What do you consider a reasonable crop?

[Alfred Forns]

Chas the most interesting part about this entire thread has been lost by most !!!

The point being made had more to do with skill in capturing flight than all out quality. If that is would be the case people shooting with a Phase one 64 MP back would be looking down at all of us. Locking myself into one mode is something not in my brain cells, always trying something different and keeping my options open.

Remember at the Alligator Farm trying to get a spoonbill filling the frame vertically .. you remember? Why ... because it took skill and was not an easy shot. Best scenario would have been going horizontal and cropping .. I did not see you going horizontal and doing the easy thing .. and btw if I remember correctly we both got one.... it was when turn down the Mk2 and went for the 300 2.8

Weather wise etc it is a no brainer to get close with rain and snow etc but for most photo opportunities I don't think it makes much difference. For some subjects we can choose the focal length to suit what we are doing but more often than not we can't !!

btw regarding the Phase One back I have seen tiny areas of the image enlarged to 8X10 size and the quality was amazing, would hate to guess how much of the frame was used !!

[Daniel Cadieux]

...the most interesting part about this entire thread has been lost by most !!!

The point being made had more to do with skill in capturing flight than all out quality.

Sorry if I'm not interpreting this correctly but to be fair, though, the original question is not flight photography specific . It seems more generic in nature, hence the overall "general" cropping issues mentioned...either for static portraits or flight, birds or mammals, landscapes or macro (well, maybe not landscapes...:))

Having said this, I'm glad the question has come up, with interesting discussion and points put forward. I think we can all agree that disclosure, especially with significant crops, would be good regardless.

[John Chardine]

I agree Daniel, and regarding disclosure, we need a simple, intuitive, and accurate way of telling people how much we have cropped an image. I don't think simple eyeball estimation is good enough. The trouble is that people mean different things when they quote how much they cropped an image. If someone said "this is a 40% crop", what does it actually mean? I'm not sure. It could mean that 40% of the pixels were taken away (60% left), or it could mean that after the crop, the image has 40% of the pixels it had before the crop.

Again, I'll say we need a simple, intuitive, and accurate way of telling people how much we have cropped an image. let's see what we can come up with, or maybe there's a bog-standard out there already. If so what is it?

[Alfred Forns]

Sorry Daniel you are correct !!! This thread actually came out of one in ETL in which the size of the bird in frame came up for discussion as the thread progressed ..... it was Garibaldi vs Cormorant ... btw there was a clear winner :)
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=64885

[John Chardine]

Regarding expressing crop, some here at BPN express the proportion of the final crop in relation to the original. I.e., a 10% crop means that the cropped image was 10% of the area, or contained 10% of the pixels of the original before cropping. So if the original was 10mp and the cropped image was 1mp, this would be a 10% crop. Does this sound like a reasonable way to go?

(Note however, that this is still confusing in that some might think a 10% crop means that 10% was taken away, leaving 90% of the image after cropping).

[Daniel Cadieux]

Hey Al, thanks for that link...good read...and yes a consensus was obvious!

John, I agree it can be confusing. I think if people were to state, for example, 70% full-frame (or 30% cropped away) it would clearer. I also think a simple "slightly cropped for composition" should make it clear it is not a huge crop...but then again who knows how it can be interpreted by both the poster and the viewer!

[Dan Brown]

Regarding expressing crop, some here at BPN express the proportion of the final crop in relation to the original. I.e., a 10% crop means that the cropped image was 10% of the area, or contained 10% of the pixels of the original before cropping. So if the original was 10mp and the cropped image was 1mp, this would be a 10% crop. Does this sound like a reasonable way to go?

(Note however, that this is still confusing in that some might think a 10% crop means that 10% was taken away, leaving 90% of the image after cropping).

Good question John! I have been cropping in ACR/CS3. What I've been doing is selecting my crop size to taste and then moving the whole rectangle to an upper corner, then sort of eyeballing the long side of the rectangle versus the long side of the full frame and then using that guess as a % of full frame, then moving it back and opening the image. Is there a better, more accurate method or does it matter?

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Good question John! I have been cropping in ACR/CS3. What I've been doing is selecting my crop size to taste and then moving the whole rectangle to an upper corner, then sort of eyeballing the long side of the rectangle versus the long side of the full frame and then using that guess as a % of full frame, then moving it back and opening the image. Is there a better, more accurate method or does it matter?

In PS you could go to 'image size' and look at the pixel number on the longest side and do the math how much of full frame it is.

[Dan Brown]

In PS you could go to 'image size' and look at the pixel number on the longest side and do the math how much of full frame it is.

Great idea Axel! We can really get accurate with that method. I suspect that most will find it a little tedious! I like it!

[Alfred Forns]

If we could just get a ballpark figure for the amount taken away that we all understand would be great ... excellent point John !!!

Axels idea is "ideal" does give the best answer ... providing there is no interpolation at the time of conversion !!! ... another bag of worms !!!:)

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Good question John! I have been cropping in ACR/CS3. What I've been doing is selecting my crop size to taste and then moving the whole rectangle to an upper corner, then sort of eyeballing the long side of the rectangle versus the long side of the full frame and then using that guess as a % of full frame, then moving it back and opening the image. Is there a better, more accurate method or does it matter?

Dan, you should be looking at the total area...not just length or breadth. If 1000 X 1000 image is cropped 500 X 500, its a 25% crop, not 50%. In other words, 75% pixels have been thrown away.

[John Chardine]

Exactly! Area scales differently to linear measures!

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

And that is why its hard to eyeball and guess how much you have cropped. Especially because we dont always crop in the 3:2 ratio. I've tried it and I always end up underestimating :-) something I think is a 70% crop, after math, usually ends up as a 60% one :-) A "shot as horizontal but cropped vertical" is a big crop IMO.

[Alfred Forns]

I think were getting there !!!

[Dan Brown]

Dan, you should be looking at the total area...not just length or breadth. If 1000 X 1000 image is cropped 500 X 500, its a 25% crop, not 50%. In other words, 75% pixels have been thrown away.

Yes, I knew this wasn't accurate but I do try to use a 5X7 crop ratio as this seems to match the original capture ratio the closest. It will be nice to come up with a standard method here!

[Charles Glatzer]

Al,

I shoot vertical flight images to make the subject bigger in the frame, not because it is easier or more difficult. Shooting full frame birds in flight with a 500/600 or greater focal length does require superb hand eye coordination, no doubt about it. The eagles in Homer, baited owls in Canada, many wading birds in FL, etc offer close approach and can be had full frame with a 70-200, and of course this still requires greater skill than using a shorter focal length.

Why would anyone look down on another for more pixels? Use whatever camera fits the job at hand and your skill set best, it is simply better to make the most of the pixels at hand by shooting the image in-camera as close as possible to your mental vision. I do not feel post cropping is taboo and I do it when necessary, but I still strive for the best quality. Not sure we we disagree on cropping?

The whole cropping, sharpness, perception of quality and what we each are willing to accept or reject is completely subjective and up to the individual maker, and at times subject specific.. I have images from Africa taken at ISO 3200 that are noisy, no one took similar images for fear of excessive noise. As the content is unique I never even considered deleting the images. Regarding final image quality...to thine own self be true. What matters most is that the maker is happy with the finished product, not me.

Best,

Chas

[Desmond Chan]

Dan, you should be looking at the total area...not just length or breadth. If 1000 X 1000 image is cropped 500 X 500, its a 25% crop, not 50%. In other words, 75% pixels have been thrown away.

The way I do it so far is, at the bottom of ACR, there's the crop size information. In my case for a file from D700, a non-crop file is 4256 x 2832 (12mp). After cropping, if the mp number says 6mp, I interpret it as a 50% crop., i.e., 50% of the original. How does that sound to you? :confused:

I do think it's logical to use the area of the image as a guide. But, to be precise, perhaps both the length and the width should be considered since you could have cropped more of the length but just a little bit of the width.

[Desmond Chan]

I do not feel post cropping is taboo and I do it when necessary

Cropping per se after the shot has been part of the game of photography all along. As mentioned, not allowing oneself to crop is simply limiting one's creativity. Doesn't make sense to me if one even calls oneself an artist.

Then again, Henri-Cartier Bresson did not crop :)

[Lance Peters]

One interesting discussion - If we can come up with a easy way to come up with the %cropped and include that as disclosure - sounds good to me.

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

I don't consider my self a purist but I try not to crop and instead to compose in camera, is this the best way to go? I don't know but since I have a small sensor camera the less cropping the better.;)

[Mike Milicia]

One interesting discussion - If we can come up with a easy way to come up with the %cropped and include that as disclosure - sounds good to me.

Percentage of full frame can be easily calculated from the pixel dimensions of the master file used to generate the jpeg for posting:

((Width in pixels * Height in pixels) / (Sensor pixels)) * 100

Requires a calculator but only takes a few seconds.
Stating it as "xx% of full frame" is also unambiguous.

[Milan V]

I would not like to crop more than 20% ( keeping 80% of original capture ).

The same. In very very rare cases up to 30%.

[marco peschiera]

Hi, I'm Marco Peschiera,
I love Bee eater in flight,

for these kind of picture i keep only a file perfect in focus ( sharp 100% ) and i can crop it at 3000x2000pixel
So if mark IV has 16mp i crop it maximum at 6mp ( i keep 30% of the picture ) - but must be perfect sharp.
I think 6mp is the minimum size to keep a photo.

If there is any imperfection the size must be 70% or even 80% of the picture.

I think all of us have more or less the same idea.

[marco peschiera]

I think we would DELETE to use 50% crop, 60% crop ecc....
As well because it depends from the camera we use.... ( must nikon have 12MP - 7d have 18, mark4 have 16 )
We should SPEAK only in MP (megapixel )
Like this is a crop of 6 MP.
Please tell me what you think.
Would be greet to know the megapixel crop of every image.

[Chris Bridges]

Wow, I know I am a little late to the party but I just joined recently. I am definitely in the minority on this one. I was one of the two that went with "no cropping". I don't get caught up in the math and I go with the "KISS" theory! Keep It Simple Stupid!!!! I don't crop and I do very little work in "post", I try to get it right in the camera so I am not sitting behind the computer. I like to move with my feet and challenge myself, yes I do miss some shots. I just want to be able to say that what you see is what I captured when the camera went "click".

[Jackie Schuknecht]

I'll crop til I feel I'm losing IQ. Wish I had Daniel Cadieux' skill in getting so close to songbirds with the 100-400. One day I hope to learn how he does it. Would love to be able to shoot full frame. Even sometimes a small crop is needed just to adjust for the horizon.