Cropping

A good few years ago I printed out a portfolio of what I considered to be my best work. When assembled I flicked through it - no doubt with a contented smug look on my face, thinking aren't I clever! - when it dawned on me that just about every single shot had been cropped!

This got me thinking. Why was I cropping all my images? Why did I need to crop all my images? The answer, of course, was because I was a bad photographer. I'd been cropping to get a nice composition or to make the subject larger in frame, instead of making sure the shot was as good as it could be when I'd pressed the shutter button in the field.

I decided there then that the crop tool should be avoided at all costs. For me using the crop tool has become an indicator of bad or lazy photography. When I use it now - and there are still times when I need to use it ie wonky horizons, usually from hand-holding (I'm sure I've got one leg shorter than the other!) - I feel like a failure because it means I've stuffed up in the field.

I mention this because browsing through the posts here I'm seeing cropped photos all the time, the phrases 'quite a crop' or 'heavily cropped' appearing over and over again. I find it difficult to critique an image when I know it's only 10% of the original shot! If you're having to make 'heavy crops' to make a good 'photo' then you need to re-asses your style of photography - think about composing an image where the subject is small in frame but still makes for a nice image rather than shooting with the bird/mammal dead centre and cropping in later because that's not photography, that's 'look at what I saw today...'!

Am I right to think this, or am I being too purist?
Do you think it would be a good idea to include cropping info with every shot posted eg cropped 3888px to 3500px, so at least the person offering critique is not duped into thinking it's a full-frame shot?

Thoughts anyone?


Simon


*****Update*****

******Threads been locked so I'd just like to take a chance to thank everyone who voiced their opinions - many good and cogent arguments for cropping were included. I'll personally stick with my ethos of trying to make every pixel count when I press the shutter though. Those of you who prefer to crop excessively...if it makes you happy then more power to you. But please, please state what percentage of the original frame you're presenting us to critique so we can base our comments accordingly.*******

Now, hare anyone?

To be honest Simon, I believe cropping is just another tool available to the photographer.

I agree with you in the respect that having to rely on the crop tool to achieve a good comp detracts from the photographers ability and that the best photographers manage to get it right most of the time in camera. But in this day and age and with photographers with different work flows, the final image is what counts for me..

The main reason for me to get it right in the box is to avoid chopping out alot of the pixels in the image which will affect the resolution at large sizes.

Heavy cropping of an image for me is to be avoided if possible but a small tweak here and there to remove distractions I think is ok.

But in answer to your question, I don't fundementally have a problem with the crop tool. (Thats probably because I'm always using it ).

Cheers Lee

To be honest, Simon, I do think you are being too much of a purist. If I think back to the days of black and white film, I cropped virtually every shot I took. The limitation was the quality of the negative, and whether the crop could take it. I don't see any difference between cropping a negative and cropping a digital file.

In one respect I do agree with you, if you can get what you want composed in the camera and take full advantage of the whole frame, then inevitably you can produce a better result than you will with a 50 or 75% crop.

But worrying because you have cropped 3888 pixels to 3500? In my opinion that is just going too far.

David

I also don t have a problem with the crop tool if just used for comp, obviously I don t like to crop because of the quality but for compostion I think if we were all honest most will use it,For eg the waders I have been getting are more a less full frame but with them moving so quick most of the time you can t get the comp right in camera all of the time because you have to so quick in taking the shot so you need the crop tool to take a little off for comp.But then the goldfinch I did I was able to think more about the comp so tried to get it right in camera because I had more chance to.So I think its down to what you are photographing, another eg is a bird in flight most surely have to crop for comp.

I do believe the crop tool is useful, especially for those of us with no access to 600 and 800mm lenses.
Fieldcraft can only get us so close to some of our quarry and with cameras such as the 7D I am able to crop 30% of the image and still have a nicely resolving shot (even better than shots from the 30D or 40D). So if I still have a larger print than I would with a full frame shot from a less resolving sensor, is that wrong? ;)

Even in the old dark room days we enlarged what was needed to fill the frame and cut away the rest, I don't see why this should be different just because it is easy. Yes, I prefer a full frame shot for the reasons Lee mentioned, but I do not see why I shouldn't if I need to.

I find it very rare when in a hide that the subject goes exactly where you want it so you have to make adjustments anyway. On top of that you may want a landscape or a portrait and it can't always be decided at the time. Also with a lot of my stuff a smaller image gives me more depth of field especially on birds. Only the other day I was doing a Dunlin a long way off. There's no way I would post a pic of it un cropped. I haven't got a lot of expensive gear so I am stuffed with the distant shots. Having said that some come out exactly as they looked at the time, but not very often in my humble experience.
The ones I don't crop very often are the macros/stacks because everything is much more controlled. I don't really see how some one viewing can be "duped" as you say regarding the crop. Does it matter that much?
Cheers
JohnR

I know exactly how you feel in regards to cropping Simon, I hate cropping my images, i don't include cropping to panoramic in that though. Despite all that i do crop sometimes, for horizons (almost whenever any water is involved) and occasionally for compositions and distractions but only if it's really worth it. I'm always left with a sense of self-loathing afterwards though. It's not really rational as a slight crop doesn't affect quality much but i still won't like my image as much.

I agree with much of what's already been said, the crop tool is exactly what it says on the tin - just another tool and, as David says, it's not even something new that's come in with the digital age. In my view its use is certainly nothing to get hung up about, so yes Simon I think you are being too purist

It's the final image, Simon; not how you get it. If the image is is a good composition, your technique in camera or at the computer is secondary to the fact you are able to see and define a good composition. Looking at it another way, you can't post the excellence of your shooting technique in the forum. It may be outstanding or rotten, or anything in between. We can't see that. All we see is the image itself.

I don't think yu are being to much of a purist Simon,however it has to be said that the crop tool is just another tool and lik anything it can be overdone Think back to the days of film and those ghastly coloured graduated filters, like everything else in life when used in moderation it improves but when you are using it to much you are abusing it

I'm with you on this one Simon and will always strive to get the composition right in camera whenever possible.

The exceptions are;

1) I often crop just a few pixels off from one edge of an image so as to create an equal border when printing.

2) Occasionally crop slightly because the desired composition couldn't be recorded perfectly due to the camera's aspect ratio.

3) Occasionally crop a few pixels off an edge to exclude a small unwanted element, i.e. a bit of unwanted folliage,etc., mostly for web presentation though, rather than print.

I tend to print every image I process, often up to A3+ and I want all the pixels I can get from the start.
Also, getting physically closer to your subject will always yield maximum fine detail and quality and will always be considerably superior than shooting from twice the distance and substantially cropping, which may be passable for a small, compressed web image, but not very good for much else.

If it's just a slither cropped from an image then disclosing it at the time of posting isn't a major issue but if it's a substantial crop then I think it should be mentioned along with the shooting data, as per the forum guidelines.

I'd also much rather shoot an image in portrait format if that's the image I envisage, rather than cropping it that way from a landscape format. Although I guess the ever increasing pixel count does increase the cropping options if there's no other option.

At present I use a telephoto zoom lens for my wildlife shots so it's a bit easier for me to frame my shots in camera than it would be for someone who uses a fixed lens.

One problem I have is I only have the one central cross hair for focussing and with garden birds as you know, I only have a split second to attempt to focus on the eye and shoot, so I usually have to crop my shots for compositional purposes later.

I don't like throwing away too many pixels though so I try to get it as close as I can in camera.

Geoff.

When Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa he cropped out her feet.

I remember a few years ago the winning image in the WPOTY competition was an image of an elephant and a heron. I thought it was OK but sometime later I saw the original masked slide. Did I feel duped: yes.

I am always in favour of full disclosure. I have no problem with how the image was obtained unless the welfare of the subject or its environment was compromised, but I would like to know whether the image was cropped, the subject was captive etc. I always include cropping information in my posts, though (and not wanting to sound smug or in any respect holy) 99 percent of my images are full frame.

Everyone will have their own method that’s right for them. My preference is for doing it in the camera, I like to think about what it is I’m trying to portray and how the picture will look before I press the shutter button. I only tend to crop when I screw up a horizon or physically can’t get close enough to the subject, sometimes when you are in a hide with a prime on there is no choice.

Thought so not many in favour of ditching the old crop tool.

Good topic Simon!

I personally don't have a problem with it if the percentage cropped is disclosed (which I know it rarely is). I certainly wouldn't class it as cheating though, some cropped images on here are absolutely fantastic. I wonder how many images would appear per week on this site if only full frame images were allowed. I try to get full frame shots where possible, but I wouldn't loose sleep over cropping 30% off if I felt the need. I would much rather crop a shot of a wild species than photograph a captive species, but then it is a hobby for me, not a profession.

Cheers,

Lewis.

Nothing has changed; the quality of the final image is paramount, the tools secondary. 

I have seen 6x6 or 6x9's cut from 4x5's - the crop significant but when compared to a 35mm of the same scene the cropped 6x9 slide quality was excellent. Nobody complained that the final slide was only 25% to 33% of the original; it was derived from quality. 

Quality can be cropped from quality; but only so far. 

One of the differences between a master and amateur craftsman is knowing the use and limitations of a tool. 

T

I confess to being bemused by all this. Why does it matter? Who is being cheated and why? If something is cropped out, does it tell some lie? If so, should we tell people what was just outside the frame when we use a zoom lens? Or shouldn't we all have to use the same size of sensor? Isn't a 10-20% crop just "as bad" as a 50% crop, in the same way that speeding is speeding? I heard an argument that any digital manipulation should be constrained to corrections that were previously possible in a darkroom. Isn't it time to fully embrace new technology? If the image is of sufficient quality and there has been no deceit, I'm happy. I don't see cropping as deceit in any way. OK, there's pixel loss, but so what? For the viewer, it's either a good image or not.

We used to say “xyz” in habitat, what we were really saying was that we couldn’t close enough, and everyone knew it.

With the advent of digital we now crop as the norm., 50% not being unusual, apply noise reduction, if necessary, and if you are lucky the author of the image will put their hands up, and say what they did, but don’t count on it.

When a heavy crop is applied, then yes the author of the image is guilty of manipulation and misleading the viewer.

As cropping amongst other techniques, in today’s photography, is becoming the norm. It’s no wonder that the man in the street no longer gives any credibility to the honesty of the images they see. In other words, they now think that every image they see,naturephotography.net is manipulated.

The heavy crop in the image I believe Danny is talking about, was rather obvious, but I disagree with Danny here, as I don’t think the people who commented did recognise that it had been cropped.

Isn’t one of the aims of this forum, to improve the photographic technique/skills of the individual, so that cropping, amongst others things, isn’t required ??

Just my two pennyworth.

By the way Simon, I think your flogging a dead horse, unfortunately.

Derek

Simon

Bloody hell man the crop tool is the only one I can use with any success.

I assume the same people who dont like cropping never use any of the other tools in PS or whatever program they process the image in then.

They never alter the levels/contrast/saturation/colour balance selective sharpen layers etc etc its all gotten bang on in camera ?

Cropping is just another tool and used wisely and not too big a crop then I dont see any problem.

How about when posting an image on here we post the finished version and so there is no cheating have to post the totally un-edited straight out of the camera version as well, that should sort it all out

There's one other thing thats not been mentioned - we shoot with digital cameras that are nearer to 4:3 aspect ratio than 16:9. So what you ask. Well, all our tv sets are creeping towards being almost 16:9, and the majority of screen display devices are similarly proportioned. More and more of our work is going to be appearing on such displays.

Right away there's a problem because your nice digital camera images wont fit without cropping.

As more of the cameras we use are becoming video capture devices as well, this 'convergence' is going to force a new way of working - where stills and video are used together to tell whatever story you're telling (we are all telling stories aren't we?). So if you're professionally inclined, as the market changes, I think this is going to be something you might increasingly have to consider for at least some of the work you do.

To do this properly the way we shoot some of our stills will change - I know mine has - to leave more space around the main subject, allowing ease of cropping to allow inclusion in 16:9 (widescreen) displays. A lot of my 'older' work is basically unusable for such purposes because its too tightly framed. Given the relatively low resolution that's needed to fill an HD tv even the cheapest DSLR has resolution to spare but the user still needs to think about using that digital real estate more wisely.

Any Nikons or Canons got focusing screens with ActionSafe and TitleSafe etchings yet? Soon will be I expect.

Just a thought.

Well, tantrum aside, I think this has made for an interesting thread.

Many of you seem to view the crop tool as just that, a tool. Which it is, I couldn't agree more, it's there for light corrections, like all the photoshop tools. However, I thinks its being used by many as a crutch, heavily relied on to create a good image from a poorly executed shot.

It seems that the message I'm getting is this: if I post a full frame shot of a fox pouncing on a mouse, and someone else posts a near identical shot but its a crop that's only ten percent of the original image, they are both equally great shots because cropping doesn't matter, it's just a tool. Is that how it works? The photographer using field craft is wasting his time because he could just stay back and crop?

Sorry, but that's not for me. It's lazy photography.

Just to counter a couple of the arguments within the thread that stated:

You can't always get close enough and we don't all have big lenses.

This is absolute tosh and shouldn't restrict you from taking a nicely composed image without the need to crop - the subject doesn't have to fill the frame.

Looking through the responses I find it heart-warming that those who are against the excessive use of the crop tool are also the photographers who's work I find most inspirational. Those wishing to advance their photography skills might want to take note!



Simon

Oh, and Barry, you are now my favourite forum member. Laughed out loud when I read your respose!

Simon
Interesting point.

You tend to admire their work ( the ones who dont crop.)]

Sorry -but if they didn't tell you you wouldn't know would you ?

I suspect every poster on this forum from now on will omit crop factors.
And after some of the comments on this thread -I don't blame them.
JohnR

Crikey - I think I agree with everybody on this one. I do think that the crop tool is going to become the new super -tele myself. I have just bought a 5D2 -21 mp camera and the quality of huge crops from it is staggeringly good. In future as they cram in more mps without increasing noise levels, I can only see it becoming the norm. It will certainly be easier walking around with a 50mm lens on a 100mp camera than lugging a 500 everywhere.
If you take photographs for your own enjoyment and if heavy cropping isn't an issue for you it shouldn't be for anyone else. If you supply images for sale to agencies or magazines and the quailty is good enough for them then it's good enough. If you want to be a more accomplished photographer then not using the crop tool is a fine aim in life and is how I approach my photography. I hate using the crop tool, but when I look at an image on the screen and nick a bit off the side to improve the comp, I must admit I forget that I did it pretty quickly as long as the image quality is still good enough for me.

I started off writing this with the intention of agreeing wholeheartedly with Simon because that is exactly how I approach what I do, but it is totally irrational when you look at it logically.
On balance I think I shall just carry on trying to get them full frame if only because pixels are expensive and it seems silly to throw them away.

An interesting thread and it's good to see everyone's views on this issue. I don't like cropping and try to use it as little as possible, but mainly with the aim of preserving pixels to increase the end use options for the image. Since a large proportion of my photography is macro it's perhaps easier for me to fill the frame and to not rely too much on cropping ( most of my images posted here are full frame or very close to it). However when I photograph birds the crop tool does tend to get used a bit more...

Simon you say above that we shouldn't consider a full frame shot of a fox as being equal to a 10% crop of a fox because of the fieldcraft that went into the former. I think the problem that I have with that argument is that it implies that we should value a shot taken with a 200mm lens more than one taken with a 500mm lens. But I don't think i've ever seen anyone be criticised for having to rely on the 'crutch' of a 600 mm lens with 1.4 converter for instance So maybe we're not being entirely consistent there. That said, I do broadly agree with the point you're making.

Matt

W W

Simon I also believe you are being too much of a purist and that cropping is just another photographic tool that most photographers use. Yes we are all a little bit disappointed when we haven't got it right in the camera but surely providing you have enough pixels left for it's final intended use where is the problem. With regards to the forum as long as the author declares it is a crop with me that is fine as I will continue to enjoy and comment on these images. Just imagine if every photographer were to delete every image where it needed to be cropped by more than 10% the world would be a far less well informed place and in many cases certain species and behaviour would still never have been recorded for posterity.

Imagine this scenario I am in a hide using a Canon 1D MkIII (10MP) and you are sitting next to me with a 1Ds MkIII (21MP) we both have that same lenses and we both capture the same special image. Are you saying because you are on a full and not cropped sensor and this is assuming that the extra part of the scene you have captured was at best distracting that you would not cropped

I also frequently shoot with the subject in the middle of the frame and crop later for many reasons but two that come to mind are when the subject is only in the frame for a few seconds when to compose would almost certainly mean I would miss the shot and also with flight shots where keeping the bird in the centre of the frame means that the AF is more likely to track accurately. Again are you saying with flight shots if you have to crop by more than say 10% you delete it.

Is cropping cheating? I don't think so for If you are going to be that pure how do you feel about the various publishers and agencies that use your images as in many instances when you see your work published if it is often a considerable crop. Are you going to say to any one who wants to use your work if you don't use the image more or less full frame that you cannot use it as you do not want to be misrepresented.

To sum up as long as we are honest about how we captured an image as I said before that's fine and Andy 99% of people on this forum do not think that you are a cheat and enjoy your work.

David