Very RARELY, and I mean very rarely, do I feel the need to crop my images. IF composed WELL, no need. Just wish I could show people the 'original' image as it were. People ASSUME because its a close up/macro, whatever, I have cropped it to become 'closer up'. Not at all. A compliment? I can understand those that do. Shoot at a large size, and crop the 'good' bit. BUT, as I said, if its framed well, no need. You can tell when an image is cropped just by looking at the resize ratios..!! Any other thoughts on this topic?

Yeah....agree with you. - The best thing is too take more time to shot you photo. So...the picture will be composed very well and you will not need to crop the pictures. - Taking a large size shot an crop the rest it's not a bad idea at all. We are lucky with digital photography. We can take millions of shot and then crop them...delete them.... -Just come back a couple of years ago...with only 35 mm camera with film. Crop was impossible. So....you had to take the time to shot your photo....compose it .... to have the result you want. -Maybe everything came with the digital photography. -benoit-

I feel the same as you do and seldom crop my images, but not always, if I do it is usually to remove something I missed at time of shooting. However when I do crop I usually do so maintaining aspect ratio, so it is not always possible to tell it is cropped. Also if an image is a 100% crop the crispness of the image can be lost, as you see the actual pixels (the same as you would viewing the image at 100%) that are compressed slightly in resizing. To be honest your images don't look croped and would have been suprised if they were

I'm very much a beginner, and am starting out shooting digital. Most of the cropping I do is due to inexperience. I'm afraid of losing something out of the frame, so I tend to take too much, then trim it down to size. With the image size I take, it's easy to crop it and not lose any pixels. (I am, however, only sizing for screen display, so 72dpi is fine for me) I'm learning quickly, more so by reading what you all are doing. :) Thanks ~ Rich

When I crop, it's usually an artistic decision. It has nothing to do with keeping the "good" portion of a photo (okay, sometimes it does). Sometimes what I choose artistically at the time of shooting is different than what I decide when it comes time to make a print. Some images look better with an odd aspect ratio, some don't. I think it's probably all personal preference depending on the photographer. Cropping is just another tool to help express what I want to.

-Taltos

People seem to forget that cropping can be done in the traditional dark room too! It's not some new fangled thing born in the digital age. Yes, it's always important to take the time to set up your shot, be aware of details, look for those distractions that may be there. But cropping is an option that is available to help make a great shot even better, if need be, or just an artistic choice to take the composition further than previsulalized. The problem with cropping to make something look like a macro has already been mentioned. It does have a tendency to look grainy and soft, and this is true for both film and digital, the bigger you make it, from the original the softer and grainier it will be.... simply put, not good IMHO. It's always better to have the proper tools, ie. macro lens, close-up filters etc. But lets realize that not everyone has the means to go out and blow wads of dough on expensive equipment, and photography is not a cheap hobby. It's easy to take offense when someone suggests as a compliment "nice cropping" or "great postwork"... especially if you take the time and work really hard to get perfect in camera shots, and you didn't do cropping or postwork. They just assume that you did.... because it seems that that is what everyone does in this digital age.... You could always make a little disclaimer in your description area?

Well this is turning out to be a good post with some good points. I think that some comments can be misinterpreted and not meant in offence, I can be quite sensitive about comments, I think we all can, but I want people to tell me if they think something could be better as long as it is constructive. As Michell.A pointed out cropping in the darkroom is a common event for many photographers, even I have done it with little success, (not one of my strong points) and since all the images on here film or digital are in a digital format (film/prints are scanned) therefore making cropping an easy option if necessary to get the results that you as an individual want to achieve. I have had comments saying my images look "shopped"(PS) which they are not, and not likely to be (just cant afford it)personally I dont think it really matters as long as you are happy with the results that you achieve, cropping only really becomes an issue if you need large digital/digitised files to produce large prints from. My Disclaimer: This is all of course just in my humble opinion (IMHO)

S Michelle A said: It's easy to take offense when someone suggests as a compliment "nice cropping" or "great postwork"... especially if you take the time and work really hard to get perfect in camera shots, and you didn't do cropping or postwork. They just assume that you did.... My point from the beginning...I have 'missed' a lot of good shots (spesh bugs/insects) because they have flown away at 'macro' range BUT, would they have flown IF I had took them further away and 'cropped'?

BTW people, I have nothing AT ALL against cropping.

Well bugs/insects are unprodictable so maybe they would anyway, as I don't have the luxery of a macro lens I use the long lens from a distance, and still miss (often) Ah landscapes just sit there and pose for you.

please never do buy a Hasselblad 6 cm x 6 cm Cam, because you have to crop every of your darkrooom photo papers.

I like working in the square format but such a waste of paper! :~)

i think i've been commenting wrong when i've said "nice crop" :( i meant nice "in eye crop", straight from the cam

I get that word wrong to Cindy...do some comments mean 'crop' as in crop or 'framed' as in compo/composure? Confusing sometimes.

I'm also a beginner. I hope I have no made offensive comments. :( Apologies if I have. i remember the days of cropping in the darkroom...not one of my strong points either. And what i would do for a macro lens!!!! TV

I say nice composition...to save me from getting people upset.

[a pretty god subject here!] Well, I usually obtain images with my old camera(not digital)without croping because I take my time and I need a lot of time (sometimes too much :))to shot my pictures - my friends say that I'm too damn calm as if I'm not ever goin' to die...:) With a digital is even easier - if I do not like the shot I delete it in the very next second; another one! Two moths ago, I've started to shot some macro pics with my old camera and to be honest I was very dissapointed when I've seen the result - only a few (4-5) from 15 shots turned out well and I'm pretty sure that I would've liked -in this case - to shot a greater area in order to crop my subject... The resize ratios don't necesarilly tell us about croping or not - I sometimes like to change aspect ratio without croping, for some reasons! When I crop a pic I usually keep the original ratio - that's for sure... Maybe some persons from the "old school" could say that if we crop the images we are not so good after all, but I'm pretty sure that sometimes croping is needed - simple and that...Why losing a beauty if is there, when you obviously could cut some unimportan details and obtain a greater result? So...To Crop or not To Crop... To Crop...Why not? :)

I agree with Lost Patrol.

cropping only really becomes an issue if you need large digital/digitised files to produce large prints from.

If I dont loose the quality of picture, I dont hastate to crop.

Long telephoto lens is very expensive, and heavy.
I may spent money for a high resolution camera (and crop the picture) rather than longer lens.

I'm with TaltosVT ...I will crop for an artistic sake.Or if I want something to be large and the focus point.I guess it depends what lens you have.As a beginner I see jimry and Enmos doing so good with the insects,and I know they do not crop.So it kind of influences me to pay attention to the frame.Other reasons I crop is to fit the image to R'osity terms. My images come out at 3264x2448 and I would like them to be as clear as I can get.Sometimes a crop is necessary.I was reading on a lesson how cropping can make the difference of a good photographer.La tee da my 2cents.CND funds

I worked as 1 of 2 photographers in a large design studio, the other guy wouldn't allow the display artists to crop his work. I was often amazed at the pics inside of pics, and also the shapes (other than square or rectangular) that creative people could see in my pics. Most of my stuff was shot on 35mm Fuji 100 asa in those days and enlargements up to 1 metre for display purposes were frequently used with adequate quality. If I shot a tight composition, it was always backed up with wider shots for these very creative people. As with most photography "look outside the square" for some surprising results!

I can only Read Your Words...the rest is a blur...I think of Old Queen Vic..."Off with His Head"...or was it another Queen? No advice can I give...though I have Cropped ...err...Personal Parts of My Manliness, so as to not frighten the Babes.

Missed this thread somehow. Cropping is not just an artistic concern. Cropping has always been a concern for people printing more than standard 4 x 6" prints. 35mm and most DSLRs use the 2:3 frame format. It fits perfectly within a 4"x6" print, but try printing a 8"x10", 11"x14", 11"x17", etc. without cropping or cutting the paper down along one side. Because of that, I try to compose my shots so that I can print at both 4x6 or 8x10 or whatever. Usually involves leaving a bit of image above and below (in portrait orientation) that isn't completely necessary to the composition, but not enough that it doesn't look right if left in. That make sense? -=>Donald

Tedz - is your comment referring to my long winded piece of my history above? If it is, do you mean I was rambling and spoke a lot of garbage? If that is so, thank you for pointing out my inability to elucidate my experiences of the past. Because you are a NZ'er I promise I have not taken offence!

DHolman - I am curious why it is so important that your image fills a standard paper size. I would like to see more pics cropped to irregular shapes. Ovals have been used to great effect in days of yore. Trapezoid cutouts in black mattes can be quite stunning with the appropriate content.

Snow - As with many things, to each his own. For pure aesthetics, I've never liked odd shaped croppings; circles, ovals, trapezoids, etc. Aside from that, most materials for display and storing of images are based on standard sizes; even the non-rectangular cuts. Move outside those sizes and you need to be prepared to custom build your displays. You can usually get away with standard sized frames with odd sized prints, but you'll need to cut your own mattes to do it. Not using mattes, then you'll be building your own frames to size. -=>Donald

DHolman - I have been involved in commercial photographic display for over 20 years, and would have gone hungry if most cameraphiles shared your views. But of course, the choice remains yours.

Message edited on: 09/19/2004 04:52

Yea, it's all personal preference and opinion. I don't know how you define cameraphile so I can't comment there. And since I don't go to any photographic display professionals for anything (I keep full control of my photography, one of the reasons I went digital - film scanning and DSLR), you're probably right about going hungry. :) -=>Donald