To Crop or Not to Crop?

[NowInc]

Oh a heated topic on most photo forums indeed!!

So I ask of you, do you think its ok to Crop your photos?

Personally..I don't. I think part of the "art" is knowing good composition while taking the shot (rule of 3rds!). Does this mean I never crop? Of course not, sometimes you have to due to elements out of your control, but I think personally no one should rely on it to enhance their final photo.

Thoughts?

 

[Monorail Lime]

I believe all types of extreme post-processing should be used sparingly. Nothing beats a skillfully executed photograph in its natural state.

I'm biased from my years of shooting and trading color slides. No second chances there!

 

[ddbowdoin]

I believe all types of extreme post-processing should be used sparingly. Nothing beats a skillfully executed photograph in its natural state.

I'm biased from my years of shooting and trading color slides. No second chances there!

yes and no... because in our world so much comes down the $$ you spend. I know there is a great deal of learning, formal and informal, when it comes to this art but at the end of the day if you know youre settings and optimal conditions... the person with the 1400 dollar SWA lens is going to produce a better shot than someone with the 250 dollar Nikkor base lens. This is where post-processing becomes OK to me... it allows people with smaller budgets to really slam home great images... it makes up for our inability to build up a 5K arsenal of lenses.

 

[Monorail Lime]

yes and no... because in our world so much comes down the $$ you spend. I know there is a great deal of learning, formal and informal, when it comes to this art but at the end of the day if you know youre settings and optimal conditions... the person with the 1400 dollar SWA lens is going to produce a better shot than someone with the 250 dollar Nikkor base lens. This is where post-processing becomes OK to me... it allows people with smaller budgets to really slam home great images... it makes up for our inability to build up a 5K arsenal of lenses.

I don't agree with you there. Many of the most famous photographs of the past century were captured with gear that is considered laughably obsolete by today's standards. There's a lot more to composition than just knowing the correct exposure settings and having the best possible lens for the conditions.

There are situations where post-processing is appropriate as has been the case throughout the entire history of photography. But more and more I see amateur photographers going overboard on cheap effects (especially HDR) to "improve" their images instead of putting forth the time and effort to learn exposure. Likewise cropping is all-too-often used inappropriately to fix photographs that were poorly composed, again leaving little incentive to learn the proper skills.

 

[NowInc]

Personally I see HDR as an effect, that can be pretty but not to be used as a cop out.

 

[DVC Mike]

Of course it's OK to crop. The camera is just as much of a tool to a photographer as Capture NX2, Lightroom 3, or Photoshop CS5.

I shoot most of the time with my White Balance set to Auto, and then pick my preferred WB later. I might underexpose a shot, knowing it's easier to pull the details back out of the shadows than recover blown highlights.

 

[ann0d]

I do, because sometimes there are people you just don't want in your pic or too much white space, or I want a closer up view. I always save the originals though.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I don't agree with you there. Many of the most famous photographs of the past century were captured with gear that is considered laughably obsolete by today's standards. There's a lot more to composition than just knowing the correct exposure settings and having the best possible lens for the conditions.

There are situations where post-processing is appropriate as has been the case throughout the entire history of photography. But more and more I see amateur photographers going overboard on cheap effects (especially HDR) to "improve" their images instead of putting forth the time and effort to learn exposure. Likewise cropping is all-too-often used inappropriately to fix photographs that were poorly composed, again leaving little incentive to learn the proper skills.

well, let me clarify... what I am saying is that if you take two people and place them in the same scenario with the exact same knowlegde technically and informal education... both are talented at framing shots, composition is right, exposure, metering, white balance all optimal...

same camera body... but one photographer has dedicated serious funds to serious glass and the other is working with entry level (which is what most people shoot with) then the difference is seen BUT the low end photographer can make up ground with PS and other post production programs... thats where I think it is 100% acceptable

I agree HDR is a little cheesy

 

[WDWFigment]

Are you guys serious? No offense, but statements like some I read above really perplex me. I realize some photographers actually believe these things. I call them "dinosaurs." Many aspects of photography have become antiquated and that's because so many photographers are resistant to change (I think this is likely because they were great in the dark room era but don't understand computers too well, and are bitter because of this).

Using the host of editing programs available today is absolutely no different than editing photos in the dark room. Ansel Adams edited photos in the dark room. He dodged, he burned, he cropped. Don't get me wrong, it's important to be able to create a good photo in the camera and not rely on Photoshop as a crutch, but to refuse to use certain tools in your arsenal? That's absurd.

As for HDR. HDR stands for High Dynamic Range; part of the reason it has become popular is because digital captures less dynamic range than film did, and both capture less dynamic range than the eye sees. HDR done right recreates what the eye saw when the photo was taken. HDR done wrong...well, it looks like clown barf. I hate when HDR is misused, but I don't hate the tool because it's misused. I also hate how many non-photographers are impressed with the unnatural, clownish looking HDR. But, such is life.

For example, one of the images below is HDR. Can you spot which one with certainty? If not, I have achieved my goal of creating realistic HDR.


A Mouse-Eye View of Main Street at Christmas by Tom Bricker (WDWFigment), on Flickr


The Magic of Disney Christmas by Tom Bricker (WDWFigment), on Flickr


The Long and Winding Road...to Cinderella Castle by Tom Bricker (WDWFigment), on Flickr

 

[ptaylor]

I would say the middle shot is HDR'd. Everything looks overexposed and shadowless. But then you might be throwing that one in there to trick us and make a point LOL - it may just be overexposed right in the camera.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I know the 3rd image is HDR... and its due to the pavement / bricks at the bottom of the image. The saturation and detail is just unattainable without any post processing.

I agree figment... computers are our friends. I see no problem

 

[NowInc]

Oh believe me, I'm all for post processing (Heck..its what I went to college for), but I also think PERSONALLY its more rewarding to get that shot (especially composition) right before even getting it near a computer. I know all too many people who just shoot and shoot and shoot and without worry just keep saying "I'll just fix it in post". I don't know, just seems wrong to me to rely on it.

 

[WDWFigment]

I would say the middle shot is HDR'd. Everything looks overexposed and shadowless. But then you might be throwing that one in there to trick us and make a point LOL - it may just be overexposed right in the camera.

Correct - and one of the things I dislike about HDR. Even after going back and increasing the blacks and contrast, it still looks a little flat there. One of the tradeoffs of HDR, I guess.

I know the 3rd image is HDR... and its due to the pavement / bricks at the bottom of the image. The saturation and detail is just unattainable without any post processing.

I agree figment... computers are our friends. I see no problem

Incorrect - the third image is a single RAW file edited in ACR and Photoshop CS5. No HDR treatment. The look of the pavement is a result of fill light and clarity increases in ACR.

Oh believe me, I'm all for post processing (Heck..its what I went to college for), but I also think PERSONALLY its more rewarding to get that shot (especially composition) right before even getting it near a computer. I know all too many people who just shoot and shoot and shoot and without worry just keep saying "I'll just fix it in post". I don't know, just seems wrong to me to rely on it.

I agree with that completely.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Correct - and one of the things I dislike about HDR. Even after going back and increasing the blacks and contrast, it still looks a little flat there. One of the tradeoffs of HDR, I guess.



Incorrect - the third image is a single RAW file edited in ACR and Photoshop CS5. No HDR treatment. The look of the pavement is a result of fill light and clarity increases in ACR.



I agree with that completely.

I stand corrected!

 

[Epcotian]

Thanks for the interesting discussion! It has also helped soothe my photography self-image! I see all these spectacular shots on different websites and am frustrated that I can never get colors in my shots to really POP like these do. Now I realize I'm not as bad with a camera as I thought I was. I'm just an uninspired post-processor!

Seriously though, I think it's informative for those of us who want to take great shots like these but misunderstand what's involved in their production. There was a time when I thought people were getting results like this straight out of the camera.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Thanks for the interesting discussion! It has also helped soothe my photography self-image! I see all these spectacular shots on different websites and am frustrated that I can never get colors in my shots to really POP like these do. Now I realize I'm not as bad with a camera as I thought I was. I'm just an uninspired post-processor!

Seriously though, I think it's informative for those of us who want to take great shots like these but misunderstand what's involved in their production. There was a time when I thought people were getting results like this straight out of the camera.

EVERY form of media... every form, is FULL of PP (post production). Its just the name of the game, the ends justify the means. When film went to the back burner, not dead but almost in non-art worlds, the computer became just as important as the cameras we use today.

 

[CP_alum08]

Thanks for the interesting discussion! It has also helped soothe my photography self-image! I see all these spectacular shots on different websites and am frustrated that I can never get colors in my shots to really POP like these do. Now I realize I'm not as bad with a camera as I thought I was. I'm just an uninspired post-processor!

Seriously though, I think it's informative for those of us who want to take great shots like these but misunderstand what's involved in their production. There was a time when I thought people were getting results like this straight out of the camera.

You'd be surprised what came come straight out of the camera if you have the right background knowledge. I'm all for as little post-production as possible. It is difficult though, when you see great photos of WDW, or anything else, that you want to try and emulate and come to find that it requires a great deal of post to achieve.

As for their being rules; I say screw them! All of the great artists were just that; great, because they challenged the traditional rules of their trade. I've read MANY photography books that simply tell you what is acceptable photography and what is not. This is BS to me. As long as you are not required to produce certain images (like for your job or to put in a gallery) I say do whatever you want that looks good to you.* If someone else doesn't like what you shoot, oh well. Again, as long as it's just a hobby I think people need to stop being so concerned with the 'rules' of photography and just have fun.

* that is not to say that the traditional rules of photography do not help in creating a pleasing image, they do. But it's much more fun and usually rewarding to explore new concepts and ideas than it is to just follow the basic principals.

 

[Epcotian]

EVERY form of media... every form, is FULL of PP (post production). Its just the name of the game, the ends justify the means. When film went to the back burner, not dead but almost in non-art worlds, the computer became just as important as the cameras we use today.

Please don't think I was being critical. I think it is very often something that people who are buying their first DSLR don't realize. It would probably save a lot of people a lot of money if they knew that before buying one. Being a lifelong struggling guitar player, it's the same with that hobby. Many people buy little Johnny an electric guitar and amp and the kid wonders why he can't get it to sound like U2 (to cite an extreme example), not realizing how much processing goes into making those sounds. Now, you can make a guitar sound great without all that stuff, but you can't make it sound like THAT without at least some of that stuff. KWIM?

 

[ddbowdoin]

Please don't think I was being critical. I think it is very often something that people who are buying their first DSLR don't realize. It would probably save a lot of people a lot of money if they knew that before buying one. Being a lifelong struggling guitar player, it's the same with that hobby. Many people buy little Johnny an electric guitar and amp and the kid wonders why he can't get it to sound like U2 (to cite an extreme example), not realizing how much processing goes into making those sounds. Now, you can make a guitar sound great without all that stuff, but you can't make it sound like THAT without at least some of that stuff. KWIM?

I know exactly what you mean... to me, this is like buying a Ferrari body and having a ford engine, sure the Ford will get to you A and B but not as fast or as stylish as the Ferrari. I see to many people laboring over their body, and then strapping on the cheapest lens possible, shooting JPEG and then posting why their images arent as strong as what they see elsewhere.

Its a combination of personal education (formal, techinical ability), equipment (quality glass), post work, imagination, and creativity. You need all... hence why I'm writing this from my office instead of being a professional

 

[Unomas]

I see nothing wrong with post-processing and using every tool available. Photography is a hobby for me and part of the fun is editing my photos. So I don't really care what the traditionalist think. Do what makes you happy.