On cropping: On cropping I did read English Wolfs comments on cropping. But while it is my playing field, it seems right some times and so wrong then next. A lot of my photographs are...

Dietxanadu

On cropping

I did read English Wolfs comments on cropping. But while it is my playing field, it seems right some times and so wrong then next.
A lot of my photographs are from my train club. This place has become a junk pile. Not to mention stuff leaning this way or that. So I rotate the main subject of the photograph and end up cropping to cut out the junk.
I wonder if Im not chopping too much? The photographs are really only for me and a few friends who are into trains.
Your thoughts are most welcome

Diet

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

I haven't read EW's comments to which you refer. That being said, as long as you're not cropping so tight that image quality is affected, and the overall composition is still appealing to you, I see no reason to limit cropping.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Dietxanadu wrote:

On cropping br br I did read English Wolfs comme... (show quote)

What book of cropping would this "rule of how much" be in? If you aren't cropping to the point of having low resolution results that don't print well... how much you crop is totally up to you. I personally like close crops but not so much that I leave something out. Sometimes I don't crop shots of my 2 year old because I want to show the house or car behind him or the crappy Florida grass in front of him, that will later tell me where we lived at the time and what vehicle I had. Those factors capture memories. They may or may not end up being pertinent parts of the composition in the future. It's almost like I'm intentionally acting like a snap shooter.

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

Cropping has been a subject of great interest for decades. I think most photographers need to practice more cropping "in camera." A view camera is a great place to come face to face with this. Having said that, I often crop my RAW files. Over the years I crop tighter and tighter and I don't think I go too far very often. When I do a crop, I look at the area I am cropping out and ask myself what visual information am I losing there, is there anything there that says anything about the subject of this image. More often than not it's just extraneous junk. I am often amazed at the impact of many photos when they are properly cropped. BUT, getting rid of the junk when you shoot the photo is much better...always.

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

Dietxanadu wrote:

On cropping br br I did read English Wolfs comme... (show quote)

I try to crop in camera but in most cases I end up redoing it in Aperture on my computer. I have more time to study it and make it more interesting. Unless I plan on printing it right away, I just crop to a pleasing image. Otherwise I will crop to a specific paper size. I realize that at times, if I go back later and need to make prints , I will have to resize. In Aperture I still have the original full image right next to the cropped version. By cropping without regard to paper size at the beginning, I have a more pleasing image for computer display and slide shows.

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

CAM1017 wrote:

quote=Dietxanadu On cropping br br I did read E... (show quote)

You have brought up another point of agitation with me...I am forever faced with the following dilemma. You make a nice image, you do a bit of cropping and it is very much to your liking. Then your client wants two 8X10s, three 4X6s, etc., now you must make the well balanced image to fit several arbitrary sizes so someone else can frame it...this isn't really possible. Even if the photo fits nicely in a 4X6 something has to give at 8X10, etc., etc., etc. Who the Hell decided on all these formats...did I mention 8.5X11 and 16X20....rant on....
There is something to be said for the old two and a quarter inch square......

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

Mudshark wrote:

quote=CAM1017 quote=Dietxanadu On cropping br ... (show quote)

I understand what you are saying. In situations like this you just have to explane to the customer what is going on and let them make the decision on what is the primary crop and what they will be getting with the others.

barry.lapoint Loc: Colorado

Mudshark wrote:

quote=CAM1017 quote=Dietxanadu On cropping br ... (show quote)

this truly IS a dilemma. Because of this very thing I always over-shoot a bit but I feel it is always a bit of a compromise.

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

barry.lapoint wrote:

Mudshark wrote:

quote=CAM1017 quote=Dietxanadu On cropping br ... (show quote)

this truly IS a dilemma. Because of this very thing I always over-shoot a bit but I feel it is always a bit of a compromise.

quote=Mudshark quote=CAM1017 quote=Dietxanadu O... (show quote)

Very nice photo. I could not decide if this was from a model train diorama or the real thing. Good job.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

In my usual way of speed reading the many replies to this topic I find myself with two answers - (1) as an amiture who is seeking to create a photo that is satisfying to me - I'll crop, clone, and adjust 'till I am happy with it.

(2) You pros out there have to make customers happy and need to do what it takes to achieve that goal.

barry.lapoint Loc: Colorado

thanks Charles! Thats the idea when you shoot for a model calendar. They are sooooo good with landscaping these days that the only real dead giveaways are the little people in the scenes.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Have you ever taken a picture and it was not quite what was in your viewfinder? I have. Even with my D7000, especially with close-up shots. This is one reason to allow yourself some latitude for post production. Also, while it's great to get things as close as possible "in the camera," it's amazing what p/p can add. Don't think that film photographers didn't spend hours in the darkroom to make that good shot a great photograph.

barry.lapoint Loc: Colorado

SteveR wrote:

Have you ever taken a picture and it was not quite what was in your viewfinder? I have. Even with my D7000, especially with close-up shots. This is one reason to allow yourself some latitude for post production. Also, while it's great to get things as close as possible "in the camera," it's amazing what p/p can add. Don't think that film photographers didn't spend hours in the darkroom to make that good shot a great photograph.

Amen Steve! My roots are in film form back in the late 70s early 80s and I did spend hours in the darkroom working on getting the absolute best that negative had to offer (b&w). Most of these train shots were taken on a tripod @ f32. You can see that I still have a fairly shallow depth of field with a very high f-stop. Love those L-series lenses from Canon. Tack sharp!

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

barry.lapoint wrote:

thanks Charles! Thats the idea when you shoot for a model calendar. They are sooooo good with landscaping these days that the only real dead giveaways are the little people in the scenes.

Great work both with the photography and the diorama's. I'm really impressed! :D

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

barry.lapoint wrote:

thanks Charles! Thats the idea when you shoot for a model calendar. They are sooooo good with landscaping these days that the only real dead giveaways are the little people in the scenes.

Very nice work Barry. A couple of things I'd like to point out to others looking at your work. It's always a good idea to give a moving subject, i.e., a runner, a car, a train..., somewhere to go. Always try to give them some space in the direction they are headed. And point two...try to shoot from a perspective similar to a human eye in real life. The opposite rule is a good idea in real life...vary your perspective to other than what the normal eye would see. But in miniature stuff it will make it look more REAL if shot from where a normal human would see it.
Barry has done some excellent work on both counts.