Question about Cropping

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).

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. 😁
Yup ... Gravity at work on our cartiledge. I have shrunk and inch and my boot size had gone from 8's to 10's :)
 
The vast majority of my images aren’t cropped; my Father, one of my early mentors in photography, always advised me to “crop with your feet or crop with your lens…get it right in the camera”, a lesson that stuck with me from those early years as a pre-teen using film to my days using digital. One of Steve’s videos seemed to reinforce that same idea.

Over the last three years or so, as I’ve moved more and more into bird photography, I’m finding that more and more challenging; get frame filling images of birds, particularly birds in flight is challenging (my longest lens is my 500PF). To date, other than straightening the horizon on some images, I still tend to shoot to fill the frame within the confines of my hoped for composition (another aspect of BIF that is challenging), yet I also know that that leaves shots on the table so to speak. There are many wonderful photographers in this forum; how do you approach it and why?

I crop how I feel like the image would look the best. As someone whose been photographing wildlife and birds for a long time now, I recognize that cropping with your feet is seldom possible.
 
My general thoughts are that I think everyone would prefer to get the shot without cropping but with wildlife photography sometimes it just isn't possible. When I say it isn't possible I don't mean just because of poor field craft, for many people the locations they shoot at are restricted on where you can actually go. Even if you could get closer to yoru subject you can't without breaking rules/laws. There are also the times where you could get closer but shouldn't for the wellbeing of the subject (something that is a problem locally right now).

From the more technical perspective I think it's hard to relate cropping in the film days (or even early digital days) to modern digital photography. With high MP cameras you have to think of the sensor size/density as another factor that you should utilize to achieve your final image goal.
 
I always laughed at the people who say “crop with your feet”. Most of the time when photographing wildlife you don’t have that opportunity. I shout with a 600mm and 1.4 at 840mm and with a high mp camera crop the hell outta most of my wildlife photos lol.
Not sure I would laugh at anyone for their approach to photography, particularly if it was only because it didn't match my own experience. I realize there are times when moving closer isn't a possibility - for a variety of reasons - yet when I can move closer within the restrictions of a particular location and/or without endangering myself or endangering/distressing my subject, I will. Thank you for responding.
I crop how I feel like the image would look the best. As someone whose been photographing wildlife and birds for a long time now, I recognize that cropping with your feet is seldom possible.
I understand; when "crop with your feet" was drilled into me I was still doing primarily landscapes and the wildlife I was shooting was in a target rich environment of large animals (my father was stationed in Alaska at that time, and wildlife was abundant on base and somewhat acclimated to people). Thank you for your response.
My general thoughts are that I think everyone would prefer to get the shot without cropping but with wildlife photography sometimes it just isn't possible. When I say it isn't possible I don't mean just because of poor field craft, for many people the locations they shoot at are restricted on where you can actually go. Even if you could get closer to yoru subject you can't without breaking rules/laws. There are also the times where you could get closer but shouldn't for the wellbeing of the subject (something that is a problem locally right now).

From the more technical perspective I think it's hard to relate cropping in the film days (or even early digital days) to modern digital photography. With high MP cameras you have to think of the sensor size/density as another factor that you should utilize to achieve your final image goal.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I embrace what you said about not approaching closer for the wellbeing of your subject (I'm thinking of a Skimmer colony I've had the pleasure of shooting near in the past, as well as birds in general and their need to conserve energy); Your comment about the difference between the days of film, particularly 35mm film, and today's high resolution images is an interesting one as well. I've read a bit about it over the years, and teh general consensus seems to be that 35mm film had/has a "resolution" roughly equal to that of a 24MP sensor, a milestone that full frame sensors surpassed for the first time around 2008; that "resolution" may be why so many full frame bodies are still made in the 20-24MP range, as a sweet spot for low noise, light-gathering capability of the sensor, and "good enough" resolution.
 
How much you can crop without suffering serious quality loss is to a great extent dependent on your output goal. A 4K image is less than 10 mpx. For most of the cameras used for wildlife today, that sure leaves a lot of room to crop. Yes, increased noise is a major factor especially shooting higher ISO values but just in terms of loss of sharpness and detail, I contend you can crop quite a bit without major loss; again depending on your output.

Always better to fill the frame of course, but cropping is near universal step in processing my bird/wildlife images. I see nothing wrong with it personally.
 
I try to get a reasonably large image so I am not cropping a lot but I view cropping as fine tuning my image. I would rather crop than toss a lot of images because I clipped the wing. Plus cropping, especially w/ BIF, allows me to adjust the composition.

And a times I can not get close enough to my subject to get a full frame image (either because there is a physical barrier or a do not enter sign). Also if the subject, i.e., BIF, is flying towards and I have prime lens there is only a small distance where it will fill the frame. Before it is too small and as it gets closer, it becomes too large.
"adjust the composition" exactly that 👌
 
I'm a proud member of the cropping club. I crop 98% of my bird images. Often fairly deep. Sometimes down to only 3-4MP left starting from 51MP:oops:

I'm totally happy with cropping and mostly just post online so even my heavy crops of say 3-12MP remaining still hold up on forums and Flickr and of course on cellphone dominant IG.

Unless you aim for a more "small in the frame" or "birdscape" type of portfolio (Ray Hennessy type work) I think one has to crop if shooting songbirds or smaller. There just aren't lenses with enough maximum magnification values (even with TCs) that can really fill the frame with smaller birds except for lenses that require you to get within 3ft (like a 100-400 type lens with TCs).

I don't think you will have much fun with bird photography if you force yourself to never crop.

And think of this scenario...two photographers standing next to each other shooting the same subject....one has D500/500PF and the other D850/500PF. Both are after a similar final composition. D500 owner manages to frame up his composition perfectly in the VF...no cropping done in post. D850 owner crops his image to the same composition in post. Because those two cameras have almost identical pixel density the final images are the same resolution. Should the D850 owner be upset that he had to crop? Is the D500 owner doing anything "better" by not having to crop? I'd answer no to both. Is the D850 owner wasting his MPs? Well only if he has to crop to DX every shot....then he probably wasted $$ over a D500. But I bet that D850 owner finds times he doesn't have to crop all the way to DX and then maybe gets to shoot landscapes with wider lenses or human portraits etc where his FF sensor gets him some benefits.
 
I'm a proud member of the cropping club. I crop 98% of my bird images. Often fairly deep. Sometimes down to only 3-4MP left starting from 51MP:oops:

I'm totally happy with cropping and mostly just post online so even my heavy crops of say 3-12MP remaining still hold up on forums and Flickr and of course on cellphone dominant IG.

Unless you aim for a more "small in the frame" or "birdscape" type of portfolio (Ray Hennessy type work) I think one has to crop if shooting songbirds or smaller. There just aren't lenses with enough maximum magnification values (even with TCs) that can really fill the frame with smaller birds except for lenses that require you to get within 3ft (like a 100-400 type lens with TCs).

I don't think you will have much fun with bird photography if you force yourself to never crop.

And think of this scenario...two photographers standing next to each other shooting the same subject....one has D500/500PF and the other D850/500PF. Both are after a similar final composition. D500 owner manages to frame up his composition perfectly in the VF...no cropping done in post. D850 owner crops his image to the same composition in post. Because those two cameras have almost identical pixel density the final images are the same resolution. Should the D850 owner be upset that he had to crop? Is the D500 owner doing anything "better" by not having to crop? I'd answer no to both. Is the D850 owner wasting his MPs? Well only if he has to crop to DX every shot....then he probably wasted $$ over a D500. But I bet that D850 owner finds times he doesn't have to crop all the way to DX and then maybe gets to shoot landscapes with wider lenses or human portraits etc where his FF sensor gets him some benefits.
Yup a D850 has a D500 built right in :) Where I stared having a button programmed for fast change between fx & dx. With Z9 I just happen to do it on the lens on my Z800 and in the imenu with Z100-400.
 
I like to shoot warblers and other small songbirds. I used to use a D500 with a 150-600, almost always at 600. Since moving to a Z9 I mostly shoot songbirds in DX mode, Even when I can get close enough to the bird that I don’t “need” the extra magnification, I also don’t need the extra megapixels of a 45 MP file. Even after cropping in LR, the full files still take up unnecessary space on my hard drive. I can print a sharp 20 MP file really, really large, but I can’t imagine wanting a 24x36” portrait of a warbler that is 4” long in real life. That would just be weird.

As further evidence that cropping isn‘t the end of the world with current digital technology, when I was shooting a landscape scene with my Z7 in a portrait orientation, I happened to take a snapshot with my iPhone in landscape mode and texted it to my wife to show her the incredible scene I was shooting. She showed to some friends and when I got back they wanted to buy a big print of the image I had texted her. Problem was I had shot the scene in portrait orientation to get a close foreground. I ended up cropping off the bottom half of the image to give them the composition they wanted from my iPhone shot. That left about 20 MP of data. With some careful post-processing for noise reduction, sharpening, etc., I was able to print the resulting landscape image at 40x60 from only the top hall of the original file, and it looks spectacular as the centerpiece of their dining room.

Bottom line, photography is art, and that goes not just for the part where you’re taking the picture. It goes for the whole process of creating a final image. Post-processing is part of that process. Who’s to say how much processing is too much? Is just cropping no longer photography? What about focus stacking, or exposure blending? Those are widely used and accepted techniques but by definition they are impossible to achieve in a single image in camera. Do what you need to do to achieve your artistic vision and don’t apologize for it. As long as you're honest about what you’ve done if asked, no one should have any problem with it.
 
Last edited:
I crop anytime that I feel it's improving the photo. With programs such as Gigapixel AI you can make it whatever size you desire for a successful print. Yes, I too remember how the film days were , that's why I enjoyed digital and now mirrorless.
 
Thank you for your comment. I'm not a liar or a saint...yet I can honestly say that that is, to date, with the exception of straightening the horizon and maybe a handful of exceptions over the years, my reality. It's been a matter of discipline for me (and habit) as I tend to print large and want to make the most of the resolution any give body offers. I guess my train of thought has always been, "Why have all of these pixels if I'm going to throw half of them away?". The Z9's combination of speed, resolution and AF (and the same could be said of the A1, etc.) is changing my mind a bit, although I will crop as minimally as possible.

The way I see it (and do it) is if you have a high MP camera, like the Z9, Z7 or D850, then why not take advantage of that. If I can't get closer and need more reach I switch to crop mode (and I do this fairly frequently). The ability to crop on a high MP sensor isn't a waste of pixels, it is taking advantage of all those pixels. I have one of the function buttons set to change between FX and DX modes quickly. Don't look at it as "throwing the pixels away", look at it as taking advantage of being able to crop more than on a lower MP camera.
 
The way I see it (and do it) is if you have a high MP camera, like the Z9, Z7 or D850, then why not take advantage of that. If I can't get closer and need more reach I switch to crop mode (and I do this fairly frequently). The ability to crop on a high MP sensor isn't a waste of pixels, it is taking advantage of all those pixels. I have one of the function buttons set to change between FX and DX modes quickly. Don't look at it as "throwing the pixels away", look at it as taking advantage of being able to crop more than on a lower MP camera.
Thank you for your response, and I see the reasoning behind it. In the past, if I needed more reach, I just always made sure the D500 was the body I took with me rather than the D850 (and for BIF I took the D500 almost 100% of the time). What I am really hoping for is a mirrorless version of the D500 with a higher resolution sensor (30MP?) so I can have two bodies, with the same mount, that cover my needs. Thank you again.
 
Thank you for your response, and I see the reasoning behind it. In the past, if I needed more reach, I just always made sure the D500 was the body I took with me rather than the D850 (and for BIF I took the D500 almost 100% of the time). What I am really hoping for is a mirrorless version of the D500 with a higher resolution sensor (30MP?) so I can have two bodies, with the same mount, that cover my needs. Thank you again.

Back in the day I used a D7200 for that same purpose so I understand. But I like the flexibility of my Z7 and D850 to be able to have both a full frame and crop sensor camera in one body.
 
All due respect, but unless that guy Moose is shooting slide film or just jpegs, then he is in denial. If he is shooting RAW then to say he doesn’t post process would be like Ansel Adams saying he doesn’t make his own prints. In the film days, printing was part of the art of photography, and these days, processing a RAW file is part of the art of photography. If he is processing at all, even choosing a color profile, then who is he to say how much processing is acceptable?

I think we all draw the line as to how much post-processing is ok before it is no longer “photography“ in a different place. Often it is based on the limits of our own technical skills 😆, but not always. For example, in my opinion Marc Adamus is one of the most talented landscape photographers there is. I’ve been on workshops with him and I can attest to both his natural talent and his technical photographic skill. I think his images are among the most striking and captivating of anyone’s. But Photoshop is an integral part of his image-making process. I don’t have nearly the skill in PS necessary to emulate his work, and much as I admire it I would not want to because it is a step beyond the level of processing I am personally comfortable with. But even if was, I don’t have the vision and technical photographic skill to capture the raw images that he does that are necessary to produce the work he does. On the flip side, there are things like the Natural Landscape Photography Awards, which I think tilt too far in the other direction.

To each their own. Do what you are comfortable with and don’t let anyone tell you it isn‘t ok.
 
My favorite post processing/cropping conversation -fast forward to 2:40.
Memorable for me because its my shot that started the conversation... :LOL:
That was a somewhat painful conversation/interview to watch :oops: Moose seemed to be disengaged/disinterested and fairly dismissive throughout. While I agree with trying to minimize the need for post-processing to "fix" things that could have been addressed in the field, the reality is that if you're shooting RAW there will be post-processing and, at least for me, there will be things like lifting the shadows or taming the highlights, straightening the horizon, adding a touch of clarity, adjusting saturation, etc. to get the image optimized. BTW...beautiful shot of that Great Blue Heron!
 
My favorite post processing/cropping conversation -fast forward to 2:40.
Memorable for me because its my shot that started the conversation... :LOL:

He makes some good points, though not in the friendliest manner. If I am cropping because I don't have the optics or I'm too far away i should do something about that if I can. However sometimes serendipity shows me something in post I didn't see while shooting. A picture within the picture, or the way different framing balances the composition, or some connection that is emphasized by cropping.
 
Last edited:
He makes some good points, though not in the friendliest manner. If I am cropping because I don't have the optics or I'm too far away i should do something about that if I can. However sometimes serendipity shows me something in post I didn't see while shooting. A picture within the picture, or the way different framing balances the composition, or some connection that is emphasised by cropping.
He does make some valid points...but he definitely didn't make the interviewer's job easy!
 
That was a somewhat painful conversation/interview to watch :oops: Moose seemed to be disengaged/disinterested and fairly dismissive throughout. While I agree with trying to minimize the need for post-processing to "fix" things that could have been addressed in the field, the reality is that if you're shooting RAW there will be post-processing and, at least for me, there will be things like lifting the shadows or taming the highlights, straightening the horizon, adding a touch of clarity, adjusting saturation, etc. to get the image optimized. BTW...beautiful shot of that Great Blue Heron!
There does not have to be "post-processing" in the way many think if your shooting in raw. If you have your setting right in the camera first you can open the image in the camera software usually free from the companhy ie. NX Studio for Nikon. If you like what you see you can export as is for where you are going to use it.

Beyond that if you are using a Z9 and some Sony cameras and probably more coming you can do the same thing in LIght Room Classic. By using the camera settings in global settings in preferences rather than adobe defaults.

If I get it right in camera ... sometimes :) I can crop or not as needed and export to where I am going to use it no other edits needed. Shooting in Raw gives me a lot more options but using the camera settings in LRC has dramatically sped up and simplified editing for me. One of my favorite settings that is uses in high ISO noise reduction (I usually use low or normal in my Z9). I have had to do other noise reduction in many images up to ISO 7,200 and little other than masking in others even well beyond ISO 7200 athough I seldom get higher ISO. I am a run and gun bird ID photographer and use Z9 & Z800pf 90% + of the time and with the higher shutter speeds needed and fast changing highly variable light conditions common in my pursuits I have my Auto ISO limits set to 25.600 and I can get useable ID shots at the maximum but almost never get there.
 
He makes some good points, though not in the friendliest manner. If I am cropping because I don't have the optics or I'm too far away i should do something about that if I can. However sometimes serendipity shows me something in post I didn't see while shooting. A picture within the picture, or the way different framing balances the composition, or some connection that is emphasized by cropping.


Except usually, you CAN'T do something about that. Maybe if you're shooting backyard birds or something like deer or a fox den on private property, you can set up a blind, but for nearly everything else, you're restricted as to how close you can get by factors beyond your control. Unless you have the money to fly somewhere and pay a guide to take you along to a place like the Pantanal where the pumas are baited or Finland where the wolves and bears and wolverines are baited.
 
Back
Top