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).

It just depends on how many pixels are needed for the intended use. Images never get better by upsizing, though some of the upsizing programs do a nice job of minimizing the loss. Downsizing can improve the image by reducing noise assuming you don't need the pixels.

For the web 2000 pixels on the long side is an abundance, but every platform will have its recommended dimensions or else they will resize for you. For print the needed pixel dimensions depends on the viewing distance and the size of the print.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Usually I crop to improve the composition, i.e., remove distractions, leave negative space, rule of thirds, ... , but I keep an eye on my final crop size in pixels. If it's only going to social media, as bleirer said, 2k on the long side is a good number. If I'm going to make a larger print (my Canon Pro-1000 does 25 x 17) then I want more like 5000 pixels minimum on the long side. Most of the time my 45.7mp bodies have more than enough pixels to accommodate unless it's a severe crop. In that case, I may use Topaz Gigapixel AI or LrC enhance to upsize the image.
 
Member's gallery
As best as I can, I frame my images in camera. For wildlife I usually have the Z 100-400 on one camera body and either the 400 f4.5 or 600mm on another camera....and a 1.4 tele if needed. Later I crop only for compositional reasons. If necessary, I will crop further, but try to not crop more than 15-30% of the image from a Z8 or Z9. I rarely up-sized an image after cropping, even for printing. My largest prints are usually 16x20.
 
Member's gallery
Doomrider74 said:
Excuse the newb question, but do you typically resize a cropped image?
Click to expand...
As posted above, it depends on the final use of the image.

If you're posting images on the web or sending them out via email you'll almost always have to resize images whether or not you've cropped them unless you've done some very extreme cropping and they happen to be down to a size that can be reasonably viewed on a computer monitor. Sure, these days there are photo sharing sites that host full size images and have utilities to do on-the-fly resizing so folks can see a relatively large image on relatively small (in pixel dimensions) computer or phone screens but that just means some other program is doing on-the-fly resizing so yeah the image is still being resized.

If you are processing your images for web or email use there's really no quality to be gained by first cropping them and then resizing them upward to their original pixel dimensions. That just adds an additional resizing step for images that will be down sampled to final viewing size either as you post them or via on-the-fly resizing from the hosting site or the viewing software. Once you've cropped the image you don't gain quality or create missing detail by sizing them back up to original size.

For print use it depends on the final print size and print resolution in pixels per inch and how much cropping you've done on the original image. Even though you can't recreate missing detail, image enlargement software these days is pretty good at creating useable output prints from smaller than ideal files. That said, if you can avoid deep crops it's still best to use all those pixels in your camera rather than throw a bunch away via cropping with hopes of resizing the final image to the desired print size.

Like others above, I crop all the time for compositional reasons or sometimes to crop out a distracting visual element but try hard to get the image I want in the viewfinder and don't really use the crop tool as a zoom mechanism when I'm just too far away optically or physically for the image I had in mind. Sure sometimes I crop deeper than I'd like for small songbirds and the like but then I probably won't print those images and restrict their use to things like web posts here or emails to friends.
 
Member's gallery
Regarding framing / composing / cropping in camera: if you are going to post on a few different social media, leave extra room around your subject. Instagram is better suited for a square crop, Facebook horizontal, ... , and there are different sizes and orientations for profile, cover, shared images, ... . Most cameras are designed to be held in landscape mode, and too few photographers think about rotating the camera 90 degrees when it makes sense, like for portraits. Portrait orientation may allow for more sensor elements, read that as the ability to capture detail, on your subject.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for the input, folks.

Tbh I don't crop to suit social media, I crop to fit the composition.

My question was primarily referring to cropping heavily when the situation doesn't allow me to get closer.
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
per Steve................ The Cropping Edipemic.....

That's the reason I try to keep cropping to a minimum............
Click to expand...
I've read that before. The problem with that article is we can't all afford 500/600mm f4 lenses to make the most of TCs. A 1.4 TC on my 500 5.6 pf would turn it into a f8 AF snail. Additionally, "getting closer" isn't always an option.

Don't get me wrong, I don't do crazy 100% crops (I'd rather the shot was more "environmental" if I cant get close enough), and my OP was more about general principles than an admission of guilt.
 
Member's gallery
I crop 90% of my bird images for compositional reasons. If my crop results in an image smaller than 2048 long side, I dump the photo. A 2048 crop is then only used on social media. Not good for anything else and I don't upscale at all.
I might keep a "poor" photo for ID purposes - but I'd rather try another time to get a better photo.
 
Member's gallery
Winston Churchill (Sir) said:
I crop 90% of my bird images for compositional reasons. If my crop results in an image smaller than 2048 long side, I dump the photo. A 2048 crop is then only used on social media. Not good for anything else and I don't upscale at all.
I might keep a "poor" photo for ID purposes - but I'd rather try another time to get a better photo.
Click to expand...
TBH I get a little uneasy if my cropped image drops below 3.5K on the long side, and I prefer to keep it over 4K.
 
I have a step in finalizing if I think I have a keeper, I'm in Photoshop by then, where I run through the standard crops and try on different compositions for size. I'll check out briefly 3:2, 2:3, 3:4, 4:3, 4:5, 5:4, 1:1, 2:1 not necessarily systematically. I'll look for unwanted tangents that didnt occur to me in the field. I'll move the image around within the formats and see if anything appeals to me and maybe think about what I might have learned about composition or just squint to see the main blocks and lines and what looks good intuitively. At that time I might think through other ideas. Removing, moving, adding elements, and whatever else comes to mind in a free form way. So yeah, anything goes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top