Do you crop tight in-camera? (Page 3): For me it depends on the subject. If it is macro I tend to crop closer (fill the frame), if it is land scap or flying birds I give it more room.

RickL Loc: Vail, Az

For me it depends on the subject. If it is macro I tend to crop closer (fill the frame), if it is land scap or flying birds I give it more room. I adjust in pp just as I used to crop with my enlarger in the film days.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Ernie Misner wrote:

Back in the film days, and with my early digital c... (show quote)

With film, especially slides, what you took was what u got - you could not edit later. Now with digital you have the freedom to edit, so why not take advantage of it? if I leave some room around my main subject I can experiment with composition - why not?

crappiefever Loc: Central Pa

CatMarley wrote:

With film, especially slides, what you took was what u got - you could not edit later. Now with digital you have the freedom to edit, so why not take advantage of it? if I leave some room around my main subject I can experiment with composition - why not?

!!

richiedi

I totally agree. That's the beauty of today's technology. It allows us to be even more creative than we ever could have imagined back in the film days. Remember that little piece of dust you thought you removed during developing only to find it on your printer after processing? No more!

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

I have been trying,for what seems like years, to break myself of the habit of trying to crop to 3:2. Which is almost never the final aspect ratio I would want. Ah, for the 4x4 days.

flyguy Loc: Las Cruces, New Mexico

Apaflo wrote:

Whatever else, that is not true. "Lens compression" has nothing to do with the camera, nor with the lens for that matter! It is strictly a matter of where you plant your feet.

I personally want to leave the framing slightly loose. I can crop it closer but can't put what was not recorded back in. 36 Megapixel sensors are really great!

Absolutely --- I always leave about 10% on all sides, so that I have more flexibility in making my print.

leftj Loc: Texas

Ernie Misner wrote:

Back in the film days, and with my early digital c... (show quote)

This is strictly a situational decision. There are hardly any rules or practices that always apply in all situations. Use your brain. Create, don't copy.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Ernie Misner wrote:

Back in the film days, and with my early digital c... (show quote)

I think my answer has to be, "It depends..."

I made tens of thousands of slides back in the 1980s. With slide film, what you capture in camera is what you project or scan. So I'm disciplined to compose and "crop" with my lenses and feet.

I also did a lot of yearbook photojournalism from 1968-'87. For that, I composed so an editor could get two or three interesting crops from the same photo. They loved that!

In my training work, I record video and stills in 16:9 (4K) format, using the same camera at the same time. I compose the same way I did for slides, unless the project is "stills for print only". In that case, I compose more loosely.

I learned early to "begin with the end in mind."

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

Ernie Misner wrote:

Back in the film days, and with my early digital c... (show quote)

Unless the situation is rapidly changing light or fast-moving subjects, I tend to both crop fairly close, a bit wider for pp crop, and to photograph the whole scene. With digital, it is so easy to take a variety of pictures of the same subject in a short time with different focal lengths, exposures, composition, etc. Shooting the subject as you wish it to be in the final image is important, but sometimes if you also shoot a wider angle of view for the whole location, there are other pictures within pictures to be found.

Ricinus Loc: Leduc Alberta

StanRP wrote:

Hi Ernie,

There is another point to consider - viewfinder coverage. While DSLR/SLR cameras with a pentaprism viewfinder can get 100% coverage, those that use mirrors get ~ 95% and this would automatically give an image seen in the viewfinder some extra cover.

This is a link to a chart showing the viewfinder coverage of some cameras:

http://www.neocamera.com/article/viewfinder_sizes

StanRP

This is certainly something to keep in mind..

Mike

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

[quote=paulrph1]

lamiaceae wrote:

Why, how; you only shot slides all the time? No d... (show quote)

As others following my posted reply also point out, slide shooters had to crop it in the camera. It was also widely known that magazine and book editors and other graphic arts editors LOVED two and a quarter inch square format, 6x6cm negatives or transparencies. Therefore the Hasselblad was immensely popular in the publishing business so the editor could decide portrait or landscape later.

PS. Does 10,000 film 8x10" museum photos make one inexperienced? Not including countless other exposures over 39 years.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Jeffcs wrote:

I found the thread interesting that some said they cropped in camera as do I those who came from the film days had to get it right in camera experience with transparency films
And when out shooting in public listening to the conversations around how the younger shooter has a tendency to get the image and correct everything in Photoshop after chimping they look at the back of the camera after every shot and proudly state I'll fix that in photoshop

Wonderful imaginative attempt to rationalize an illogical claim...

I learned not to shoot too tight... back in the 1960's. The difference between the two techniques then was essentially the same as it is today! I did my own processing, and did not take my film to the corner drugstore. Tripping the shutter was not the end of my creative work.

Young vs old is only an excuse in your own mind to justify your own limited experience and talent.

Gort55 Loc: Northern Colorado

Ernie Misner wrote:

Back in the film days, and with my early digital c... (show quote)

I'm with you. I like to leave a little room to work with -- I'm not that good that I can get it perfect in the camera, and I don't think it matters. It's the results that count.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Apaflo wrote:

Wonderful imaginative attempt to rationalize an illogical claim...

I learned not to shoot too tight... back in the 1960's. The difference between the two techniques then was essentially the same as it is today! I did my own processing, and did not take my film to the corner drugstore. Tripping the shutter was not the end of my creative work.

Young vs old is only an excuse in your own mind to justify your own limited experience and talent.

That's a pretty nasty answer to a straightforward statement. What do you know about Jeffcs's experience and talent? Does nearly six decades of experience show in your images?

Did you ever shot Kodachrome or other transparency film? Those of us who did learned to be careful to get the composition and everything else very close in the camera.

TonyL Loc: Coventry, UK

There are more walking encyclopedias in photography than enough, as evinced by some of the responses in this forum. If the cap fits wear it but you don't have to assume that because someone with knowledge and experience says something then you have to rigidly comply. Be prepared to be open minded and to learn from others, both what they advise and their mistakes. 'Rules' are made to be broken and are sometimes best observed in the breach or treated as general guidelines. Do whatever you think is appropriate to the circumstances, respecting the rights of others to express their views. Personally I would rather leave some wiggle room than lose the opportunity to 'improve' a shot in post processing. The resolution offered by most modern cameras gives that element of flexibility.

Ernie Misner wrote:

Thanks for the interesting replies guys! In this instance I don't care what he said really, but on the other hand I have learned some good things from this and other working pros. I thought it would be fun to see how many crop tightly in-camera, and just as I thought, most do leave a bit of wiggle room. Thanks again!