How to find the right distance so not over cropping in post?

[marksand35]

How does one know when it’s too much cropping in post production? Working in the field and the landscape prevents you from getting close to the birds or wildlife is there a distance to say it’s just too far, 30 feet or 60 feet? Or whatever distance? Let’s say using a 150-600 or 500 prime lenses. No teleconverters. Since I’m learning bird photography let’s stay on that topic. I know that over cropping distorts or softens a photo. But I can’t seem to find that so called “perfect or close enough distance” for sharp photos. I don’t have a feeding perch or any of that yet. Plus where I live we don’t have a lot of trees in neighborhood for them to feel safe for using it. With lack of trees our predator bird count has increased.

 

[DRwyoming]

How does one know when it’s too much cropping in post production? Working in the field and the landscape prevents you from getting close to the birds or wildlife is there a distance to say it’s just too far, 30 feet or 60 feet? Or whatever distance? Let’s say using a 150-600 or 500 prime lenses. No teleconverters. Since I’m learning bird photography let’s stay on that topic. I know that over cropping distorts or softens a photo. But I can’t seem to find that so called “perfect or close enough distance” for sharp photos. I don’t have a feeding perch or any of that yet. Plus where I live we don’t have a lot of trees in neighborhood for them to feel safe for using it. With lack of trees our predator bird count has increased.

There's no hard and fast rules in terms of how far is too far and sometimes we all stretch things when presented with a great looking subject we just can't get closer to optically or physically.

Personally if I'm trying to show a single subject like a bird I'd want it to be at least a quarter or ideally a third of the height of the viewfinder. If I can't do that I'll try to work some kind of 'figure on a landscape' type shot where the bird is an element of the overall scene but not the primary subject. And sure there are times when I really want a shot and crop like crazy but it's my last resort and my expectations for image quality are low when I do that.

It also depends a bit on what camera you're using as you can get away with a bit more distance for mid sized and small birds with a crop body camera like a D500 than you can with a full size sensor camera like a D5.

All that said I'd want to be within 20 to 30 feet or so with my 600mm lens on a full frame camera body for mid sized birds and closer than that for small songbirds like Chickadees, Wrens, Nuthatches and the like. I'm usually within about fifteen to twenty feet for small bird photography and that either means shooting near feeders at the house (and using the house as a blind by shooting out an open window or door) or using a blind in the field at a good location where birds feed like a small stream or watering hole. I've definitely captured images of birds like Jays and Clark's Nutcrackers while just walking out in the field with my lens on a tripod but then I'm often shooting the 600mm + 1.4x TC and often on my crop body D500 or D850 in crop mode but I'll still want to be within thirty or forty feet or so which happens but it's tougher.

The larger the bird is the easier it gets from a distance standpoint but you generally can't just walk up to Eagles and Osprey either, at least around here. But there are places where you can reliably approach birds like Herons, Egrets and other fairly large wading birds and other places where the same birds will take off when they see you 100 yards away and I've shot in places like Alaska or Bosque del Apache where you can get incredibly close to large birds at certain times of the year.

The good news is that with practice and by identifying good places to shoot near you it is possible to get closer than you might think. I'm not saying it's ever easy but we all started wildlife photography thinking it was impossible to get close to our subjects but with time, practice and research we've all found ways to get closer and fill the frame more reliably. But field craft including the research that can help you find the best places to shoot takes time and effort.

 

[aolander]

Ideally, you should be striving to get the subject as large in the frame as you envision it. I know that's not always possible, but settling for "close enough" is going to rob you of image quality.

 

[bleirer]

Really there are a lot of factors but if you try to do it mathwise it is as simple as 'pixels on the subject.' The more the better, but the minimum for printing or viewing on a screen is similar: how many you can get away with depends on the viewing distance, the size of the image you are displaying, and the visual acuity of the viewer.

Some basic math using the pixel dimensions of your sensor and the results from any online print resolution calculator will tell you how much you can crop. To put in some arbitrary numbers, If the calculator says you need 300 pixels per inch for a close viewing distance and you want to display an image 10 inches wide, you need to leave 3000 pixels on the wide side. If the camera sensor has 6000 pixels across then you can crop half the width and still have a clear image. You'd have to figure for the height as well, same idea. If you are posting on Instagram you might only need 500 pixels across to view on a 3 inch phone at arms length.

It is all situational depending on how the image is to be viewed.

Print Resolution Calculator • Points in Focus Photography

Calculate the minimum resolution required for a print at a given print size and viewing distance.

www.pointsinfocus.com

 

[Pistnbroke]

If you are in a bird hide thats fixed and if the bird is 60yards away that's fixed so just take it and if its no good discard later.
60 yards is a typical distance in the UK. If you can find a bird other than a duck that is

 

[StefanSC]

How does one know when it’s too much cropping in post production? Working in the field and the landscape prevents you from getting close to the birds or wildlife is there a distance to say it’s just too far, 30 feet or 60 feet? Or whatever distance?

My rule of thumb with the D810 and Sigma 150-600mm and for the D500 and 300mm f4 is :

If I can cover the subject with at least all the all the Group AF points in the viewfinder and I am at ISO 1600 or lower, then I will take the shot as I likely have about enough pixels for an acceptable image for web use.

I won't bother if the subject is the size of an AF point or less in the viewfinder.

P.S: I do like to frame my shots wider than most though, as it's both easier for me to shoot and also I think it makes for more interesting shots than the usual "portrait" or "wikipedia" shot when you include a bit of the environment and context in the frame.

 

[Terry]

While I don't have a ton of experience in wildlife I feel this applies to all photography and its old school! You should compose your shot in the viewfinder and it should be as close to full frame as possible. If you're limited by lens or physical barriers then it's free to take the shot and see if it's usable but that's after you've explored all paths first.

I'm a dinosaur from the film days, left still photography for video/TV and fairly new into the DSLR world. With the amazing ISO, post processing etc its really easy to get lazy and just fix it later. I believe you'll be much happier with your shots if you do the most work with the camera and minimal tuning in post.

 

[Steve]

To add to the above...

I'm currently writing a BIF book and it discusses cropping quite a bit. One of the problems with cropping is that the heavier you crop, the worse the ISO looks upon output. In other words, if I print an 16x20 from a full frame shot vs one that's heavily cropped, even if I have the pixels to do it, the heavier crop will show far more noise a the same output size since I have to enlarge each pixel more. I made this little graphic to help illustrate this in a more visual way. Note that the heavier you crop, the faster things get noisy.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

The upshot is that if you're gonna have to crop, drop your ISO to help keep the noise in check and retain more detail. However, nothing is going to replace getting close enough in the first place. All we can do is damage control

In addition, check out my cropping article. It talks about what happens when you crop and gives suggestions to overcome those issues.

The Cropping Epidemic - Backcountry Gallery

I see it all the time – lens jockeys hacking off pixels and tossing them out like they were last week’s kitty litter. It pains me to witness such rampant cropping with so little regard for the consequences – especially since I know how potentially devastating it is to a photo. What really makes...

backcountrygallery.com

 

[marksand35]

I guess my main reason for asking is that when I watch videos on bird photography and the people close in on the bird’s eye(s) and they look pretty sharp. Mine on the other hand aren’t always sharp. It could be me as far a shake or movement. I’m usually using a monopod with gimbal but on occasion I will hand hold or tripod it. I’m working on stance and breathing to also minimize the movement when hand held. With that said I was curious if I’m zooming in or cropping too much. Almost forgot thank you Steve and everyone for your input and time. I always learn from my threads as well as everyone else’s. Photography is about always learning and finding ways to push the limits to make it work. Good shooting!!

 

[Steve]

I guess my main reason for asking is that when I watch videos on bird photography and the people close in on the bird’s eye(s) and they look pretty sharp. Mine on the other hand aren’t always sharp. It could be me as far a shake or movement. I’m usually using a monopod with gimbal but on occasion I will hand hold or tripod it. I’m working on stance and breathing to also minimize the movement when hand held. With that said I was curious if I’m zooming in or cropping too much.

Can you post an example or two? Sometimes, it's easier to see what's going on with a pic.

Sight unseen, often the problem is shutter speed or technique (it takes lots of practice).

 

[DRwyoming]

With that said I was curious if I’m zooming in or cropping too much.

Hard to say without seeing some of the original images and then the crops you're doing.

But FWIW, I'd strongly advocate trying to shoot such that you don't have to crop at all and can actually fill your viewfinder with your desired image. Yeah, that's a lofty goal and one we won't always accomplish but if the starting point is trying to get the image you want in the camera and then you crop in post when forced to or for aesthetic reasons (e.g. aspect ratio or small composition shifts) you're at a better starting point than going in with the mindset that tiny images in the viewfinder are fine and you'll just crop for the desired image size.

Trying to get the image you're after and the subject size you're after right in-camera isn't easy but if you start with that goal your field technique will almost certainly improve and in time you may find you're getting closer than you currently think possible. Don't get me wrong, in these days of high pixel count cameras most of us crop for various reasons at least in some of our images but I think it really helps the developing wildlife photographer to try to get the image size you're after right in the viewfinder and look for ways to make that happen.

 

[bleirer]

To add to the above...

I'm currently writing a BIF book and it discusses cropping quite a bit. One of the problems with cropping is that the heavier you crop, the worse the ISO looks upon output. In other words, if I print an 16x20 from a full frame shot vs one that's heavily cropped, even if I have the pixels to do it, the heavier crop will show far more noise a the same output size since I have to enlarge each pixel more. I made this little graphic to help illustrate this in a more visual way. Note that the heavier you crop, the faster things get noisy.


View attachment 18333

The upshot is that if you're gonna have to crop, drop your ISO to help keep the noise in check and retain more detail. However, nothing is going to replace getting close enough in the first place. All we can do is damage control

In addition, check out my cropping article. It talks about what happens when you crop and gives suggestions to overcome those issues.

The Cropping Epidemic - Backcountry Gallery

I see it all the time – lens jockeys hacking off pixels and tossing them out like they were last week’s kitty litter. It pains me to witness such rampant cropping with so little regard for the consequences – especially since I know how potentially devastating it is to a photo. What really makes...

backcountrygallery.com

Interesting tidbit in support of that is that on photonstophotos.net the same camera in crop mode vs. that camera full frame, the crop mode is always about a stop less in pdr at different ISO. He says it is because he adjusts for image size to get an apples to apples comparison. If you scroll down to the chart of all cameras you see it on every camera for dynamic range and for low light EV.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

 

[Ductape]

For me, this thread is a great reality check. Like most of us I want to take sharper photos of unique animal situations. My photography excursions happen a few times a week and usually include walking or hiking around with the largest lens combination I own, mounted on a monopod. In the past week, I have shot flickers, downy's, osprey, eaglets in a nest, waxwings, herons, and an assortment of other interesting birds. The one thing every one of these photo's has in common is I was too far away for a great shot. Sure there is enough detail to share with friends on the Facebook, but the quality is not good enough to make a print, or even share here. I still love the exercise part of getting out and hike/walk first. As I become more fascinated with wildlife photography though, I am experiencing my pace slowing down. The concept of filling the viewfinder as suggested above in this thread just seems like an occasional sheer luck occurrence, or dedicated time in a properly placed blind. My hat is off to those of you who consistently get close to your subjects, as I hope to get there someday too.

 

[Steve]

Interesting tidbit in support of that is that on photonstophotos.net the same camera in crop mode vs. that camera full frame, the crop mode is always about a stop less in pdr at different ISO. He says it is because he adjusts for image size to get an apples to apples comparison. If you scroll down to the chart of all cameras you see it on every camera for dynamic range and for low light EV.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

There's actually a formula for figuring it out - crop factor squared multipled by the ISO to get the relative output noise. That's how I came up with the chart and, at least in my experience, it pans out.

 

[bleirer]

There's actually a formula for figuring it out - crop factor squared multipled by the ISO to get the relative output noise. That's how I came up with the chart and, at least in my experience, it pans out.

So if I understand you, the DX at iso 400 should be the same as the FX at 900, and a DX at 800 should match FX at 1800? That does seem to roughly match the photons to photons graph of real world tested sensors for a few trials anyway.

 

[Steve]

So if I understand you, the DX at iso 400 should be the same as the FX at 900, and a DX at 800 should match FX at 1800? That does seem to roughly match the photons to photons graph of real world tested sensors for a few trials anyway.

Yup - for the same camera and assuming the same image proportions / crop in both formats. (i.e., if you shoot in FX and crop to DX, it'll look like DX level noise upon output).

 

[StephenP]

So now I know why the Osprey I shot from 400 yards using my 200-500mm looked soft. I was hoping it was just heat distortion!

Just kidding. Thanks for all of the great information.

 

[bleirer]

Yup - for the same camera and assuming the same image proportions / crop in both formats. (i.e., if you shoot in FX and crop to DX, it'll look like DX level noise upon output).

I'm thinking it will always work the other way too. Resampling a frame filling subject from 6000 pixels wide down to 600 for Instagram will always give a better image than cutting 600 pixels out of a frame with a distant subject.

 

[Steve]

I'm thinking it will always work the other way too. Resampling a frame filling subject from 6000 pixels wide down to 600 for Instagram will always give a better image than cutting 600 pixels out of a frame with a distant subject.

100% for sure. In addition, even the downsized image will hold more detail than the straight crop. Plus, it'll show more subject isolation.

 

[SZH]

Are you using full frame or crop sensor with a 500mm lens? It does make a difference. How large a bird are we talking about, a songbird or something the size of a large hawk or eagle? The closer you can get the better, as the greater the bird is in the frame the better. And don't feel like you have to take everything in landscape mode, that is an all too common occurrence and it wastes useful pixels. If a vertical crop works better, close in as close as you can and try to fill the frame.

 

[marksand35]

Can you post an example or two? Sometimes, it's easier to see what's going on with a pic.

Sight unseen, often the problem is shutter speed or technique (it takes lots of practice).

Here is the original photo and then cropped down to what I thought was acceptable. But still want it tighter like the last one. I did not edit other than crop. I know there is noise added since I cropped but I"m looking for sharpness. Is it lost due to cropping, settings, or what? I believe this was on monopod with gimbal. Settings are on D850 FX f/6.3, 1/3200, iso 2500. 600 mm (sigma 150-600 contemp lens). I had higher shutter set just in case it took off and trying to capture flight too. Shutter priority. Spot metering. AF-C. Here are the three photos.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[DRwyoming]

I’d say you did pretty well in terms of sharpness for such an extreme crop. Just eyeballing the images it looks like the final crop is roughly 10% to 15% of the original image. IOW you’re basically cropping away 80 to 90% of the sensor’s pixels which has a big impact on IQ.

That likely isn’t the easiest birds to get close to, but you’ll need to get a lot closer for high quality images.

 

[SZH]

Speaking from experience, you can sometimes get away with this extreme a crop with the D850 but only in a final image at most 1000-1200px.

 

[Steve]

Here is the original photo and then cropped down to what I thought was acceptable. But still want it tighter like the last one. I did not edit other than crop. I know there is noise added since I cropped but I"m looking for sharpness. Is it lost due to cropping, settings, or what? I believe this was on monopod with gimbal. Settings are on D850 FX f/6.3, 1/3200, iso 2500. 600 mm (sigma 150-600 contemp lens). I had higher shutter set just in case it took off and trying to capture flight too. Shutter priority. Spot metering. AF-C. Here are the three photos.
View attachment 18383View attachment 18384View attachment 18385

That is way tighter than you should try to crop. The bird is just too small in the frame, even with a higher-res sensor. At that range there just aren't enough pixels on the bird for any level of detail. Sometimes you can't beat physics.

 

[SZH]

If you cannot get any closer, you are much better off using a high quality teleconverter on a tripod or monopod, than trying to blow up a bird that is very small in the frame. Modern day teleconverters are quite good today compared to 30 years ago and are highly corrected enough that the loss in IQ and contrast is minimal and can be easily remedied in Photoshop or Lightroom.

A crop sensor camera, 600mm lens and 2x TC gives you the equivalent focal length of 1800mm (over full frame), which is 36x magnification. If that is still resulting in a magnification that results in the subject being too small, you should either try to get closer or just not bother taking the shot. There are tons of birds out there just begging to be photographed!