More megapixels - What is all this talk about Crop

Status
Not open for further replies.
Location
Switzerland
Name
Matt
Last edited by a moderator:

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
From the later referenced article, here:


"Heavy cropping is a sign of a rank amateur who is too lazy to compose shots in the viewfinder. These shooters often use wider-than-optimal focal lengths and then attempt to correct compositions by cropping away parts of the subject they don’t want. But reducing a 4608 x 3456 pixel image to 2400 x 1800 pixels actually discards three quarters of the pixels, which reduces image quality."

Says heaps IMO.
 

MountainMan79

😎💩➡️📸
Location
Minnesota
Name
Chris
From the later referenced article, here:


"Heavy cropping is a sign of a rank amateur who is too lazy to compose shots in the viewfinder. These shooters often use wider-than-optimal focal lengths and then attempt to correct compositions by cropping away parts of the subject they don’t want. But reducing a 4608 x 3456 pixel image to 2400 x 1800 pixels actually discards three quarters of the pixels, which reduces image quality."

Says heaps IMO.
Well, it’s either a sign of a “rank amateur”, or pretty much every wildlife photographer ever.
 

davidzvi

Hall of Famer
Location
Boston Burbs
Name
David
Well, it’s either a sign of a “rank amateur”, or pretty much every wildlife photographer ever.

True, Chris.i
And many event shooters trying to get candid shots across a reception. It was the main reason my 70-200 was on my D800 while the 24-70 was on my D750.

It also ignores when You can't get closer or may not have the option to compose a shot completely; shooting over your head or at ground level for example.

Are there those that might fall into the "just lazy"? Sure. But I personally find statements that make such blanket generalizations insulting.

Over and done with - and with a great outcome as far as I can see. In my experience, having the count available in a body that helps handling it is always a plus - and the Z 7 II makes shooting at full resolution a breeze. For everyday photography, I rarely miss the higher resolution, but for a once-in-a-lifetime occasion, I'd definitely bring my own Z 7 II.

In fact, I've recently used it as a minimal travel setup with the Z 26mm f/2.8 pancake - and it made for a surprisingly pleasant, very capable combo. It's worth it.
.....
Part of the reason for going with a higher MP body was also to contrast my other gear, not to replace it.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
And many event shooters trying to get candid shots across a reception. It was the main reason my 70-200 was on my D800 while the 24-70 was on my D750.

It also ignores when You can't get closer or may not have the option to compose a shot completely; shooting over your head or at ground level for example.

Are there those that might fall into the "just lazy"? Sure. But I personally find statements that make such blanket generalizations insulting.
I fully understand those scenarios, David.

However, one needs only to browse this forum alone to realise the truth in what he is saying.

I don't rabbit on about "getting it right in the camera" because I never see examples of exactly the practices in that quote.

The question needs to be asked "What is the purpose of an interchangeable lens camera, if one never changes the lens?".
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
Well, it allows one to choose one lens from a huge selection to keep on the camera all the time!
Charles, that's why my 12-100 (or 8-25 ... ) lives on my E-M1 MkII ; my 12-50 macro lives on my E-M1 MkI; and my 14-42 EZ lives on my E-PM2, and it lives in my car.

Other lenses lurk where they may be useful ...

I DO understand that sometimes I will have the wrong lens on the camera in my hands, sh¡t happens.

However, the quote I referenced is still apposite ...
 

Brian

Product of the Fifties
The question is how many megapixels do you really need? Might be interested to read this. https://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/buying/how-many-megapixels-do-you-really-need/
"Heavy cropping is a sign of a rank amateur who is too lazy to compose shots in the viewfinder. These shooters often use wider-than-optimal focal lengths and then attempt to correct compositions by cropping away parts of the subject they don’t want. But reducing a 4608 x 3456 pixel image to 2400 x 1800 pixels actually discards three quarters of the pixels, which reduces image quality."


Not that I do much cropping, but the best of the best film photographers certainly cropped their images.
I would discount the entire website as worthless based on that one statement.
 

Bobby T

Out Of Nowhere
Each to their own, @Brian.

I believe that the practice of self discipline improves ones own photography.
When you’re paid to shoot an event with a required shot list. Self discipline is meaningless. Getting the shots the best you can in the quality you are known for is all that matters. Same with wildlife shooters, as well as others.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
I'm sorry if I'm being thick, Bobby, but I'm finding it difficult to get from this:

Each to their own, @Brian.

I believe that the practice of self discipline improves ones own photography.
To this:
When you’re paid to shoot an event with a required shot list. Self discipline is meaningless. Getting the shots the best you can in the quality you are known for is all that matters. Same with wildlife shooters, as well as others.

Discipline, experience and learning leads to becoming what I call "a competent photographer". IOW, a photographer who can almost always get the shot, regardless.

These things also include learning to be prepared.

In order to improve my composition of form and colour, I made a compact with myself that I would never crop my images. That was in late 2007. To this day, this is my aim.

Bruce Postle both encouraged this in me, and also further impressed the need for these things, when he came to my home to deliver a book. We spent a couple of hours discussing these things, and examining/critiquing my own work, all of which I was grateful for.

BTW, I've shot a few events where not getting the shot was not an option.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Location
Virginia
Name
Steve
I've found that advice from pros to enthusiasts isn't always useful. Many pros have well-defined specializations, e.g., weddings, and can buy exactly the right equipment for the task. Enthusiasts tend to be generalists and often need a one-size-fits-all approach. On the other hand, some enthusiasts have far more money than the pros and can buy the expensive products because, well, they can. Cropping is just another tool in the amateur's bag of generalized tricks.
 

Brian

Product of the Fifties
Last time I read my books on photo techniques, cropping, Perspective control (placing the easel at an angle to the enlarger), polycontrast filters, dodging and burning were all techniques used in the Darkroom. They now have Digital equivalents. Some of us used such techniques 50 years ago in the Darkroom, and will use them today where required. Stating that cropping is a tool for amateurs is showing a lack of knowledge about making an image on the part of the author.
 
Location
London
Last time I read my books on photo techniques, cropping, Perspective control (placing the easel at an angle to the enlarger), polycontrast filters, dodging and burning were all techniques used in the Darkroom. They now have Digital equivalents. Some of us used such techniques 50 years ago in the Darkroom, and will use them today where required. Stating that cropping is a tool for amateurs is showing a lack of knowledge about making an image on the part of the author.
I never knew until recently the extent to which Henri Cartier Bresson's "Man Leaping Over A Puddle" (which seems to have legendary status whether or not we think it's a good image) was manipulated from what came out of his film roll to what was eventually presented.
 
Last edited:

Brian

Product of the Fifties
Too Funny. I was writing software to automatically find the interesting parts of a Digital image, separate them, and number them. In 1982. It automatically cropped each interesting segment into its own image. My wife found a good use for it 15 years later, cancer research. We taught it how to identify and count cancer cells in a microscope image. Each one was automatically cropped into its own unique image. I could turn the algorithm into something designed to isolate the interesting portions of an image based on some designated criteria. I already do my own processing for images from the Leica M Monochrom, in Fortran-77.

But I did not even suggest to David to buy a Leica M Monochrom, M8, or M9 as I could give him source code for the image processing. I am so much more open minded to using software that you do not even write yourself. I used to. The 1980s for me. Paid for the first house, and for the '90 T-Bird. Writing Fortran code still pays all the bills.
 

William Lewis

All-Pro
Location
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Name
William Lewis
Last time I read my books on photo techniques, cropping, Perspective control (placing the easel at an angle to the enlarger), polycontrast filters, dodging and burning were all techniques used in the Darkroom. They now have Digital equivalents. Some of us used such techniques 50 years ago in the Darkroom, and will use them today where required. Stating that cropping is a tool for amateurs is showing a lack of knowledge about making an image on the part of the author.
As a landscape photographer, I am very aware of how intensely St Adams of the Ansel ;) relied on his darkroom technique. His negative for the justly famous "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" is insanely difficult to print and because the light was changing so fast he was not able to get a second image. Instead, every print he ever made from that negative was different.

I generally don't use a lot of editing in my images but when I do, it does not bother me to do so any more than if I had been dodging and burning a print in a wet darkroom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top