image is sometimes practically useless if someone wanted a print (fortunately, no one does
ALso techs that describe "cropped from landscape to portait" indicate a 50% crop which is massive, but if quality is acceptable, a lot of people seem comfortable to show the image at 200k.
I agree cropping should be stated in the tech details but it's hard enough for some people to put the basic techs in let alone more info!
Crop away, that's what I say...... as long as it looks acceptable
As for me, a large crop gave me my first usable image of what is a rare and beautiful animal, that is the basis of my wish to share it with you rather than to 'bin-it'. Critical sharpness is something I am about to take up with my optician (eye test), maybe I will spot softness with new specs!
Thanks again for sharing your views, this forum is without doubt a place of learning.
Regards
Brian