For me the best thing I did was buy a Z 9. I suspect that a Sony A1 or Canon R5 would provide an equally good improvement if I shoot those systems.
Question about Cropping
- Thread starter coachjohn57
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
coachjohn57
Well-known member
I agree; my first digital DSLR was a Canon 10D years ago; I went through several different bodies while building up my kit of lenses and then, three years or so ago, as my interest in BIF took off, I switched to Nikon. At that time I wasn't yet convinced mirrorless was the way to go. Had I not switched until 2021, I probably would have invested in the Sony system; as it is, after buying into the Nikon ecosystem of glass, I made the decision to ride it out until Nikon released a mirrorless body that I felt would meet my needs and bought a Z9 not too long ago. Like you, I think Canon, Nikon and Sony are all producing good bodies at the moment with strong AF systems. Thank you again for your response.
For me in a commercial setting, the large files combined with a good size pixel (full frame and medium format) made cropping/composition a post-processing step as opposed to overthinking it during a shoot. My subjects are typically humans and things the size of a hat. It also lets me use a single shot for various outputs. I used to use an 85 and 105 almost exclusively, now at least 25% of the shots are in 50mm which is later cropped in the various aspect ratios the agencies need. I'm also seeing more requests for uncropped images at full resolution and lots of background space, so the clients are doing the same thing. I think the traditional "no crop" ethic had more to do with sub-20mp sensors and before that film which became too grainy when heavily cropped and enlarged.
coachjohn57
Well-known member
I know when I shot film I rarely if ever printed much larger than 8X10, and the same could be said about my early days in digital when bodies where in that 6-10 megapixel range. Bodies and sensors have evolved quickly, haven't they? Thank you for your comments.
Remember that 8x10 was a crop, shaving off the sides? 8x10 evolved from the older 8x10 plates, and when 35mm film was introduced, we continued to crop it to 8x10.
coachjohn57
Well-known member
I do...and it used to drive me nuts because I would compose within the full frame! My 8x10 prints were only printed on 8x10 paper...I always had a white border around them so I could print the full frame.
not sure who the guy is. Would it be someone who goes by a nick name of a large ungulate with semi palmated antlers?
On the nose!
Maljo
Well-known member
It’s ok to crop.
jadewolf
Well-known member
We need a bumper sticker that says "Cropping is Not a Crime" 
With both the D850 and Z9 sensors, I've found that you can crop in a LOT and still have a good quality print of a decent size. It's not like the old days. And it works out pretty great, because a lot of elusive small, rare birds are never going to fill that whole frame unless you have them stuffed and taped to a specimen board in the museum.
Years ago, I used to think in a purist sort of way. That photography was 100% reliant on what you caught the instant you pressed the shutter. Never did any post processing or cropping. And I couldn't understand why my photos couldn't get the look I wanted, which other photogs were somehow nailing by some form of magic. Talk about a revelation when I discovered how they were getting those images, ha! The magic was post-processing all along! In retrospect, it was silly for me to think that way. After all, Ansel Adams had written entire books about post-processing (aka: darkroom techniques).
In other words... cropping is fine. Just make sure it's balanced so that you're not sacrificing final product quality in the process.
With both the D850 and Z9 sensors, I've found that you can crop in a LOT and still have a good quality print of a decent size. It's not like the old days. And it works out pretty great, because a lot of elusive small, rare birds are never going to fill that whole frame unless you have them stuffed and taped to a specimen board in the museum.
Years ago, I used to think in a purist sort of way. That photography was 100% reliant on what you caught the instant you pressed the shutter. Never did any post processing or cropping. And I couldn't understand why my photos couldn't get the look I wanted, which other photogs were somehow nailing by some form of magic. Talk about a revelation when I discovered how they were getting those images, ha! The magic was post-processing all along! In retrospect, it was silly for me to think that way. After all, Ansel Adams had written entire books about post-processing (aka: darkroom techniques).
In other words... cropping is fine. Just make sure it's balanced so that you're not sacrificing final product quality in the process.
unless you are shooting slides, cropping is good for the body and soul. Reduces stressWe need a bumper sticker that says "Cropping is Not a Crime"
Years ago, I used to think in a purist sort of way. That photography was 100% reliant on what you caught the instant you pressed the shutter. Never did any post processing or cropping.
In other words... cropping is fine. Just make sure it's balanced so that you're not sacrificing final product quality in the process.
Calson
Well-known member
The notion of crop with your feet ignores the perspective aspects of lens focal length. A 35mm is going to distort a face or a scene as compared to a "normal" focal length for a given camera.
The greater resolution provided by today''s digital sensors allow for more cropping and one no longer needs a lab or darkroom to crop images. There is often dead space in a picture or a lack of balance with the elements or positioning of dead space such that cropping can make an image much stronger and more compelling. Make to L sections of cardboard and you can use them to visualize crops for prints or do it with Photoshop for an image of yours and see how cropping improves the image.
I often do not have time to carefully compose a critter before snapping the shutter and the more space I can leave around the subject the more options I have later to do a good crop. Most print sizes do not correspond directly to the sensor proportions of 4:3 or 16:9 and some amount of cropping will need to be done.
The greater resolution provided by today''s digital sensors allow for more cropping and one no longer needs a lab or darkroom to crop images. There is often dead space in a picture or a lack of balance with the elements or positioning of dead space such that cropping can make an image much stronger and more compelling. Make to L sections of cardboard and you can use them to visualize crops for prints or do it with Photoshop for an image of yours and see how cropping improves the image.
I often do not have time to carefully compose a critter before snapping the shutter and the more space I can leave around the subject the more options I have later to do a good crop. Most print sizes do not correspond directly to the sensor proportions of 4:3 or 16:9 and some amount of cropping will need to be done.
To crop or not to crop. Realistically, I crop nearly all the time since many of photos are of Bald Eagles and their nest. Law requires us (at least in my state, PA) to stay 600-1000 feet from an active nest, depending on which official you speak to. And, since I don't fly nor walk on water, the closest I have gotten to our nest across the river is about 660 feet. Shooting with a 500PF you can either have a teeny spec that you assure the viewer is an eagle, or you can crop to make the eagle apparent. Even in the trees, you just can't get close to them. Or hawks or songbirds, for that matter. The only birds I'm truly able to get close to are my bluebirds who chose to nest a few feet from my deck. Such is wildlife/bird photography. As long as there's not tons of noise in the photo cropping gets the job done.
My personal feeling.
My personal feeling.
R_Warshaw
Member
When I did this for a living I used 2 1/4 square and 4x5 film and left room enough for the art director(s) to crop to their page layouts. Many professionals buy high megapixil cameras like Phase One for this reason. Now that photography is just an expensive wife-agitating hobby for me I set the aspect ratio on my full-frame camera to my preferred 5:4 and fill the frame to my liking when I shoot. An unanticipated benefit is that I don't have to worry about soft corners so much. Most of my subjects these days don't move around much - when I was recruited as the photographer for my granddaughter's crew team I worked from the coachs' and officials' launches and, since I couldn't control the distance to my subjects, left a bit of room to crop.
Guy Harr
Active member
What is your end goal? That should drive some of your decisions. If being a so called Purists is the goal, well it will be a longer road but achievable, and unnecessary. If the goal is a good image or story , then you have many tools and approaches to get it. I hear why get a camera with 45 MP if your gonna crop and throw away half those pixels. Well why keep pixels that do nothing for your image, if you crop within reason and don't degrade the image. Bottom line crop as needed , but work to get a good image. Don't be a Purists, be an artist.
As mentioned, moving closer or farther affects perspective, cropping only impacts framing (plus the obvious pixel dimensions). So they are two separate issues. One moves the camera to get the desired perspective. One zooms or changes lenses or crops to get the desired framing with the same perspective. Or any combination of moving and zooming and cropping.
coachjohn57
Well-known member
Thank you for your response; I‘m not a purist…in my darkroom days I dodged, burned, “pushed” film, etc. and I am not afraid to use the tools at my disposal to get my image to as close as to what I saw with my eye and in my mind when I took the image. Thank you again.We need a bumper sticker that says "Cropping is Not a Crime"
With both the D850 and Z9 sensors, I've found that you can crop in a LOT and still have a good quality print of a decent size. It's not like the old days. And it works out pretty great, because a lot of elusive small, rare birds are never going to fill that whole frame unless you have them stuffed and taped to a specimen board in the museum.
Years ago, I used to think in a purist sort of way. That photography was 100% reliant on what you caught the instant you pressed the shutter. Never did any post processing or cropping. And I couldn't understand why my photos couldn't get the look I wanted, which other photogs were somehow nailing by some form of magic. Talk about a revelation when I discovered how they were getting those images, ha! The magic was post-processing all along! In retrospect, it was silly for me to think that way. After all, Ansel Adams had written entire books about post-processing (aka: darkroom techniques).
In other words... cropping is fine. Just make sure it's balanced so that you're not sacrificing final product quality in the process.
coachjohn57
Well-known member
Your last comments…time to compose (particularly with an erratically moving or fast flying bird) resonates. Thank you for your response.
Thank you for responding…I am always mindful of the safety and low distress need for my wildlife subjects, particularly nesting birds…all valid points.
Thank you for your comments!
Thank you for your comments!
Thank you for taking the time to respond!
coachjohn57
Well-known member
”…good for the body and soul. Reduces stress” - this made me smile. Thank you for responding.
I use a Z9 and a Z800pf.
I am a birder and shoot a lot of shots for ID and use on e bird. I am a run and gun birder and seldom spend much time in one place. Being on the move in a wide range of cover and terrain and and have to hand hold because of that. I will occasionally use my vehicle as a rolling blind.
I crop in camera by switching from FX to DX and also do not hestiate to crop in post if I need to.
I have printed some heavily cropped (ie. half or even less of the original frame left) images from a Z9 and D850 that I have printed in various sizes from 11x14 to 20x30.
I am a birder and shoot a lot of shots for ID and use on e bird. I am a run and gun birder and seldom spend much time in one place. Being on the move in a wide range of cover and terrain and and have to hand hold because of that. I will occasionally use my vehicle as a rolling blind.
I crop in camera by switching from FX to DX and also do not hestiate to crop in post if I need to.
I have printed some heavily cropped (ie. half or even less of the original frame left) images from a Z9 and D850 that I have printed in various sizes from 11x14 to 20x30.
I'm like you, Ken. I also have a D850, which I've used for years, and I've recently gained a Z9. I almost always shoot in DX because rarely can I get close enough to any bird to fill the frame in FX. Only my bluebirds give me that luxury.
We also shoot from the truck. Sometimes I like that because I'm so short I can't see much over anything. The truck lifts me up a bit higher, I've hung out the window a time or two to get a shot too. I once sat on the window frame and shot over the truck.
Love to get the Z800pf. Hope Nikon steps up manufacture of them.
I am 5'6 and my wife is 5'2 so neither of us are tall. If we are out birding in the SUV she has a booster cushion to lift her higher in the passenger seat
The D850 was the last DSLR that I sold.
Roy
Well-known member
I come from a product background so I find it hard to bring myself to crop.
But its better to get a usable image than not. Even if you have to use a teleconverter...
coachjohn57
Well-known member
When I was shooting with the D500 and the D850 I never used my TC; it impacted AF acquisition and speed too much. With the Z9, I can easily see myself using it in the field.I come from a product background so I find it hard to bring myself to crop.
But its better to get a usable image than not. Even if you have to use a teleconverter...
I used to be taller, but at my age I've gotten even shorter. So much so, that I was having difficulty seeing over the dashboard in my car I've had since 2008. I laughed and told my husband I was going to need a big phonebook, like a little elderly lady that lived in the town we used to. He told me that my car's seat will raise, and it does. So now it's higher, and when he drives it (he's a foot taller than me) his head nearly touches the ceiling. That makes it bad when we're out on photo shoots. He sees something interesting and I don't because he's seeing it from a completely different vantage point than I am, a foot higher. At home, I have a step ladder.I am 5'6 and my wife is 5'2 so neither of us are tall. If we are out birding in the SUV she has a booster cushion to lift her higher in the passenger seat
The D850 was the last DSLR that I sold.
