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'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.
Arash, thank you for your thoughtful response - it's good to see you on here. Your work - and a couple of your guides and an email or two or three - were what initially got me interested in bird photography, particularly birds in flight. I can't say I'm where I want to be yet, but I'm loving the journey. Good advice / good for thought. Take care.
 
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.

I think that was part of Moose's point, that as a pro he is expected to have the optics to get him there. I personally have no objection to cropping, but have to accept that there is some impact to the quality of the final result.
 
I think that was part of Moose's point, that as a pro he is expected to have the optics to get him there. I personally have no objection to cropping, but have to accept that there is some impact to the quality of the final result.

I have quality optics, although I'm not a pro. It's still not enough to "get me there" if I'm shooting grizzlies or wolves. Once in a while, by luck or design, I'll come on a situation where I can get close shots, but those happen maybe once or twice a year if I'm extremely fortunate. Like I said, maybe if I had the money to hop on a 7-day boat trip on Lake Clarke and get guided to the coastal browns, I could be sure of getting close up bear shots. But counting air fare, hotels, food, etc..., that's a ~$15,000 trip all told, and unlike Moose, I can't write it off on my taxes.
 
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?
We've had a number of discussions about cropping. The thing to remember is cropping is not free - there are consequences. I you are cropping you need to make sure the image is very sharp and keep your ISO down. These can be difficult parameters.

If you crop from 51 MP to 3 MP you are cropping to 6% of the original image. But any noise in the image is still the original size - and magnified in relative terms to look 15 times larger. At the 46-51 MP range, I can shoot with a top ISO of 12,800, process normally with DeNoise or similar products, and end up with a high quality image. But when you crop to 3 Megapixels, you are magnifying the effective noise by about 3.5 stops. So rather than shooting at ISO 12,800, you need to shoot at ISO 1200. (Look at Photonstophotos.net and compare an FX camera with a DX crop from that same camera - It's about a full stop difference). Trying to do that with an f/6.3 lens in anything but bright daylight becomes a problem. In addition, all of your edges are wider in relative terms, so the image looks soft compared to an uncropped image and it lacks detail.

Depending on the computer, a 100% view is typically around 1080 pixels. So a 100% view of an image would be 1080 x 720 or about 0.7 MP.

If I'm posting an image on the internet, I'm typically looking at 800 x 530 pixels or about 0.4 megapixels. So with a 3 megapixel image, you have some benefit of downsizing which reduces noise by about 1.5 stops, so that ISO could be around 3200 for we use, but an 11 x 14 print is going to require upsizing and an even lower ISO.

So there are plenty of good reasons to crop - especially for web use. But if you are looking at any kind of print - magazines, galleries, etc. - the same image would no longer work.

The practical side of this is that if you know the difference, you can make it work in your favor. A 100% crop handled well probably looks okay on the internet - especially if you keep the size small and benefit form downsizing.

The other thing you can do is shoot wider and make environmental images rather than head shots. Include the environment, multiple subjects, etc. so you can crop less. That may be a more interesting image anyway.
 
We've had a number of discussions about cropping. The thing to remember is cropping is not free - there are consequences. I you are cropping you need to make sure the image is very sharp and keep your ISO down. These can be difficult parameters.

If you crop from 51 MP to 3 MP you are cropping to 6% of the original image. But any noise in the image is still the original size - and magnified in relative terms to look 15 times larger. At the 46-51 MP range, I can shoot with a top ISO of 12,800, process normally with DeNoise or similar products, and end up with a high quality image. But when you crop to 3 Megapixels, you are magnifying the effective noise by about 3.5 stops. So rather than shooting at ISO 12,800, you need to shoot at ISO 1200. (Look at Photonstophotos.net and compare an FX camera with a DX crop from that same camera - It's about a full stop difference). Trying to do that with an f/6.3 lens in anything but bright daylight becomes a problem. In addition, all of your edges are wider in relative terms, so the image looks soft compared to an uncropped image and it lacks detail.

Depending on the computer, a 100% view is typically around 1080 pixels. So a 100% view of an image would be 1080 x 720 or about 0.7 MP.

If I'm posting an image on the internet, I'm typically looking at 800 x 530 pixels or about 0.4 megapixels. So with a 3 megapixel image, you have some benefit of downsizing which reduces noise by about 1.5 stops, so that ISO could be around 3200 for we use, but an 11 x 14 print is going to require upsizing and an even lower ISO.

So there are plenty of good reasons to crop - especially for web use. But if you are looking at any kind of print - magazines, galleries, etc. - the same image would no longer work.

The practical side of this is that if you know the difference, you can make it work in your favor. A 100% crop handled well probably looks okay on the internet - especially if you keep the size small and benefit form downsizing.

The other thing you can do is shoot wider and make environmental images rather than head shots. Include the environment, multiple subjects, etc. so you can crop less. That may be a more interesting image anyway.
Eric, thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response. From a technical aspect, I understand - and knew - a lot of what you shared (thank you for reinforcing my own thoughts!)...my question was a mix of cropping while keeping image quality for print, cropping in relation to keeping as much of my sensor's resolution as possible, and a matter of practice (and breaking old habits!). I appreciate your insights...and btw, I took a look at your work on your website...you've done some beautiful work!
 
I never expected this thread to take off the way it did, and I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness so many of you put into your responses. When I first started doing BIF, the nagging question in the back of my head was, always, "How did they get so close?". In some areas birds are acclimated to people enough that a 500mm lens can be almost too much reach, but I knew that many of the images I was viewing were in remote areas or in areas where birds remained skittish or where protection of the species and its nesting ground required a good bit of distance from the subject. Hearing how so many of you crop...and the extent to which you crop...has been an eye-opener to me. I'll still try to fill the frame as much as possible at the time of capture (if it works for the composition and the moment), but I will explore cropping as part of my processing workflow in the future. Thank you again.
 
I never expected this thread to take off the way it did, and I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness so many of you put into your responses. When I first started doing BIF, the nagging question in the back of my head was, always, "How did they get so close?". In some areas birds are acclimated to people enough that a 500mm lens can be almost too much reach, but I knew that many of the images I was viewing were in remote areas or in areas where birds remained skittish or where protection of the species and its nesting ground required a good bit of distance from the subject. Hearing how so many of you crop...and the extent to which you crop...has been an eye-opener to me. I'll still try to fill the frame as much as possible at the time of capture (if it works for the composition and the moment), but I will explore cropping as part of my processing workflow in the future. Thank you again.
You raise a really good point. Usually people are getting close and fill the frame by:
  • Investing a lot of time in a single subject
  • Using food, a nest, or a mate to find predictable places where a bird will land or take off
  • Using wind to slow down the speed of the bird / Plan around wind and light
  • Choose locations that have a high volume of subjects
  • Going to locations where subjects are acclimated to people
  • Develop field craft to allow you to get closer
  • Use a blind (this may mean arriving hours before daylight or setting up a blind days in advance)
  • Use really long lenses
Places like Brooks Falls, Vince Shute Bear Sanctuary, and the St. Augustine Alligator Farm provide reliable close access to wild subjects. Triple D Game Farm is somewhat controversial, but where else will you see a mountain lion at close distance or healthy, well fed wolves? I was at the Alligator Farm a few years ago and a Nat Geo team was on site for the week. They had spent 90 days filming and photographing alligators in the wild, but for the close up images they went to the Alligator Farm with a handler to help get the close ups. I go there for close ups of wading birds including flight, but it's pretty boring after a few days, so I pair that with environmental images of the same subjects at other locations like Harris Neck NWR.

There is a big difference in photos while birding or walking around and working a single subject for several days. If you want the great, tight shot, it's usually a commitment of time rather than just cropping.
 
You raise a really good point. Usually people are getting close and fill the frame by:
  • Investing a lot of time in a single subject
  • Using food, a nest, or a mate to find predictable places where a bird will land or take off
  • Using wind to slow down the speed of the bird / Plan around wind and light
  • Choose locations that have a high volume of subjects
  • Going to locations where subjects are acclimated to people
  • Develop field craft to allow you to get closer
  • Use a blind (this may mean arriving hours before daylight or setting up a blind days in advance)
  • Use really long lenses
Places like Brooks Falls, Vince Shute Bear Sanctuary, and the St. Augustine Alligator Farm provide reliable close access to wild subjects. Triple D Game Farm is somewhat controversial, but where else will you see a mountain lion at close distance or healthy, well fed wolves? I was at the Alligator Farm a few years ago and a Nat Geo team was on site for the week. They had spent 90 days filming and photographing alligators in the wild, but for the close up images they went to the Alligator Farm with a handler to help get the close ups. I go there for close ups of wading birds including flight, but it's pretty boring after a few days, so I pair that with environmental images of the same subjects at other locations like Harris Neck NWR.

There is a big difference in photos while birding or walking around and working a single subject for several days. If you want the great, tight shot, it's usually a commitment of time rather than just cropping.
Eric, I couldn't agree more. Most of my BIF photography is done each year when I have the opportunity to spend some time in Florida on Longboat Key due to the generosity of some dear friends who own a condo on the barrier island and offer it to me for a time each summer. I get up early and work the golden hour at a nearby Black Skimmer colony, I go in the evenings for landscapes and additional opportunities with some of the wading birds that work the beach, and I will visit the Venice Rookery (even though it's late then, there are still a few nesting birds). I've come to know that wind speed and direction are critical, how to approach a bird and how to recognize signs of distress (and how not to cause them), and, as you shared, I can spend a lot of time on a single subject...and usually find it rewarding. I've never been to St. Augustine Alligator farm but I hope to visit someday. Thank you for your comments.
 
You raise a really good point. Usually people are getting close and fill the frame by:
  • Investing a lot of time in a single subject
  • Using food, a nest, or a mate to find predictable places where a bird will land or take off
  • Using wind to slow down the speed of the bird / Plan around wind and light
  • Choose locations that have a high volume of subjects
  • Going to locations where subjects are acclimated to people
  • Develop field craft to allow you to get closer
  • Use a blind (this may mean arriving hours before daylight or setting up a blind days in advance)
  • Use really long lenses
Places like Brooks Falls, Vince Shute Bear Sanctuary, and the St. Augustine Alligator Farm provide reliable close access to wild subjects. Triple D Game Farm is somewhat controversial, but where else will you see a mountain lion at close distance or healthy, well fed wolves? I was at the Alligator Farm a few years ago and a Nat Geo team was on site for the week. They had spent 90 days filming and photographing alligators in the wild, but for the close up images they went to the Alligator Farm with a handler to help get the close ups. I go there for close ups of wading birds including flight, but it's pretty boring after a few days, so I pair that with environmental images of the same subjects at other locations like Harris Neck NWR.

There is a big difference in photos while birding or walking around and working a single subject for several days. If you want the great, tight shot, it's usually a commitment of time rather than just cropping.
I greatly admire the images of those who focus on the "great" frame filling shot using any and all of the methods you outlined ! I have friends who are very dedicated to their craft and much more patient than I am and they make some fantastic art.

I also really like very good "Wildscape" environmental shots. I do them occasionally deliberately or more often opportunistically.

My ADD/AHD preference is Run and Gun Bird ID photography = field craft, high level of mobility, really long lens on a camera with quickly accessed focus area and metering options.

I still get images regularly that can be printed large but it just happens not planned for.

I have done all the rest of the points above except the blind. I have a one man blind that I have never used, always think I will but I never get around to it. There are situations where I do use my SUV as a blind but it is a rare circumstance.

I greatly admire the images of those who focus on the "great" frame filling shot using any and all of the methods you outlined ! I also really like very good "Wildscape" environmental shots. I do them occasionally deliberately or more often opportunistically.

And you guessed it I am not a game farm type of guy and do have some issues with some of the show and shoot farms that have captured animals in the wild and mistreated them the rest is up to the photographer.
 
Triple D Game Farm is somewhat controversial, but where else will you see a mountain lion at close distance or healthy, well fed wolves? I was at the Alligator Farm a few years ago and a Nat Geo team was on site for the week. They had spent 90 days filming and photographing alligators in the wild, but for the close up images they went to the Alligator Farm with a handler to help get the close ups. I go there for close ups of wading birds including flight, but it's pretty boring after a few days, so I pair that with environmental images of the same subjects at other locations like Harris Neck NWR.

There is a big difference in photos while birding or walking around and working a single subject for several days. If you want the great, tight shot, it's usually a commitment of time rather than just cropping.


I see healthy, well-fed wolves in Yellowstone and I intensely dislike the idea of photographing at game farms, but that's a question everyone has to answer for themselves. I also got plenty of close up shots of alligators in Florida without going to an alligator farm. They're generally quite tolerant of people as long as those people aren't in the water with them.
 
I see healthy, well-fed wolves in Yellowstone and I intensely dislike the idea of photographing at game farms, but that's a question everyone has to answer for themselves. I also got plenty of close up shots of alligators in Florida without going to an alligator farm. They're generally quite tolerant of people as long as those people aren't in the water with them.
The St. Augustine Alligator Farm is a world class zoo. It's the only place in the world where you can see all species of alligators and crocodiles. It's fully accredited. The shots they were looking for were large alligators opening their mouth, bellowing, hissing, and eating. That's really tough in the wild since much of the food is in the water. It's also a really bad thing to feed wild alligators as it leads to habitualization and ultimately their death.

As far as game farms are concerned, you have the complete range. But if you see a mountain lion in a commercial or a photo in an article, it's most likely a captive. Stock agencies don't report anything about handling, captivity, baiting or control.
 
There were some nice wolves on my fall trip to Yellowstone, but I only had 500mm and so just stood there and enjoyed viewing them from a distance on a nice day. Some folks were shooting but I doubt they were getting anything usable other than a nice memory. They did cross the road, so a lucky few had an opportunity for a few minutes.
 
There were some nice wolves on my fall trip to Yellowstone, but I only had 500mm and so just stood there and enjoyed viewing them from a distance on a nice day. Some folks were shooting but I doubt they were getting anything usable other than a nice memory. They did cross the road, so a lucky few had an opportunity for a few minutes.
There are a very few of us who make a living at photography. A few more will sell a photo or have one published here and there. For most of us, capturing a nice memory is what our photography does.
Jeff
 
The St. Augustine Alligator Farm is a world class zoo. It's the only place in the world where you can see all species of alligators and crocodiles. It's fully accredited. The shots they were looking for were large alligators opening their mouth, bellowing, hissing, and eating. That's really tough in the wild since much of the food is in the water. It's also a really bad thing to feed wild alligators as it leads to habitualization and ultimately their death.

As far as game farms are concerned, you have the complete range. But if you see a mountain lion in a commercial or a photo in an article, it's most likely a captive. Stock agencies don't report anything about handling, captivity, baiting or control.


Yeah, I understand that. Professionals have to make a living. Since I do it out of passion, the only mountain lion pic you'll ever see from me will be if and when I actually find one in the wild.
 
There were some nice wolves on my fall trip to Yellowstone, but I only had 500mm and so just stood there and enjoyed viewing them from a distance on a nice day. Some folks were shooting but I doubt they were getting anything usable other than a nice memory. They did cross the road, so a lucky few had an opportunity for a few minutes.


Getting wolf shots takes a lot of time and despite the fact I went about twice a year for 16 years for two weeks at a time before I moved out here from Florida, good wolf shots came around every second or third year.

Took me till my fourth visit (in 3 years) to get this one.
113210517.jpg


Then they started averaging one good encounter a year.
124888225.jpg


135012725.jpg


143668257.jpg


143693764.jpg


163269453.jpg


170780630.jpg


172606356.jpg
 
Getting wolf shots takes a lot of time and despite the fact I went about twice a year for 16 years for two weeks at a time before I moved out here from Florida, good wolf shots came around every second or third year.

Took me till my fourth visit (in 3 years) to get this one.
113210517.jpg


Then they started averaging one good encounter a year.
124888225.jpg


135012725.jpg


143668257.jpg


143693764.jpg


163269453.jpg


170780630.jpg


172606356.jpg

Just curious to what amount those images are cropped?
 
There were some nice wolves on my fall trip to Yellowstone, but I only had 500mm and so just stood there and enjoyed viewing them from a distance on a nice day. Some folks were shooting but I doubt they were getting anything usable other than a nice memory. They did cross the road, so a lucky few had an opportunity for a few minutes.
That's a great example of when a photo is not necessary. Maybe quick snapshot is fine, but sometimes it's a lot more fun to just enjoy the experience. It can be distance, clouds, no clouds, sun angle, wind direction, etc. It is important to understand what makes a good photos - and when to try something different or just enjoy the experience.

It's also important to understand when the potential of a photo is limited to social media rather than for your website, a print on a wall, or for some other use. When I'm birding the purpose is record shots - and I might get lucky with something else. Cropping to 100% or more is completely appropriate - even if the image is a bit noisy and focus is not perfect.
 
That's a great example of when a photo is not necessary. Maybe quick snapshot is fine, but sometimes it's a lot more fun to just enjoy the experience. It can be distance, clouds, no clouds, sun angle, wind direction, etc. It is important to understand what makes a good photos - and when to try something different or just enjoy the experience.

It's also important to understand when the potential of a photo is limited to social media rather than for your website, a print on a wall, or for some other use. When I'm birding the purpose is record shots - and I might get lucky with something else. Cropping to 100% or more is completely appropriate - even if the image is a bit noisy and focus is not perfect.
I think what you say is SO true and all too often forgotten...sometimes we just need to enjoy the moment, the experience, the beauty in front of us.
 
The St. Augustine Alligator Farm is a world class zoo. It's the only place in the world where you can see all species of alligators and crocodiles. It's fully accredited. The shots they were looking for were large alligators opening their mouth, bellowing, hissing, and eating. That's really tough in the wild since much of the food is in the water. It's also a really bad thing to feed wild alligators as it leads to habitualization and ultimately their death.

As far as game farms are concerned, you have the complete range. But if you see a mountain lion in a commercial or a photo in an article, it's most likely a captive. Stock agencies don't report anything about handling, captivity, baiting or control.
The Alligator Farm is a great place to shoot big birds. They are free to come and go, and they make an amazing rookery in the spring. Not much cropping required. It's not like shooting at a game farm. The gators protect them from snakes who eat their eggs. The only issue is when a little nestling falls out, and the gators/crocs get a quick snack and all the little kids around start crying.

I was going to say that when I was shooting DSLR, I found the IQ of primes to be better for the photos I was taking. When I went to mirrorless, I had gotten out of the zoom habit but I only had two Z zoom lenses and my 500PF. I felt like an idiot scrambling around to "crop with my feet" when all I had to do was move the zoom ring.
 
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.
I agree--- I have to be careful to zoom out a little to avoid getting half a wing or, worse--almost getting it and clipping the edge. Zooming out frequently requires a crop of the sky.
 
Back
Top