The Original and the Crop

C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
I wanted to show how much can be discarded of a picture and still get a reasonably detailed shot. Just as a general aside... I am VERY allergic to insect stings, so I stay back when I shoot them.

Original.jpg
The Original


And the Crop...
Crop.jpg

Taken with my trusty 18-55mm kit lens.

I am starting to think that if this lens had boobs, I'd marry it!

But it would probably divorce me!

Enjoy

Pete
 
Last edited:
G

goz63

Senior Member
Carolina Photo Guy said:
Taken with my trusty 18-55mm kit lens.

I am starting to think that if this lens had boobs, I'd marry it!

But it would probably divorce me!

Enjoy

Pete
Click to expand...
Nice picture and it shows that "kit" lenses are not crap. I get so sick of people saying just because the lens came with the camera it is not a good lens. I bought my dad that lens when I got him a D80 and he loves it. We both have D90's with the 18-105 "kit" lens and I think that is probably the lens I go to most often.
Keep using the little darling Pete!
 
J

JoeLewisPhotography

Senior Member
Nice example Pete!

I think people get confused. Kit lenses are quite good and can take you far, and for most people, It is all they will ever need. They are not "crap" by any means....However when compared to a "good" lens, the lenses are miles apart in every category.
 
C

Curt

Senior Member
I have a 18-135mm kit lens that came with my D80.
I use it a fair amount, nothing wrong with it. I mostly use it for the wide angle (18mm).
 
F

fotojack

Senior Member
Carolina Photo Guy said:
I wanted to show how much can be discarded of a picture and still get a reasonably detailed shot. Just as a general aside... I am VERY allergic to insect stings, so I stay back when I shoot them.

View attachment 2686
The Original


And the Crop...
View attachment 2687

Taken with my trusty 18-55mm kit lens.

I am starting to think that if this lens had boobs, I'd marry it!

But it would probably divorce me!

Enjoy

Pete
Click to expand...

OK, I understand the original shot. What I don't understand is how the crop version looks bigger, or more closeup. How is that achieved? I'm obviously missing something here. And no, I don't have Photoshop. Is this done through Photoshop?
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
fotojack said:
OK, I understand the original shot. What I don't understand is how the crop version looks bigger, or more closeup. How is that achieved? I'm obviously missing something here. And no, I don't have Photoshop. Is this done through Photoshop?
Click to expand...

Let's start from scratch. The original file let's say for example is (D7000 large file) 4928 x 3264 pixels. Now if we were to post this in it's original format, it would be about 41.7 x27.6 cm or 16"X11". Now this file would surely be too big for uploading (15 megs). So the maximum size for files is about 1200x 1200 or this is what is recommended for uploads. So you can crop 3728 and you sill will have 1200. So, the small figure on the 4928 file will be enlarged to fill the 1200.

Maybe the concept that is hard to grasp is that the uncropped picture you see is reduced more than the cropped one just to fit on this site.
Is this clarifying the crop case?
 
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
Okay Jack, here is my understanding of what you are asking. Everyone else, feel free to correct me on the concept, but lets try not to muddy the water on the tight details.

What I am going for here is the broad idea.

First, Lets say that you have an 8X10 blank page. There are NO pixels on this page so you have the classic white cat in a blizzard picture.
Then you decide to put on this page 14.2 megapixels of an Iris. This picture has bricks in the background, all in all a very pleasing picture to look at. :)
But it needs to be made more pleasing. So lets take out most of the stalk so the Iris almost completely fills the picture. You crop the image.
Cropping, in addition to taking out parts that you don't like, also removes PIXELS! So, instead of a 14.2 megapixel image, you now have a 4.5 megapixel picture.
Since fewer pixels are filling the picture, but the image size is the same 8X10, then the pixels HAVE to be larger. Not so large that the image begins to pixelate, but it looks as if
the image is closer to you. Make sense?
Now, if you put these same 4.5 megapixels on a 13X19 sheet, THEN each pixel would be so large that the image would begin to look very blocky and stepped. This is the dreaded pixelation. I know that I have dumbed this down and that you probably already knew all of this. I am willing to bet that you have just never looked at it this way. :)

Hope this helps.

Pete
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
This is a way better explanation than mine Pete. Thank you for removing the mud from the water... :)
 
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
Marcel, you are being too kind. We apparently posted at nearly the same time. Had I known that you were writing on the same subject, I would have deferred to you.

Thank you for your kind comments.

Pete
 
M

Mike150

Senior Member
Wow... I read Marcel's explination, and was pretty sure I understood...
Then I read Pete's and My IQ dropped 6 points.


Nice writeups thanks to both of you.
 
F

fotojack

Senior Member
Marcel Carey said:
Let's start from scratch. The original file let's say for example is (D7000 large file) 4928 x 3264 pixels. Now if we were to post this in it's original format, it would be about 41.7 x27.6 cm or 16"X11". Now this file would surely be too big for uploading (15 megs). So the maximum size for files is about 1200x 1200 or this is what is recommended for uploads. So you can crop 3728 and you sill will have 1200. So, the small figure on the 4928 file will be enlarged to fill the 1200.

Maybe the concept that is hard to grasp is that the uncropped picture you see is reduced more than the cropped one just to fit on this site.
Is this clarifying the crop case?
Click to expand...

Yes, now it makes sense. I couldn't understand how the picture of the cropped picture looked like a closeup of the original uncropped picture. That's what I was getting at. No matter how many times I've tried to do this, it doesn't come out the same as what you guys are doing. That's why I was confused. :) Now I think I understand. I'll have to try and practice this on some old photos that I don't care about, or just take a new one and play with it till I get it. Thanks, Marcel.
 
F

fotojack

Senior Member
Carolina Photo Guy said:
Okay Jack, here is my understanding of what you are asking. Everyone else, feel free to correct me on the concept, but lets try not to muddy the water on the tight details.

What I am going for here is the broad idea.

First, Lets say that you have an 8X10 blank page. There are NO pixels on this page so you have the classic white cat in a blizzard picture.
Then you decide to put on this page 14.2 megapixels of an Iris. This picture has bricks in the background, all in all a very pleasing picture to look at. :)
But it needs to be made more pleasing. So lets take out most of the stalk so the Iris almost completely fills the picture. You crop the image.
Cropping, in addition to taking out parts that you don't like, also removes PIXELS! So, instead of a 14.2 megapixel image, you now have a 4.5 megapixel picture.
Since fewer pixels are filling the picture, but the image size is the same 8X10, then the pixels HAVE to be larger. Not so large that the image begins to pixelate, but it looks as if
the image is closer to you. Make sense?
Now, if you put these same 4.5 megapixels on a 13X19 sheet, THEN each pixel would be so large that the image would begin to look very blocky and stepped. This is the dreaded pixelation. I know that I have dumbed this down and that you probably already knew all of this. I am willing to bet that you have just never looked at it this way. :)

Hope this helps.

Pete
Click to expand...

Thanks, Pete. Yes, this does help. I'm thinking maybe it's the program I'm using to crop (Irfanview). I'm going to practice on a random shot here and see if I can get the same results as you guys. I'll upload after and see if it turns out the same. Thanks, guys, for helping out an old fart. :) Much appreciated.
 
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
There ya go Dude! You will notice something else also. If you think you have it sharp, crop it and take another look.
You can ALWAYS undo a crop after you look it over in editing. This is usually click on "EDIT" and click on "UNDO"

Hope this helps.

Pete
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
You got it Bud.
One thing I always do or try not to forget: Make sure you always have the full version and "save as" another name or another place on disk. So if you ever want to work on the same again, you won't be stuck with the maybe too tight crop.
 
F

fotojack

Senior Member
Marcel Carey said:
You got it Bud.
One thing I always do or try not to forget: Make sure you always have the full version and "save as" another name or another place on disk. So if you ever want to work on the same again, you won't be stuck with the maybe too tight crop.
Click to expand...

hehehe..Marcel, that's one of the things I was not doing........saving it as something else! lol I would resize first, then crop, then save it to its original folder...in this case the CF card in my camera. That explains why I could never get the crop to look bigger than the original! lol duh! I can be so clueless sometimes! lol :) Thanks, guys. Now I understand the concept. :)
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
Another thing Jack. I always copy my raw or original files on the computer BEFORE I start to work on them. I remember reading something like you could loose all the pictures on the card if something goes wrong while the computer is writing to the card. Plus, it's much faster to read and write to the disk than on the card. Or you can save it to the same location, but just make sure you change the name ex: copy 1, copy 2, etc.
 
Top