Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
My thought for the day regarding high megapixel cameras
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
Aug 9, 2018 18:20:56   #
Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio
 
Umm..No...

Filling the frame is always preferable. Not only are you giving up pixels, but by deliberately using fewer pixels, you have worse noise performance for any given output size. In this case, you're giving up nearly a stop of ISO performance since a vertical crop is effectively a DX / APS-C crop. If you look at comparisons of the D850 vs the D500 for instance, you can see the D850 easily beats it when you use the entire imaging area, but crop to DX and the D500 actually has a slight advantage.

| Reply
Aug 9, 2018 19:28:15   #
btbg
 
Steve Perry wrote:
Umm..No...

Filling the frame is always preferable. Not only are you giving up pixels, but by deliberately using fewer pixels, you have worse noise performance for any given output size. In this case, you're giving up nearly a stop of ISO performance since a vertical crop is effectively a DX / APS-C crop. If you look at comparisons of the D850 vs the D500 for instance, you can see the D850 easily beats it when you use the entire imaging area, but crop to DX and the D500 actually has a slight advantage.
Umm..No... br br Filling the frame is always pref... (show quote)


Sadly the concept of shooting to crop has become commonplace. Our corporation owns 23 newspapers. The website, which is shared by all 23 papers (yeah, I know. That's weird) has a preview of all photos that is designed in a horizontal format only. If you put a vertical photo with the story what you get in the preview that people surfing the web see is a crotch shot of the individual. As a result I am the only sports photographer in the entire corporation who is still shooting vertically. The rest are shooting horizontally, cropping for print and putting the entire frame on the web.

Whoever had the brilliant idea requiring all web preview photos to be horizontal is nuts. My work around is to crop a really tight vertical shot for the preview and putting the full frame vertical photo in the story. Unfortunately, this would never have happened before cameras started having enough megapixels that some editor decided that you could fix anything by cropping.

| Reply
Aug 9, 2018 20:05:12   #
srt101fan
 
brentrh wrote:
Nothing wrong with cropping more megapixels gives you the ability to get that picture within the picture which can be the better picture.....purists have a lot to learn about the Art of Photography keep doing what you are doing pay them no mind


Thanks, Brent!

| Reply
Aug 9, 2018 20:36:39   #
rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA
 
Bill_de wrote:
Good to know that somebody is out there thinking for the rest of us.

You convinced me to buy a D850, but they are out of stock again.

---


Adorama has 'em.

| Reply
Aug 9, 2018 20:37:32   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
Nothing wrong with the quality and resolution of a D500.
Steve Perry wrote:
Umm..No...

Filling the frame is always preferable. Not only are you giving up pixels, but by deliberately using fewer pixels, you have worse noise performance for any given output size. In this case, you're giving up nearly a stop of ISO performance since a vertical crop is effectively a DX / APS-C crop. If you look at comparisons of the D850 vs the D500 for instance, you can see the D850 easily beats it when you use the entire imaging area, but crop to DX and the D500 actually has a slight advantage.
Umm..No... br br Filling the frame is always pref... (show quote)

| Reply
Aug 9, 2018 21:00:04   #
Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio
 
Fotoartist wrote:
Steve, let me ask you. When you shoot small fast moving subjects such as birds is it better to fill the frame by rotating vertically to get a shot or better to just ensure you get several more shots by shooting horizontally and not filling the frame?


In most cases, a flying bird lends itself better to a horizontal aspect ratio, so not sure how rotating vertically would get you a better shot in most instances. However, I have shot flying birds vertically (mostly egrets coming in straight on), but it doesn't happen often. I've also cropped horizontal birds vertically, but knew the consequences and made sure the ISO was as low as possible. However, it's always better to fill as much of the frame as possible.

My point was not that you should never crop, in some cases it's necessary. My point was that you shouldn't deliberately shoot to crop when you don't have to - and that cropping should be avoided whenever possible. It seems people have a very causal attitude about it and don't fully understand the costs.

In fact, I frequently see this when running my workshops. I watch people who can totally get closer settle for an image at a greater distance because they can "crop it later." There's never a good reason to crop when you don't have to.

| Reply
Aug 9, 2018 22:28:56   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
Here's a quick example of just get the shot. Crop it vertically later.
Steve Perry wrote:
In most cases, a flying bird lends itself better to a horizontal aspect ratio, so not sure how rotating vertically would get you a better shot in most instances. However, I have shot flying birds vertically (mostly egrets coming in straight on), but it doesn't happen often. I've also cropped horizontal birds vertically, but knew the consequences and made sure the ISO was as low as possible. However, it's always better to fill as much of the frame as possible.

My point was not that you should never crop, in some cases it's necessary. My point was that you shouldn't deliberately shoot to crop when you don't have to - and that cropping should be avoided whenever possible. It seems people have a very causal attitude about it and don't fully understand the costs.

In fact, I frequently see this when running my workshops. I watch people who can totally get closer settle for an image at a greater distance because they can "crop it later." There's never a good reason to crop when you don't have to.
In most cases, a flying bird lends itself better t... (show quote)



| Reply
Aug 10, 2018 06:29:58   #
Jimmy T Loc: Quicksburg, Virginia
 
Concur, rarely do I "need" to shoot in portrait.
Fotoartist wrote:
My thought for the day regarding high megapixel cameras is that you can shoot everything horizontal which is easier than shooting vertically, and not worry too much about cropping. Shooting everything horizontal is an advantage to me in quick shooting and flash shooting situations.

| Reply
Aug 10, 2018 06:39:40   #
Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD
 
With the advent of wide screen TV and computer screens verticals are beginning to look odd to me. Just as in a film where the director has no choice in rotating the camera I find myself composing obvious vertical images into pleasing horizontals by using rule of thirds for instance. Fotoartist is right however. Once you get beyond 20 megapixels cropping verticals from horizontals still leaves enough for all but the largest prints.

| Reply
Aug 10, 2018 06:48:05   #
ELNikkor
 
"throw away" megapixels?? do they fill up landfills or cost anything?

| Reply
Aug 10, 2018 06:52:43   #
delottphoto
 
....learn to shoot full frame, regardless if the camera is held vertical or horizontal.

| Reply
Aug 10, 2018 07:12:12   #
russelray Loc: La Mesa CA
 
Fotoartist wrote:
Yeh, Hasselblad's format was useful that way. But for the shooting today which I have mentioned, fast nature or sports or even events with flash we are stuck with 35mm shaped goggles and have to deal with that. So what I am saying is that if you have them then use all those megapixels for your convenience and shoot everything horizontal. Why worry with the hassle of shooting vertically, grip or not. You still have to turn your arms or grip or something. Why turn? What do you need the maximum of your megapixels for if not to crop? Are you going to be printing a billboard?
Yeh, Hasselblad's format was useful that way. But ... (show quote)

In my case, some of my Clients, those who are extraordinarily, do come close to printing a billboard. My largest item sold was 119 inches long by 34 inches high.
My printers (Fine Art America and Costco) print at 100 ppi, so there's a big difference between a digital file of 6000x4000 pixels and one 3000x2000 pixels. That's 30 inches by 20 inches that can't be printed, or SOLD!

| Reply
Aug 10, 2018 07:18:12   #
Crombie
 
Most of the premium DSLR's are already thinly disguised video cameras where quality images can be plucked from the video, so the trend is to wild shooting and then edit and then of course 'photoshop'. There is an expanding number of shooters who have hit the super tech wall and in seeking more personal involvement are looking to minimal processing, some are getting serious about b&w while others look to analogue. I teach photography and frequently observe the photographers more interested in showing off their super whizz bang gear as in a competition of who is'king' of the group with the latest and most expensive gear. It's not uncommon for these deep pocket shooters to be humbled during 'show and tell' sessions being out shot by photographers with humble 10 year old 8mg cameras.

| Reply
Aug 10, 2018 07:18:25   #
pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
 
Leitz wrote:
Only a fool would buy all those megapixels to deliberately throw away.


Only a *&^% would make a comment like this!


I'd rather have them to throw away than not have enough and get stuck with sh*tty photograph.

| Reply
Aug 10, 2018 07:21:43   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
Fotoartist wrote:
My thought for the day regarding high megapixel cameras is that you can shoot everything horizontal which is easier than shooting vertically, and not worry too much about cropping. Shooting everything horizontal is an advantage to me in quick shooting and flash shooting situations.


For sports and fast action I agree, get the shot. When shooting landscapes, I like to print my shots whole out. In other words, I have time to compose the final shot in my mind and will use vertical or horizontal depending on the scene. I print large prints and don't like to crop unless absolutely necessary. Just the way I was taught I guess. When I was in college photography class we were given on sheet of 4X5 negative and given the assignment, we had one shot at it, we learned to take our time and SEE the final result before shooting. Like I said at the beginning, nothing wrong with horizontal to get the shot.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2020 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.