Composing vs. Cropping
Apr 1, 2013 10:55:22 #
In the late 1980's I became aware of "crop" because a friend sent me a roll of 35mm film of her wedding to be printed. The 8x10's came back with a portion of the wedding party cut out!
In 1990 I took a black & white film class in which the instructor stressed the importance of checking the corners of your frame before you clicked.
With a couple of interesting posts to semi-related topics recently, I'm curious to know how many of your photos you crop to get a resulting pleasing image vs. how many are what you visualized and need no cropping. (I don't mean minor cropping to remove items you couldn't get around.)
I'm wondering if people crop more now than with film, not just because it's easy and cheap to "just snap," but also because maybe you do extensive PP in other areas and cropping is part of your "post" visualizing and realizing your final image.
Thanks!
In 1990 I took a black & white film class in which the instructor stressed the importance of checking the corners of your frame before you clicked.
With a couple of interesting posts to semi-related topics recently, I'm curious to know how many of your photos you crop to get a resulting pleasing image vs. how many are what you visualized and need no cropping. (I don't mean minor cropping to remove items you couldn't get around.)
I'm wondering if people crop more now than with film, not just because it's easy and cheap to "just snap," but also because maybe you do extensive PP in other areas and cropping is part of your "post" visualizing and realizing your final image.
Thanks!
Apr 1, 2013 11:12:38 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
In the late 1980's I became aware of "crop&qu... (show quote)
I usually shoot a scene both ways. I will shoot the image composed in the camera with the idea that I will not crop much, if at all, for the final print. But I also shoot a few frames where I shoot "loose" giving myself adequate room to do some creative cropping. I do this in part because my camera club competitions allow for a 16x20 max (3:4 ratio) which doesn't match up with the native 3:2 ratio of my camera sensor. Shooting loose allows me to crop to get a print of the right dimensions for the club. For prints I sell, I am not so tightly constrained, so I can more often compose in camera with the idea that cropping may not be necessary.
Apr 1, 2013 11:28:42 #
Photographer Jim wrote:
I usually shoot a scene both ways. I will shoot th... (show quote)
Pictures :thumbup:
Apr 1, 2013 11:44:35 #
I have learned the hard way, when the aspect ratio of my image was way different than the target print size and I left very little room for a proper crop. So I try to leave a little wiggle room.
Apr 1, 2013 12:18:09 #
With all the MP's available in most modern cameras, it only makes sense to leave room for a crop. My A57 is 16MP, it is the lowest MP of my 3 cameras.
I do compose with the camera for many shots, but some I do leave room to crop.
I do compose with the camera for many shots, but some I do leave room to crop.
Apr 1, 2013 20:00:21 #
Using a 35 mm to do Weddings for years I learned to crop in the camera. You wanted everyone in the picture and you also wanted to have as much negative to work with as you could for enlargements. You just learn to do it. That said there are very few photos that will not look better with some croping. - Dave
Apr 1, 2013 20:30:22 #
When I shot for magazines, my editors made it clear they preferred me to shoot loose to allow them final cropping to suit the page layout. When shooting for myself I will crop fairly tight in-camera.
Apr 1, 2013 21:27:02 #
Back in days of yore, when men were men, women were men, and film was king, when doing portraits of horses, I cropped everything, no exceptions. Still have my old sliding plastic templates around here somewhere.
Today, with digital, I never take a shot thinking I'll need to crop it later. What you see is what you get, but not necessarily what you want. And I still end up cropping most shots.
But if we're counting, I do less of it now with digital, not more.
Today, with digital, I never take a shot thinking I'll need to crop it later. What you see is what you get, but not necessarily what you want. And I still end up cropping most shots.
But if we're counting, I do less of it now with digital, not more.
Apr 1, 2013 21:44:31 #
Why would anyone think an image is just going to look its best in a 3:2 ratio? Square can look fantastic. Cropped to be a panoramic might be THE way.
OF COURSE I crop. All that matters is the final image and all this, "get it right in the camera" baloney is a fantasy. So there!
I love the freedom we have with digital. Why trap yourself in any format?
OF COURSE I crop. All that matters is the final image and all this, "get it right in the camera" baloney is a fantasy. So there!
I love the freedom we have with digital. Why trap yourself in any format?
Apr 1, 2013 23:11:56 #
Same photo. Just cropped different.
It's Subjective.
What does the client want?
What wall space are they trying to fill?
Even the cropped one printed in 16x20 has plenty of definition.
I typically compose for a more inclusive composition and crop.
My street portraits are composed very tight because I sometimes print them at 24X36 or 30X40.
(I'm partial to number 1 below)
It's Subjective.
What does the client want?
What wall space are they trying to fill?
Even the cropped one printed in 16x20 has plenty of definition.
I typically compose for a more inclusive composition and crop.
My street portraits are composed very tight because I sometimes print them at 24X36 or 30X40.
(I'm partial to number 1 below)
Apr 1, 2013 23:14:37 #
YEs - #1 for sure. The little guy has more context. Superb lighting, BTW.
Apr 1, 2013 23:18:33 #
CaptainC wrote:
YEs - #1 for sure. The little guy has more context. Superb lighting, BTW.
I have learned a few tricks from you. Twin strobes in an apollo orb. ETTL.
Underexposed the ambient by a stop or two.
Don't you just love ETTL for kids.
Apr 1, 2013 23:27:40 #
PalePictures wrote:
I have learned a few tricks from you. Twin strobes in an apollo orb. ETTL.
Underexposed the ambient by a stop or two.
Don't you just love ETTL for kids.
Underexposed the ambient by a stop or two.
Don't you just love ETTL for kids.
Yes, I use the Photek Softlighter - but same basic concept of umbrella simplicity with softbox-type light. Using it tomorrow for 20+ headshots.
Apr 1, 2013 23:48:00 #
CaptainC wrote:
Yes, I use the Photek Softlighter - but same basic concept of umbrella simplicity with softbox-type light. Using it tomorrow for 20+ headshots.
I remember you were using that mini popup beauty dish. I actually looked into that one. Think I'll check out the one you mentioned. I'm always trying to lighten my load in the field.
Back to cropping discussion.
I did a studio session in the summer last year where I cropped to tight on to many shots. I went fanatical with the tops of heads cut off thing for a while. I was actually composing my shots that way. I had quite a few shots with the tops of heads but a client wanted the ones with the tops of heads that were composed with the heads cut off. Lesson learned.
Two more examples heavily cropped.
The Chinese lady was a head and shoulder shot which I wanted in landscape.
The biker was a head and shoulder shot as well.
No photographer in there right mind would compose a shot like these. In the end I think the crops worked.
Ray Ban Rides (The American Biker)
Apr 2, 2013 00:10:13 #
Not meaning to hijack this thread but I was searching for the light modifier the Captain was using and found this comparison between the Westcott Apollo Orb and the Photek Softlighter II.
If anyone is interested.
http://jwadkins.blogspot.com/2012/02/westcott-apollo-orb-vs-photek.html
If anyone is interested.
http://jwadkins.blogspot.com/2012/02/westcott-apollo-orb-vs-photek.html
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.