Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Cropping - How could I best quantify it?

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    324
    Threads
    24
    Thank You Posts

    Default Cropping - How could I best quantify it?

    I have been quantifying my crops as a percent of frame width. That seems to give a good idea of how much I cropped assuming my 3:2 aspect ratio is preserved.

    If I crop a pano from a 3:2 image, % frame width does not convey how much of the image I actually cropped out.

    It seems to me that area, width x height in pixels, should factor in to how I describe my crops when posting.

    Is there a commonly understood way to describe the degree of cropping that I could use?

    Thanks so much for considering my question,

    Ross
    Last edited by Ross Taylor; 11-24-2015 at 11:28 AM.

  2. #2
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Norfolk. UK
    Posts
    915
    Threads
    208
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Good question Ross. I am afraid that I cant give you the answer but it is something that I am also interested to know.

  3. Thanks Ross Taylor thanked for this post
  4. #3
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,553
    Threads
    1,320
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    There is no commonly used terminology, most folks usually use one side only. For e.g. when they crop a 5000 pixel wide image to 2500 pixels, they call it a 50% crop, while in reality as you noted, the image only contains 1/4 of the original pixels or data so it is really a 25% crop.

    The crop percentage is also misleading in that the final image size greatly depends on the camera, for e.g. a 50% crop from a 5DSr camera contains more than 25 Mpixels. That is more than a full frame image from a 7D2 for example.
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  5. Thanks Ross Taylor thanked for this post
  6. #4
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    324
    Threads
    24
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Arash,

    Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in quantifying crop as a percentage.

    I suppose mentioning eg: Cropped 14M px from 22M px would be more meaningful, but reporting a crop as such would be uncommon.

    Thanks so much for your answer, Arash. I thought I may have been missing something :)

    Ross
    Last edited by Ross Taylor; 11-24-2015 at 01:15 PM.

  7. #5
    Super Moderator Daniel Cadieux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    26,311
    Threads
    3,979
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hey Ross, if you have time to spare there was a fun thread on this very subject a few years back. Check it out at the link below

    http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hlight=lasagna

  8. Thanks Ross Taylor thanked for this post
  9. #6
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    9,587
    Threads
    401
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I didn't slog through all of that very long thread -- but there is one answer that is both accurate and simple.

    Calculate the percentage by dividing the number of pixels in the cropped image (easily seen in Lightroom) by the number in the original. You'll get a fraction, such as 0.5 for 50% of the pixels remaining. So multiply by 100 to get a percent.

    Then express the crop as a percent of the ORIGINAL or FULL FRAME file. Unambiguous.

  10. Thanks Ross Taylor thanked for this post
  11. #7
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    324
    Threads
    24
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thank you so much Diane, Daniel, and Arash.

    Your help, and the old thread really helped put this topic in perspective for me. Very much appreciated.

    One unexpected "Eureka Moment" for me was in one of Arash's posts on the thread Daniel referenced:
    "The main reason that cropping doesn't yield good results is lack of sharpness in the original file, many people struggle to get a photo that is tack sharp when viewed at 100% size, especially if is BIF. photographs that have sub-par sharpness or are noisy at full size cannot be cropped much without noticeable loss in IQ. If a photo is pin sharp and clean you can crop the heck out of it and it will still look good, on the web and printed. I have printed 2 mpixel crops from 5D2 at 12"X8" and the quality is just awesome :)"

    I have been limiting my crops by percentage alone, disregarding anything that falls under 65% full frame width. Today I very closely examined different crops of my first Snowy Owl shot. Focus was tack-sharp and ISO was low at 320. The IQ seems consistent all the way down to 35% original frame width (a 2.7 Mpx image from 20 Mpx). This was really enlightening to me :)

    Ross
    Last edited by Ross Taylor; 11-25-2015 at 11:24 AM.

  12. #8
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,647
    Threads
    83
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi View Post
    There is no commonly used terminology, most folks usually use one side only. For e.g. when they crop a 5000 pixel wide image to 2500 pixels, they call it a 50% crop, while in reality as you noted, the image only contains 1/4 of the original pixels or data so it is really a 25% crop.
    .
    Not being argumentative, but I think of that as a 75% crop.

  13. #9
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    9,587
    Threads
    401
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    This semantic uncertainty is why I suggested stating the crop not at "% crop" but as "% of the original full fame." There is no ambiguity there.

  14. #10
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,647
    Threads
    83
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane Miller View Post
    This semantic uncertainty is why I suggested stating the crop not at "% crop" but as "% of the original full fame." There is no ambiguity there.
    I like that. You'd do it as a percentage of the total pixels, not the percentage of the long side, correct?

  15. #11
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    9,587
    Threads
    401
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Yes, percentage of the area. (See Pane 6.) And then state it not at "xx percent crop" which is still ambiguous, but as "xx percent of the full frame." That should imply area, but it could be stated to be even clearer.

  16. #12
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,066
    Threads
    121
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thank you Diane! I've been scratching my head about this for a while. Now It's quite clear.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics