Brian Atherton
Well-known
Professionally: yes, with medium format, but not with 4x5 inch or my personal work on black and white 35mm or the digital equivalent.
icebear
Veteran
Hi Bill,
you already paid for the last generation of pixels why not use them for the best possible result, i.e. milking the inherit quality of all the pixels? If you crop the image of the latest and greatest 60+ MP sensor camera, you are indeed throwing out all the info the pixels outside of your cropped area have captured. You could have bought an APS size sensor camera and care about better framing at time of exposure.
I typically try to get the framing right when I take the shot.
More MP's just allow people who don't care about framing to get sloppy.
Not my way in photography and in life in general
robert blu
quiet photographer
Generally I do not crop but if useful to have a more powerful image I have no objection to it.
It's the final image which counts.
It's the final image which counts.
That would be true if you did it all of the time... but most people only crop once in awhile while utilizing their whole frame most of the time.
retinax
Well-known
Ask yourself this: When you look at another photographer's work, in a gallery or book, will you be one of the sticklers who ask if everything was printed full frame? If not, why impose such limitations on your own work?
Of course we all preferably crop as little as possible to preserve image quality, but there are many situations when cropping can help achieve the picture we want.
I get the mental thing though. It's the same fallacy as overeating because you paid for it, and it will go to waste if you don't. No - it was wasted the moment that more food than you would eat was prepared, not at the time you were full. Same with those pixels, cropping after the fact isn't wasting pixels, shooting in a way that wastes them was. Ok that's as far as the analogy goes, throwing away pixels isn't inherently bad of course, less may simply be sufficient.
Of course we all preferably crop as little as possible to preserve image quality, but there are many situations when cropping can help achieve the picture we want.
I get the mental thing though. It's the same fallacy as overeating because you paid for it, and it will go to waste if you don't. No - it was wasted the moment that more food than you would eat was prepared, not at the time you were full. Same with those pixels, cropping after the fact isn't wasting pixels, shooting in a way that wastes them was. Ok that's as far as the analogy goes, throwing away pixels isn't inherently bad of course, less may simply be sufficient.
lynnb
Veteran
It depends, Bill.. I crop when:
- I see a picture that requires a different aspect ratio to what I'm using
- I can't change my camera position or FOV to get the picture - then I will if I have enough detail (pixels or film) to play with - this tends to happen on the street when timing is everything, it's either crop or miss the shot
Theoretically, if I had a very high Mp sensor and was working a crowd where lots was happening eg in HK at the moment, there might be several potential images for each exposure. I believe the Chinese govt is implementing 500Mp cameras in public spaces to enable individual portraits from large crowds!
- I see a picture that requires a different aspect ratio to what I'm using
- I can't change my camera position or FOV to get the picture - then I will if I have enough detail (pixels or film) to play with - this tends to happen on the street when timing is everything, it's either crop or miss the shot
Theoretically, if I had a very high Mp sensor and was working a crowd where lots was happening eg in HK at the moment, there might be several potential images for each exposure. I believe the Chinese govt is implementing 500Mp cameras in public spaces to enable individual portraits from large crowds!
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I grew up, photographically speaking, shooting slides, where cropping was unavailable, so I learned to compose tightly in the viewfinder. A 35-70mm zoom came in handy for cropping before I tripped the shutter. It is just the way I learned. Force of habit is strong. Most of the time these days I print full frame because that is the image I intended to make. I am not above cropping. I did a series of 7:17 panoramas cropped from 3:2 wide angle landscapes. It is not about rules or religion; it's about previsualization. I do my composition in the viewfinder, not at the easel. You can do that with the Leica Q2 with its dedicated framelines, though I think that is mostly about marketing.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Does it matter? Many of the iconic pics of the last century were cropped. A famous example here:
AP/Nick Ut
willie_901
Veteran
I crop when:
The first two cases are of no concern because images for immediate on-line consumption are highly compressed. They are essentially disposable. Loss of pixel resolution does not matter.
Since I use the OVF most of the time, the frame lines are just estimates.
Cropping due the second two cases is usually minimal.
Framing where the plane of the sensor is not square to the subject is always avoidable for the horizontal axis. Sometimes I don't take the time to carefully remove horizontal tilt. But I always attempt to minimize it. So the resulting crop has a low impact.
Intentional converging verticals are sometimes useful visual tools. Sometimes they are unavoidable. When neither applies I correct converging verticals in post production. Again, cropping is minimal unless I was really careless with my framing.
When I was doing interiors photography I would intentionally include more of a scene in the frame than needed. Then if I had to correct for small horizontal and, or vertical tilt areas the crop would be irrelevant. For building exteriors converging verticals were often impractical to avoid. This is one case where a high pixel density is very useful. A very large crop due to large vertical tilt corrections still retains a reasonably high pixel resolution.
Applying on-board lens corrections results in a cropped imaging. The crop is small. However, when precise framing is important I switch to the EVF. Now the lens correction is displayed in real time. For precise framing I use a tripod.
- I use my iPhone
- I use my X-100T or X-Pro 2 images for immediate, on-line comsumptio
- I want to remove converging verticals and, or the camera was not level with respect to the horizontal axis
- whenever I use FUJIFILM's lens corrections in LR Classic
The first two cases are of no concern because images for immediate on-line consumption are highly compressed. They are essentially disposable. Loss of pixel resolution does not matter.
Since I use the OVF most of the time, the frame lines are just estimates.
Cropping due the second two cases is usually minimal.
Framing where the plane of the sensor is not square to the subject is always avoidable for the horizontal axis. Sometimes I don't take the time to carefully remove horizontal tilt. But I always attempt to minimize it. So the resulting crop has a low impact.
Intentional converging verticals are sometimes useful visual tools. Sometimes they are unavoidable. When neither applies I correct converging verticals in post production. Again, cropping is minimal unless I was really careless with my framing.
When I was doing interiors photography I would intentionally include more of a scene in the frame than needed. Then if I had to correct for small horizontal and, or vertical tilt areas the crop would be irrelevant. For building exteriors converging verticals were often impractical to avoid. This is one case where a high pixel density is very useful. A very large crop due to large vertical tilt corrections still retains a reasonably high pixel resolution.
Applying on-board lens corrections results in a cropped imaging. The crop is small. However, when precise framing is important I switch to the EVF. Now the lens correction is displayed in real time. For precise framing I use a tripod.
konicaman
konicaman
Many years of 35mm shooting taught me to frame when shooting - when possible of course. I still shoot in 3:2 format or on rare occasions in 1:1.
3:2 is about the right format for traditional photographic paper or for printing in A-formats. The largest sensor I've got is a 16MP Fuji. Should I have to crop down to 12 MP on occasion it is no big deal; I can make a nice A2 print from a 12 MP file. No reason to fuss about it as far as I am concerned
3:2 is about the right format for traditional photographic paper or for printing in A-formats. The largest sensor I've got is a 16MP Fuji. Should I have to crop down to 12 MP on occasion it is no big deal; I can make a nice A2 print from a 12 MP file. No reason to fuss about it as far as I am concerned
Prest_400
Multiformat
I'm in the camp of get it right with the VF, but it doesn't mean that I don't. so I actually do crop quite often.
Most of my cropping is to other aspect ratios, my digitals (m43 and phone) are 4:3 and my main film cameras (35mm and GW690) are 3:2. Sometimes it is plain correction, other times it is for fun and seeing other ways of framing.
As of film, I just came to the realization of Bill about 4x5 when I was printing from some of my 6x9 Negs that I do crop a bit, sometimes It's a matter of enlarger configuration and don't mind slight cropping. Did a print run of a friend portraits and there I did crop quite often, which brings the 40mm equivalent of the GW690 towards a longer lens.
Most of my cropping is to other aspect ratios, my digitals (m43 and phone) are 4:3 and my main film cameras (35mm and GW690) are 3:2. Sometimes it is plain correction, other times it is for fun and seeing other ways of framing.
As of film, I just came to the realization of Bill about 4x5 when I was printing from some of my 6x9 Negs that I do crop a bit, sometimes It's a matter of enlarger configuration and don't mind slight cropping. Did a print run of a friend portraits and there I did crop quite often, which brings the 40mm equivalent of the GW690 towards a longer lens.
Luke_Miller
Established
My favorite form of photography is candid portraits. That is, tightly framed images of the natural expressions I get when the subject is unaware of my presence. With film and early low-resolution digital bodies that type of shooting required long glass. Shorter lenses brought me close enough to the subject that I would be noticed and get the "I'm being photographed face". A 70-200 f2.8 zoom was my most used lens and on occasion I would go to a 200 f2 or 300 f2.8. Now I have reached "a certain age" where the weight of my camera and lens is a factor in how much I enjoy the shoot.
Currently with my 45 mpx body the 24-120 f4 is my most used lens and the 85 f1.4 and 105 f1.4 come into play. Through cropping I still get the images I want, but with a smaller, lighter and less noticeable rig.
Purists decry "throwing away" pixels, but if one does not intend to make very large prints, of what use are they?
Currently with my 45 mpx body the 24-120 f4 is my most used lens and the 85 f1.4 and 105 f1.4 come into play. Through cropping I still get the images I want, but with a smaller, lighter and less noticeable rig.
Purists decry "throwing away" pixels, but if one does not intend to make very large prints, of what use are they?
pluton
Well-known
My personal attitude about substantial cropping is purely cultural.
1. The culture of the 35mm shooter, for all those film years, dictates that substantial blowups (like 35FOV to 85 FOV) are likely to compromise image quality and "look like junk" and are to be avoided.
Today's hi-res cameras can deliver a large amount of cropping w/o severe degeneration of image quality.
Newspaper printing, even today, can tolerate an even greater degeneration of photographic image quality than a moderately sized (13x19") enlargement via inkjet print(my main end product).
2. There is an ego factor as well, eg: If I design the shot *at the time of shooting* for a substantial crop, then that's fine. I do this frequently.
But...if the crop is a complete afterthought, then I wasn't designing or planning the final shot at the time of shooting, which demonstrates that I don't know what I'm doing, or am trying desperately to save a lousy shot, etc, etc.