To crop or not!

[Scott Murray]

I thought I would create a separate thread regarding whether or not cropping is acceptable, and if it is in what cases.

My thoughts are this.

I will crop a photo if I physically cannot get to a subject so that they fill the frame, this could be caused by various reasons.

• Subject is flighty and scares easily
• Getting too close will put you in danger

Ok so you ask why take the photo anyway? The reason why I take photos and crop later are so that I can show my friends and others that may never be able to see such things, sure they will not be printable but I am not after prints. I am bringing something to people that they may never get the chance to see in person so as long as the photo is clear and has enough detail then this will achieve that.

Now if I was going to take a photo to get printed out then yes I would try and fill the frame with what I want printed. As I do not want wasted pixels and wasted resolution. A perfect example will be Africa, I will be trying to get full frame photos of the animals that I see. But in the event that it is way too far off am I going to take a photo? My answer is yes, as I will be able to crop, now why would I do this? The reason is that this is a trip of a life time and any memory from that trip counts. I can also share it with others, sure it wont be printable but it will still be a memory that I can re-live.

 

[Dave_W]

Taking a photo is a form of cropping - you're cropping out everything not in the scope of the lens. So cropping further is simply a continuation of the original crop. Since photography is an art and as such there are no rules that state what your artistic vision should and should not be. Besides, the image is a "crop" from the very beginning so it's almost a moot point.

 

[AC016]

This is how i see it: After the camera itself, lenses are the biggest expense. Invest in the lenses that are needed for your kind of photography, ie: birding. If all you are going to do is stick with the 18-55mm that comes with the camera and crop the hell out of your photos, that is wrong! If you find yourself cropping your photos very heavly, then you are probably either not close enough to the subject or using the wrong lens. And for those who crop so much as to pixel peep, uggghhhh!

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

Shoot like you are not going to crop, adjust or do any kind of post processing. Then you will get the best results. Then go in to your favorite PP tool and make it what you really saw while you were there. Just don't rely on PP to get the photo.

 

[Johnathan Aulabaugh]

Some unique thoughts here.
I prefer not to crop. I shoot wildlife primarily with some nature and landscapes thrown in. I shoot about 90% of the time with the thought of printing in mind so for me cropping is a big no no, although to be fair if you look at it from Daves perspective, it is all a crop. Photography can be the purist form of a lie that there is. As photographers we can often skew the truth of whats happening or glamorize it to tell the story we want.
Now for me, I try to get it all in camera before I edit. If I cant get it in the frame like I want then I am likely not going to take the picture. As I said in another thread, I am not trying to change the way anyone shoots. how you choose to do your photography is your choice.

Muzza said it well but in his number 2 spot I would choose to say; if it puts the animal in danger. I probably just wouldn't take the shot accept as maybe a memory for myself.

I have several photographers that I follow pretty regularly. Doug Gardner, Moose Peterson, Ratcliff, Jarvis, and several others. To me it is not about FX/DX but about the frame itself. In a lot of ways I believe Moose puts it best here. If you read this, read the whole thing as it states he does not like to crop even under editorial...
The Crop Revisited : Moose Peterson's Website

It is a choice that has served me very well over the years.

View attachment 29357View attachment 29358View attachment 29359

 

[Scott Murray]

Some unique thoughts here.
I prefer not to crop. I shoot wildlife primarily with some nature and landscapes thrown in. I shoot about 90% of the time with the thought of printing in mind so for me cropping is a big no no, although to be fair if you look at it from Daves perspective, it is all a crop. Photography can be the purist form of a lie that there is. As photographers we can often skew the truth of whats happening or glamorize it to tell the story we want.
Now for me, I try to get it all in camera before I edit. If I cant get it in the frame like I want then I am likely not going to take the picture. As I said in another thread, I am not trying to change the way anyone shoots. how you choose to do your photography is your choice.

Muzza said it well but in his number 2 spot I would choose to say; if it puts the animal in danger. I probably just wouldn't take the shot accept as maybe a memory for myself.

I have several photographers that I follow pretty regularly. Doug Gardner, Moose Peterson, Ratcliff, Jarvis, and several others. To me it is not about FX/DX but about the frame itself. In a lot of ways I believe Moose puts it best here. If you read this, read the whole thing as it states he does not like to crop even under editorial...
The Crop Revisited : Moose Peterson's Website

It is a choice that has served me very well over the years.

View attachment 29357View attachment 29358View attachment 29359

We have a lot of dangerous animals that will eat you or kill you if you get too close, the same goes in Africa. So I stand by my #2

 

[crycocyon]

I personally think there is nothing wrong with cropping. It is a personal and therefore artistic choice. There are also practical considerations in terms of getting the best expression intended from an image and if something distracts in the field of view that could not be eliminated on account of the constraints of the format, then cropping can be a tool for that as well.

As for myself, I prefer that when I take a photo, that everything is there in that photo, in that moment, and that nothing needs to be done afterward. The color, the light, the composition, the timing, the subject, all comes together in that one moment that I personally think should stand on its own. It is so often too easy to just be complacent with a photo one takes because we think that it can always be improved upon afterward on the computer. But in the process of doing that, we lose as much art as we think we gain by having that capability. In order to achieve the purest form of expression within that moment, the camera is the tool of that expression, and the format is the canvas. We do not paint a Mona Lisa and then crop the canvas if the background on the top is distracting. It should stand on its own from the moment the shutter is opened and the light hits the canvas. Striving to achieve only the best of what we wish to express within that moment rather than doing things to the image afterwards, takes an additional commitment to the art.

 

[Johnathan Aulabaugh]

We have a lot of dangerous animals that will eat you or kill you if you get too close, the same goes in Africa. So I stand by my #2

I am unfamiliar with Aussie Land but with the exception of the crocs and sharks what are some of the dangerous animals there?
I am in central Florida right now so the only things here are gators and snakes for the most part although no one wants to play with wild pigs.
Being from the western states I have had encounters with bear, cougar, elk, moose, and bison as well as lots of snakes.
Not only do I photograph animals I also hunt and fish and the only time I have felt endangered was from an elk pinning it's ears, some curious bison, a gator warning me off and 1 bear while I was deer hunting in Idaho. Sure I would love some longer glass but I do not let that keep me from the shot unless there is a dang good reason.

 

[DTigga]

The 10 Most Dangerous Animals in Australia

 

[piperbarb]

I take photos with the intention of not cropping. I try to compose my images through the viewfinder instead of cropping a photo to death later. Also, I don't go out taking pictures with the attitude that I can take hundreds of shots and hope that one will be useable. I do not want to crop a photo so much that it loses detail and gets that "grainy" or pixelated look. That does not mean I never crop or adjust exposure, color balance, etc. afterwards, but I try to keep that to a minimum. I thought that same way when I was shooting film & doing my own darkroom work. I really did not want to spend most of my time like a mole in a darkroom. I would rather be outside taking photos. I still think that way today. I don't want to spend most of my free time in front of my computer editing photos.

Everyone is different. What works for me may not work for you. it also depends on your subject, how close you can get to it, what equipment (i.e.: lenses) you have, etc.

I hope that helps.

 

[Johnathan Aulabaugh]

Wow, thanks for the link... I think hahaha. I am not at all sure I want to go to Australia now.
What is crazy to me is that most of these are super small in comparison for what most would consider deadly here. I mean yeah sure we have scorpions and big hairy spiders and lots of snakes but I don't worry about most of them unless I am in the southwest.

 

[Scott Murray]

I am unfamiliar with Aussie Land but with the exception of the crocs and sharks what are some of the dangerous animals there?
I am in central Florida right now so the only things here are gators and snakes for the most part although no one wants to play with wild pigs.
Being from the western states I have had encounters with bear, cougar, elk, moose, and bison as well as lots of snakes.
Not only do I photograph animals I also hunt and fish and the only time I have felt endangered was from an elk pinning it's ears, some curious bison, a gator warning me off and 1 bear while I was deer hunting in Idaho. Sure I would love some longer glass but I do not let that keep me from the shot unless there is a dang good reason.

Heres an interesting read

The Animals That Make Australia The Deathtrap It Is | Cracked.com

 

[Johnathan Aulabaugh]

yeah I read that last night and I am amazed at the small creatures there with big bites lol. not to mention the crocs and sharks but we have those here, although not as big lol.

anyways end of hijack. I was really digging the posts by others about cropping. Everyone has an opinion, some are really worth a second think, some not so much.

 

[Alan]

To crop or not to crop...that is the question. It seems to me that there is no right or wrong answer. When photographing a landscape, closeups or doing a portrait you have the time needed to adjust everything to get the right shot the first time. But when you are trying to get a picture of a small bird or animal that is 50 feet up a tree or 50 yards out on a lake (or they might just eat you) then some cropping may be needed. I remember some of my instructors back in the day even criticizing me for not doing a better job of cropping when I printed my photograph. One always said "Why do you think we call it an enlarger?" Now our PC is the darkroom and enlarger. I don't think cropping is any different than an other tool we use.

So I guess my answer is shot it right the first time, but if that is not possible then fix it before you display it. You deserve to show people your best work and if you don't use all the tools you have it is not your best work you are showing. Just my humble opinion.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

I try to photograph so that cropping is not required.

That being said I won't let a crop, regardless of size, be the difference between a mediocre photo and a great one.