To crop at the camera or with photoshop (Page 2): No, but it will allow you to start with a much sharper image!

Sirsnapalot Loc: Hammond, Louisiana

armandoluiz wrote:

I do have a tripod and I use it. But the tripod doesn't put it me close to the object.

No, but it will allow you to start with a much sharper image!

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Cropping in computer is more precise and gives you greater options. It shouldn't downsize the remaining portion of the image. But then that's what options and settings are for, check they are set to do what you want. Otherwise there should be no difference if two images are cropped exactly the same way.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

armandoluiz wrote:

Hello everybody!

I have a question and I'm sure you guys and girls can help me.

I'm shot some objects and animals by long distance and I need to crop the image to get the results that I want.
So, since I'll crop the image anyway, where should I do to loss less quality as possible? At the camera or at the computer? Or doesn't matter?

I have a Nikon D3400 with 18-55 and 70-300 (both lenses are the cheap version)

Thank you all
Armando

I don't have any experience with your camera, but I have shot Nikon since forever. Cropping in camera reduces pixels, and gives you a smaller area to keep your subject in, making it a little harder to avoid clipping parts of the subject.

Cropping in post processing does the exact same thing - produce a smaller image with fewer pixels - but you can be a little less precise with your framing. You are, however, using the full image and cropping as necessary.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Sirsnapalot wrote:

No, but it will allow you to start with a much sharper image!

Not true.

Sirsnapalot Loc: Hammond, Louisiana

Gene51 wrote:

Not true.

??

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

Cropping in computer is more precise and gives you greater options. It shouldn't downsize the remaining portion of the image. But then that's what options and settings are for, check they are set to do what you want. Otherwise there should be no difference if two images are cropped exactly the same way.

Cropping jpeg in camera will result in 13.5 mp and 6 mp images, so yes it downsizes the image. At maximum quality, the large image (uncropped) will be 11.5-15 mb and 24 megapixels. The medium size will be 6.5-7.5 mb, and 13.5 mp, and the small is 6 mp, and 3.5-4.5 mb.

https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/nikon-d3400-guide-image-quality-settings/

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Sirsnapalot wrote:

??

Maybe you should explain how using a tripod would automatically start off with creating a sharper image. Tripod use does not guarantee sharp results, though, if the tripod is adequate for the task, it can potentially reduce camera vibrations and a correspondingly sharper image. But so can optical stabilization, higher ISO and shorter shutter speeds. My guess is that if he has a D3400 he is not using a tripod adequate for 300mm or macro work.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Kuzano wrote:

Test this by doing a crop in camera. Then do reg pic from the camera and crop to same as in camera crop. What is the file size of both files. I suspect the one cropped in Post (not in camera) will yield a smaller file, hence not print as big.

Nonsense. A 6 mp image is good enough to print to 40"x60" - I have printed may at that size from my old Nikon D70S, and some of these images were sold out of a local gallery.

Print size is not as tied to image size in mp as most people believe. It is more a function of having enough pixels to display the image at a given viewing distance. Change the viewing distance to something shorter than average viewing distance, you will need more image resolution.

This site has tables and formulas that you can use to determine how much image resolution you need for a given viewing distance, and it provides some average values for common print sizes.

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Gene51 wrote:

Cropping jpeg in camera will result in 13.5 mp and 6 mp images, so yes it downsizes the image. At maximum quality, the large image (uncropped) will be 11.5-15 mb and 24 megapixels. The medium size will be 6.5-7.5 mb, and 13.5 mp, and the small is 6 mp, and 3.5-4.5 mb.

https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/nikon-d3400-guide-image-quality-settings/

Of course it produces smaller images. But nowhere in your quoted link does it say that the remaining crop is downsized in camera over processing out of camera. If an image were cropped to match in a computer, with no other processing applied the image size should be about the same. Am I missing something here?

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

armandoluiz wrote:

Hello everybody!

I have a question and I'm sure you guys and girls can help me.

I'm shot some objects and animals by long distance and I need to crop the image to get the results that I want.
So, since I'll crop the image anyway, where should I do to loss less quality as possible? At the camera or at the computer? Or doesn't matter?

I have a Nikon D3400 with 18-55 and 70-300 (both lenses are the cheap version)

Thank you all
Armando

I would move-in as close as possible first of course, then do what cropping needs to be done post processing. Might possibly be more accurate as opposed to cropping in-camera.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

mikegreenwald wrote:

No matter where you crop, you are destroying pixels - the cropped image loses a part of the background.
That misses the point though. To retain information by creating a photo that has little beyond the portion of the image you want, you need a longer lens.
I greatly prefer leaving the image alone in the camera, and wait until I have it on a large screen, where I can do a better job of judging what should be retained, and what should be removed.

Cropping does not "destroy" pixels. It does not select background pixels and ruin them. I think I know what you are trying to say, but it came out wrong. Cropping "lops off" the perimeter pixels, which include background (above the main subject) and foreground (below the main subject) and left and right edges. If your subject is a landscape, it trims the edges in closer to the center.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

After the image is shot, cropping is cropping. I try to get the best framing , so as to crop as little as possible, which I assume everybody does. But truth be told, I rarely reach that goal. So I crop in post, and never even thought about doing it any other way. That's my 2 cents (which it is all it's worth)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Kuzano wrote:

Test this by doing a crop in camera. Then do reg pic from the camera and crop to same as in camera crop. What is the file size of both files. I suspect the one cropped in Post (not in camera) will yield a smaller file, hence not print as big.

I don't believe that's correct. The crop comes after the image is captured. A crop is a crop. Cropping in post-processing always gives you much more control over the final results, and you still have the original to go back to.

Rickyb

Yes better to crop in camera, take a few views, post cropping looses a lot of pixels.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

armandoluiz wrote:

Hello everybody!

I have a question and I'm sure you guys and girls can help me.

I'm shot some objects and animals by long distance and I need to crop the image to get the results that I want.
So, since I'll crop the image anyway, where should I do to loss less quality as possible? At the camera or at the computer? Or doesn't matter?

I have a Nikon D3400 with 18-55 and 70-300 (both lenses are the cheap version)

Thank you all
Armando

It rather depends on what you mean by "crop". And I am not sure what you are asking. If you mean "crop" to mean fill the frame with your subject as you want a tight shot in the final image or print, by all means get closer or use a longer focal length. But if you are asking about some arcane cropping or magnification trick to compensate for not having a long enough lens or trying to use a DX lens on a FX camera (which you are not with the listed equipment), I really can't help you, but to say, if you do "toss out" or "loose" pixels from the outside edges of the background with no useful information, who cares. Again I'm not sure what you are actually asking, and I shoot RAW and thus do nothing "in-camera". I do all my editing with ACR & Ps! Raw is Raw is Raw! Play with JPG's at the start and you may have problems later.