IQ and cropping images..help

[Fred Woodman]

I am a bit new to using longer lenses for bird photography, Realistically how much can i crop an image before IQ will suffer beyond acceptable amounts ?
I am using a Canon 60d with either a 100-400 5.6 or my new 300 2.8 ii. with and without a 1.4 TC iii.

maybe a better way to ask would be how much of the initial shot should fill the frame, ?

[Mike Milicia]

The amount of cropping you can get away with will depend on the quality of the original capture in terms of sharpness and noise and also on how you plan to use the image.

For printing, a rough estimate is that you usually want to have AT LEAST half of the pixels needed in each dimension to get to the final print size. For example, if you want an 8x12 print on an Epson printer with a native PPI of 360, you would probably want to have at least enough pixels for a 4x6 at 360 PPI, i.e. 1440x2160 pixels. With a high quality original, you should then be able to upsize the image to the 2880x4320 pixels that you need for an 8x12.

If the image is intended for use on the web, you can get away with quite a bit of cropping if you start with a high quality original.
For example, the image in this post : http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php/106693 is only 12% of the original 18 MP capture. I cropped the full frame image (5184x3456 pixles) down to 1492x1492 pixels and then downsized to 800x800 pixels for the post.

Of course, your goal should be to compose the image in the camera so that no cropping is needed ;-)

[arash_hazeghi]

Good points above, it depends on 1 ) the quality of the RAW file and 2 ) What you want to use it for

if you have an example you can post it for better feedback

[Fred Woodman]

Thx , there is something in my process that needs work, that level of sharpness at almost any crop is alluding me, but I am just beginning. That is an awesome shot by the way, its those kinds of shots that motivates me...i am trying to add an image but its not letting me add from my hard drive it keeps asking for it from a URL, let me try again
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

this picture was taken with a 60 d and 100-400 5.6 lens.Almost no crop.

[Mike Milicia]

Link not working ...

[arash_hazeghi]

Fred,
BPN hosting is only available to BPN members. you need to upload your image to an external hosting site like flicker, smug etc. and then click "insert from URL" in this thread.

[Diane Miller]

How is your initial sharpness? That is, if you're shooting Raw, looking at a 100% or 1:1 view in the Raw converter (or Bridge or Lightroom) before any sharpening except the defaultamount in the converter -- does the image look sharp?

So much depends on the sensor, the accuracy of focus, the quality of the lens and the stability of the system (lack of camera shake or subject movement). Convection waves in the air can even soften an image at the pixel level. I don't know the 60D but the 300 should give you amazing quality, even with the 1.4X

It's a little hard to extrapolate what the sharp images posted here looked like initially, at 100% and full size, and of course it depends on the size and detail in the subject. But within the visual limits of looking at the smaller size posted here, the initial sharpness and detail should be very well preserved in going from the original to a final JPEG. Sometimes people will add some very subtle sharpening to the JPEG but I often find if I export from Lightroom with the standard sharpening for screen, that's all I need.

[David Stephens]

Good points so far.

I'd be using my 300/f2.8 with my EF 1.4x TC-III much more. It's got only slightly more reach, but I think you'll see better IQ in your beginning file.

[Fred Woodman]

Thx ill see if i can get a couple of my pictures posted, some good, some not so good

[Fred Woodman]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/113806077@N03/12918596953/

see if this works

[Fred Woodman]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1138060...n/photostream/

[Dave Johnson]

that level of sharpness at almost any crop is alluding me, but I am just beginning.

Hi Fred. I use a 60D with a 500 F4 ii and have similar focusing problems... very frustrating. Aside from the points Diane mentioned about obtaining initial sharpness (which are good ones), I think the two main disadvantages with the 60D are the auto focus system itself (no sensitivity/tracking settings) and the fact it doesn't have an auto focus micro adjust (AFMA) feature in the camera. I usually shoot from a tripod and the results are poor in anything other than good direct light on the subject. Even then I'm lucky if I come away with 30% barely usable pictures when relying on AF. So recently I decided to focus manually and saw a massive improvement in initial sharpness which helped to clarify a number of questions I had:
a. My lens technique wasn't to blame after all :) b. The 60D's auto focus wasn't quite up to the conditions I was shooting in, and c. The camera/lens needed AFMA.
Being fortunate enough to own some of the sharpest lenses out there, it's a shame to couple them with bodies which aren't up to par and I'm looking at a new body at the moment. Having said that though I think the 60D is a great little camera but it just isn't cut out for small passerine bird photography IMHO. That may sound like I'm suggesting you upgrade your body, I'm not, I just wanted to share my experiences with you.

I agree that how far you can crop will depend on the quality of the original file.

Regards, Dave J.

[Fred Woodman]

At this point i have put what i think is good gear around me, I like my 60D, I get some really nice pictures, I have a good tripod, Gitzo, my lenses are L lens. Generally my fill the frame pic come out very nice. But my crops lack the sharpness that i see in many others pictures.There is no doubt editing is something else i need to work on, and how do I copy here from Flickr....think ill take up golf...lol

[Fred Woodman]

Having trouble getting my posts on here, it keeps telling me they are gone to moderator for approval and then they disappear..see if this one makes it to the board..

[Fred Woodman]

ok, so its the posts with the Url attached thats not making it