# How tightly do you frame your shots & and do you crop?



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

Some time ago, I've been told by an alleged pro photog that real photogs don't crop, or at least only do minor angle correction. I am wondering if this is true, or it is an old-school fairy tale from the analog age that falls into the category "real photogs don't use auto iso and only shoot in full m".

I've gotten much better framing my shots, but I wonder if squeezing the last pixels out of your camera makes sense all the time. If I have a hard time framing a wildlife shot just right to get max. resolution, the Nikon guy next to me just shoots 24 or 36 mp and then crops some, gaining flexibility (aspect ratio, different framing) while probably not loosing much iq for usual print/screen sizes. 

When shooting raw stock you cannot crop, or with 1000+ shots of an event you of course don't want to crop some pixels from every one - so a 100% vf (which my 6d doesn't have) makes sense in these cases. But I also have recently experienced some situations where a couple of pixels to one side could have really helped in postprocessing, but I always have this nagging feeling that leaving more space around a subject simply isn't considered "proper".

Thus the question: *How do you do it - better safe than sorry, or go for the full "no cropping, please" experience?*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2013)

It's there for a reason, and I use it without hesitation.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's there for a reason, and I use it without hesitation.



By now, I'm also tending towards this - esp. since the 6D has the af points much more in the center than the 60d, so getting anything perfect framing means either mf or more focus & recompose = loosing more shots due to "thin dof out of focus" and "subject flew away" problems.

On the other hand, getting the framing right in camera does save postprocessing time and has a big training effect since you learn to compose in place and really have to know your equipment - so I'm undecided which way to jump.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> On the other hand, getting the framing right in camera does save postprocessing time and has a big training effect since you learn to compose in place and really have to know your equipment - so I'm undecided which way to jump.



Why do you have to 'jump'? You can crop some shots, not crop others. Note that if you frame _perfectly_, you'd also better get your camera perfectly level, since rotation results in cropping. Automatic lens corrections often result in some cropping, too.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why do you have to 'jump'? You can crop some shots, not crop others.



Sure, there's not question about large series of event shots getting right in camera - I'm mostly wondering about the wildlife stuff.



neuroanatomist said:


> Note that if you frame _perfectly_, you'd also better get your camera perfectly level, since rotation results in cropping.



Indeed, that's the very issue why I've written this thread and am wondering if leaving more space - no matter what alleged pro photogs might say - isn't a smart idea.

I recently have done a lot of wildlife macro in awkward angles and positions (like standing waist-high in cold water with my €3000 gadget 1cm above water level), and because I missed the level the framing got to tight and the shot was lost after rotation. Btw. I've now installed the Eg-D screen for that, it's great, very unobtrusive unless I want to see it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Indeed, that's the very issue why I've written this thread and am wondering if leaving more space - no matter what alleged pro photogs might say - isn't a smart idea.
> 
> I recently have done a lot of wildlife macro in awkward angles and positions (like standing waist-high in cold water with my €3000 gadget 1cm above water level), and because I missed the level the framing got to tight and the shot was lost after rotation. Btw. I've now installed the Eg-D screen for that, it's great, very unobtrusive unless I want to see it.



This was a bigger issue with lower MP cameras. With 1, 2, or 4 MP, every pixel counted more than it does now. I also try to leave a little space for rotations, perspective corrections. That was one nice thing about my previous camera. It didn't have a 100% VF, and I knew that if saw it in the VF, I'd have a little margin around the edges. Now I have to be more careful because that margin is gone. There have been occassional cases where I couldn't correct it as much as I'd like because I'd be making the image worse compositionally if I corrected it fully.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> There have been occassional cases where I couldn't correct it as much as I'd like because I'd be making the image worse compositionally if I corrected it fully.



I agree, and for this reason & what I'm doing I like the 6d & 60d <100% vf - but I am almost always too fearful to write it, because this will make sure you'll get flamed to a crisp from people with "real" cameras :-o


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 7, 2013)

that's silly. i have my trust 50 mm lens and I want to take a picture of that lion when he yawns... but I left my 400mm at home... so I guess I should walk right up to the lion and wait for him to yawn.... because cropping is taboo.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> that's silly. i have my trust 50 mm lens and I want to take a picture of that lion when he yawns... but I left my 400mm at home... so I guess I should walk right up to the lion and wait for him to yawn.... because cropping is taboo.



I admit cropping 10% out of 20mp will just result "remembrance" shot, and one might decide to skip it and not clutter the hd with the raw file...

... but I've been told even better - the alleged pro photog I'm ranting about in this thread told me not only that real photogs never crop, but also that of course he never needs to do it. And he was using a prime lens but almost never moved a foot! That's when I realized the guy is an idiot and I'd better double-check whatever he tells/told me


----------



## Skirball (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> On the other hand, getting the framing right in camera does save postprocessing time and has a big training effect since you learn to compose in place and really have to know your equipment - so I'm undecided which way to jump.



I'm sure this could be true for big wedding/event photogs, but I'd guess that for the majority of people reducing their time spent cropping won't have a huge impact on their PP times. Press C/R (Photoshop/LR), adjust, accept. If it takes more than 15 seconds there probably isn't a "right" framing anyway.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > that's silly. i have my trust 50 mm lens and I want to take a picture of that lion when he yawns... but I left my 400mm at home... so I guess I should walk right up to the lion and wait for him to yawn.... because cropping is taboo.
> ...



there's a Louis ck joke... I found the secret to having the body you want.. you just have to want a really bad body. 

I guess the same goes for bad photography.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 7, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> that's silly. i have my trust 50 mm lens and I want to take a picture of that lion when he yawns... but I left my 400mm at home... so I guess I should walk right up to the lion and wait for him to yawn.... because cropping is taboo.



It would be better for you to walk up and get the close up without cropping.

At least it would be for us still in the jeep that didn't forget our 400mm's. 
We in the jeep might get some shots that can go viral on the internet of you and the lion.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 7, 2013)

it is of course OK to crop, rotate and fiddle with all the things PS and the others let you fiddle with. But I still believe you´ll become a better photographer if you try to frame things right from the start. Wildlife, sports and other activities, where you don´t control the distance and your subjects are all over the place, the new tools we got with high mega pixle digital cameras are great. Accompanied with big range zooms, like an 18-270mm etc. you can sit on your ass and get an image of most things. But they will not be great (most likely). 

I don´t claim to be a great photographer, but I´m working on it. I try to work with whatever natural light I have and avoid flash. I try to avoid firing away, because images are for free and I got 12 fps available, but instead think the image through and push the shutter when I believe its right. To some extent I know it´s silly, but on the other hand, it gives me great pleasure when I nail it. That is also one of the reasons why I, on average, shoot better images with primes than with zooms. Primes makes me work, whereas zooms makes me lazy.

But again, I think everyone should think for them selves and figure out what works best for them. Condescending snobs, who know all the answers are in general a PITA and should be treated as such.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> there's a Louis ck joke... I found the secret to having the body you want.. you just have to want a really bad body. I guess the same goes for bad photography.



) that's a good one, I'll remember that 




takesome1 said:


> It would be better for you to walk up and get the close up without cropping.



Zoo. Lion. Fences. Long, sharp teeth.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you have to 'jump'? You can crop some shots, not crop others.
> ...



For the most part, your best shots of wildlife will be those that do not require cropping.

Cropping is something we have to do because we do not have a long enough lens or we can not get close. It is something to do because we have to not because we want to.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > It would be better for you to walk up and get the close up without cropping.
> ...



How about sticking your hands through the fence so you can get a closer shot. That would be good.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> How about sticking your hands through the fence so you can get a closer shot. That would be good.



Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of serious injuries by this very method - all in the cause of perfect p&s or mobile phone shots, of course :-> 



Jackson_Bill said:


> I take it you must be using a zoom of some sort.



I'm thinking of macro wildlife here, you can adjust the framing a lot by moving a few inches with the prime macro lens. But yes, for the rest I use a 70-300L zoom and often zoom around until getting the best framing, and if it's at the long or short end I move myself.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 7, 2013)

I don't think a _real _ pro photographer would tell you never to crop, at least not since digital cameras have become greater than about 4mp as another poster has just said. Also in the days of film we really didn't want to crop 35mm much, but boy have times changed with the digital 35mm type of camera. 

If it is possible to maximise the scene you're taking on the sensor then do, but as Neuro has pointed out even a small degree of out of level horizon ( say 0.5 degrees ) crops the frame a lot when you straighten. As photographic artists we are all attempting to maximise the technical results from our equipment so I wouldn't habitually want to have allot of wasted space on the sensor, but reality is that you can crop a 20mp FF in half and still get a sizeable enlargement from it. 

Just a personal note: I really wouldn't get hung up about 100% viewfinders vs 97%. it's no issue as long as you are aware of it IMO.


----------



## pensive tomato (Oct 7, 2013)

I'm all for careful framing and composition, but my edges are not sacred (LR/CR "messes" them up all the time with lens corrections).

Also what about aspect ratios? Are we then supposed to be slaves to our cameras' sensor size? Or perhaps change the settings before taking a picture with a different aspect ratio? For example, I've found that squares worked better for some of my pictures, and I like having a bit of flexibility on where to put the square via cropping (fancy schmancy photog be damned!).


----------



## dstppy (Oct 7, 2013)

I'm pretty much with everyone else:
Crop if you have to

As I got better, I found I have to do a lot less cropping and less frequently . . . that's basic experience once you get to know what you want in the frame.

I *DO* get irritated when I loan out my camera to a family member and have to constantly crop in PP. It's like: what were you TRYING to take a picture of?


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> ... but I've been told even better - the alleged pro photog I'm ranting about in this thread told me not only that real photogs never crop, but also that of course he never needs to do it. And he was using a prime lens but almost never moved a foot! That's when I realized the guy is an idiot and I'd better double-check whatever he tells/told me



Brilliant! Misdirection at its finest! Did you catch sight of his assistants climbing over the fence to get closer while he calls attention to himself by bloviating?


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 7, 2013)

pensive tomato said:


> Also what about aspect ratios? Are we then supposed to be slaves to our cameras' sensor size?



My impression: Yes! The still world seems to be seen through 2:3, just like everything moves in 16:9 nowadays. I really like to re-frame my shots, but I seem to be one of the few people who does that looking around, and I'm always feeling mighty "noobish" doing it.

But talking of cropping: for 2:3->16:9 I usually take two shots, one with more space to one side, because cutting a center-weighted subject to the side of 16:9 ("wallpaper-style") looses a lot of resolution.


----------



## fugu82 (Oct 7, 2013)

I find myself framing too tightly on occasion, probably from all those years of shooting reversal film. Then I kick myself when I run out of space trying to correct perspectives.


----------



## ugly_bokeh (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Some time ago, I've been told by an alleged pro photog that real photogs don't crop, or at least only do minor angle correction. I am wondering if this is true, or it is an old-school fairy tale from the analog age that falls into the category "real photogs don't use auto iso and only shoot in full m".





Marsu42 said:


> ...the alleged pro photog I'm ranting about in this thread told me not only that real photogs never crop, but also that of course he never needs to do it.



I wonder how he handles alternative aspect ratios...maybe he just re-sizes to fit? That could be interesting....


----------



## DJD (Oct 7, 2013)

Do any of you guys ever print your photo for framing? An "8x10" mat covers .25in. on each edge of an 8x10 print. I've found it really helps to have some extra space around your subject to account for that and/or cropping it for different aspect ratios prints ( i.e. 4x6 or 5x7 or 8x10 or ...?). 

There is no way to "frame it perfectly in the camera" and account for all these cases. 

Cheers,
DJD


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Oct 7, 2013)

Cropping is nothing evil.
Even if some of the icons like HCB liked their prints uncropped its sometimes necessary.
Otherwise an angle correction would look worse than before.
Or how do I get the "golden ratio" (1:1,618)?
If it is going to be framed this is something to think before printing.
Yes I crop!


----------



## ablearcher (Oct 7, 2013)

Every time I frame tight on a subject, I go nuts when i get to the part of my workflow when I have to print. 

Cropping is just a part of the process, no big deal really...


----------



## Valvebounce (Oct 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of serious injuries by this very method - all in the cause of perfect p&s or mobile phone shots, of course :->



I stood for several minutes at a zoo waiting for the silverback gorilla to turn round and grab the arm of the idiot that was prodding him through the bars, I thought that would make a killer photograph! :
I think I have the print of the guy prodding the gorilla somewhere which I took just in case the gorilla needed defence evidence! 8)

Cheers Graham.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 8, 2013)

So, all those pros who shot 2 1/4" square format film Hasselblads, never cropped?

I do try to frame things perfectly in the viewfinder, often to my chagrin. I have to constantly remind myself "what if I want an 8x10?" Sometimes a nicely framed 2x3 perspective image will crop nicely to a 4x5 perspective. Sometimes, I have to back out a bit to allow for cropping.

Sports is another are that I often crop. I always shoot single-point focus and try to bump the focus point around the viewfinder to accommodate my desired framing. But, there are times when the action is too quick and I resort to the center focus point and crop later.

Real photographers use the tools available to them to get the image that they seek. Cropping is just another tool.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 8, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Some time ago, I've been told by an alleged pro photog that real photogs don't crop, or at least only do minor angle correction. I am wondering if this is true, or it is an old-school fairy tale from the analog age that falls into the category "real photogs don't use auto iso and only shoot in full m".



I shoot a lot from a canoe or a kayak and it can be a challenge to keep the camera level as you are being bounced around by waves.... straightening horizons is very necessary for me.

In bird photography, very often only the center part of the image is on the target.... cropping becomes very important..


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 8, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > How about sticking your hands through the fence so you can get a closer shot. That would be good.
> ...



I seem to recall someone visiting a zoo who climbed into a pen with a polar bear to get a better shot and ended up feeding the bears instead....


----------



## m (Oct 8, 2013)

Photography _is_ cropping.


----------



## Skirball (Oct 8, 2013)

That was deep.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 8, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Some time ago, I've been told by an alleged pro photog that real photogs don't crop, or at least only do minor angle correction. I am wondering if this is true, or it is an old-school fairy tale from the analog age that falls into the category "real photogs don't use auto iso and only shoot in full m".
> ...



Agree. For these situations, it is hard to frame the picture correctly. It is wise to leave room for cropping.
However, We should avoid cropping when ever it is possible to avoid wasting of pixels. Why buy a high mp camera and use only half of them??? Do we want to turn a 5D into a 40D??


----------



## Rocky (Oct 8, 2013)

m said:


> Photography _is_ cropping.


So in the good old days, Slide shooters are not photographers????


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 8, 2013)

I always try to leave room to crop. Sometimes too much room, but its still better than cutting off part of the subject. I was photographing the horse riders at our local Grange Trail ride Sunday using my 24-70 MK II and 5D MK III. I would have preferred a longer zoom, like the 24-105L, but I gave it a go with the 24-70.

The riders usually do not stop for me, sometimes they smile. They also sometimes group together so I end up unable to get individual shots, or crop different persons out of a group.

The 24-70 images were so good that I could easily crop different riders out of a photo and have a usable image. I did it in previous years with the 24-105L, but I really like the results from the 24-70 MK II.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 8, 2013)

Whatever works as long as IQ isn't diminished by so much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2013)

DJD said:


> Do any of you guys ever print your photo for framing? An "8x10" mat covers .25in. on each edge of an 8x10 print.



Sure...and it turns out you can crop in post-post. 

On the wall in one of the kids' rooms is an 11x14" frame for which I had ordered an 8x10" print...I wasn't paying attention, and the frame as purchased was matted for a 5x7" print. Before running out to get a new mat, I tried the 8x10" print under the 5x7" mat, and decided it was an improvement; my wife preferred the tighter framing, too. Fortune favors the bold...and apparently sometimes the inattentive.


----------



## docholliday (Oct 8, 2013)

I've cropped the hell out of some shots, printed them 40x60, and gotten paid by the customer without a problem. They thought the shot was perfect...and that was after a > 50% crop out of the frame. The viewing distance for the prints was > 10ft, so the about 100ppi wasn't noticeable.

When I shot Hasselbad, I cropped. I even had a mask that replicated the frame edge markings on the crop so that the end result was still "full frame". I've also cropped every rectangular format (including pano 4x10s) out of that square. I miss those days, never having to turn the camera!


----------



## luckydude (Oct 8, 2013)

Eldar said:


> it is of course OK to crop, rotate and fiddle with all the things PS and the others let you fiddle with. But I still believe you´ll become a better photographer if you try to frame things right from the start.



One other consideration is for stuff like commercial sports or weddings where you are doing it cheap. If you have to post process you are losing money.

I don't do that sort of work but I know people who do and I was surprised to learn they shot jpeg unto they explained that post processing cut into profits.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 8, 2013)

I might crop with fl's from 70mm and at 200 although I really try to frame right in the first place. I used to think I could just crop later, and discovered a lot of my wide shots had to be crop to not so wide and that took away impact. 

To pay attention to framing when shooting makes me think more about the whole image, what do I need to include/exclude and my angles etc. And it' made my horizons much straighter (VF level FTW)


----------



## candyman (Oct 8, 2013)

I sure use availble posibilities (crop, exposure compensation, colorimprovement etc) to improve my photos. I don't use photoshop to alter image subjects (add and remove etc)


----------



## sanj (Oct 8, 2013)

Skirball said:


> That was deep.



Hahahaha


----------



## sanj (Oct 8, 2013)

I crop ALL my photos. To some degree or the other.


----------



## Faaier (Oct 8, 2013)

I find that cropping the pictures afterwards is a good learning school for better framing. You eventually start to see what 'errors' you are making. Angle, trying to capture too much on the photo (and catching nothing)... But I will always leave a bit extra, because cropping afterwards is always better then cropping feet on-camera!


----------



## Northstar (Oct 8, 2013)

I shoot a lot of sports where cropping is a necessity.


----------



## greger (Oct 8, 2013)

I shoot the best framing I can get in Camera then crop in PS if needed. I will use any means at my disposal to get the printed pic that I want or if I can't then I won't print that pic and will move on to other photos. 
I cropped many pics to get what I wanted. Then I bought the lenses that would let me crop in camera the 100L Macro and 100-400L zoom. I still crop. I might own the longest lens Canon makes someday and still find I crop with pics from that lens. ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 8, 2013)

I frame for the shot I want, and cropping is something I rarely do.
I do fix tilt where the horizon is in the shot; the 5DMkII viewfinder coverage is slightly less than what gets on the frame so that gives a little flexibility for rotational cropping.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 8, 2013)

What do I shoot?
Nature (Landscape, Macro), interesting patterns, some table top and similar subjects - no action on a regular base.

Answer to the cropping question:
I try to avoid cropping - except for planned cropping into another aspect ration. For that I really like live view: What you see is what you get and it gives me a similar experience like the Rolleicord or Mamiya 645 - more distance to the picture which is presented on a flat screen.

Why?
It slows down the act of taking pictures and leads to (better) composition. Hopefully. Combine that with a tripod and a great head (Manfrotto 468 Ball Head), it allows "meditative" photography not (or barely) limited by the availability of light.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 8, 2013)

Mostly I don't crop (old habit of laziness & good technique), but when I do I try not to crop more than 40% off the photograph. But back in the film days, I always framed my shots a smidge wider ... those old slide holders, they automatically cropped 1mm off each side.


----------



## m (Oct 8, 2013)

Rocky said:


> m said:
> 
> 
> > Photography _is_ cropping.
> ...



They are. Why would they not be?


----------



## iron-t (Oct 8, 2013)

I'm constantly trying to improve my composition/framing to get more dynamic and better shots, and 99% of the time I've of course been relying on my view in the finder for framing. Sometimes you can't get the kid AND the sand castle AND the water (or whatever features you want framed) in the shot without contorting yourself into an odd position, making it hard to get the angle right. Just a few times too often I've fallen into the trap of leaving too little room at the edges only to find that angle correction is needed and part of my subject is thereby cut off, ruining the image. I'm thus learning to leave at least A LITTLE cropping room, which the 5D3's 22MP accommodates easily.

On my 60D because of the few/far between AF points (and the practical usability of, pretty much, only the center point) I often had to crop just to get a well-composed image. It worked fine in general.


----------



## Zv (Oct 8, 2013)

I crop a lot. Almost every shot is cropped to some extent. With 21MP a little cropping in post is easier than wasting time perfecting the framing of every shot. (Don't get me wrong - if I have time I will frame to near perfection in camara but not when walking about doing street photography!)

Also, I like tightly framed shots with the 135 and 70-200. Ideally I'd like to always carry a telephoto lens with me. My problem is that I like wide angles around 17-24mm AND telephoto shots of 100mm and over but hate switching lens. The 24-105 is one solution, I guess.


----------



## MonteGraham (Oct 8, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> that's silly. i have my trust 50 mm lens and I want to take a picture of that lion when he yawns... but I left my 400mm at home... so I guess I should walk right up to the lion and wait for him to yawn.... because cropping is taboo.



+2


----------



## Policar (Oct 8, 2013)

Only to change aspect ratio or to correct for perspective distortion.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 8, 2013)

since I went full frame, I expect to crop. I shot a good deal of sports and I use a 1.4 teleconvertor but I'm not going to get the shot I want without stepping into the field or buying a really expensive lens. 

having said that, k was at a game on Sunday feeling pretty good about myself and my mkiii and 70-200 ismkii, and then some guy comes out with a cannon sized Nikon lens... I'm guessing 800mm and it reminded me that someone else will have s bigger #/&&, but it is all about how you use it.


----------



## Zv (Oct 8, 2013)

luckydude said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > it is of course OK to crop, rotate and fiddle with all the things PS and the others let you fiddle with. But I still believe you´ll become a better photographer if you try to frame things right from the start.
> ...



I don't follow. Surely more time spent PP = more billable time to the customer and therefore more profit! 

For me I don't care how long it takes I'm not handing over trashy shots. Money comes and goes, reputation lasts a lot longer.


----------



## Valvebounce (Oct 9, 2013)

Zv said:


> luckydude said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Hi Zv
I fully understand and agree with what you say about reputation, but would it not be true that a wedding (and possibly sports shooting) would be contracted to a fixed price hence the statement that PP = lost profit as you can't add to the price?

Cheers Graham.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 9, 2013)

Zv said:


> luckydude said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



So true...such a good point. I've seen many photog's produce and distribute photos that are very "average" at best....not good for your brand/reputation.


----------



## Zv (Oct 9, 2013)

Valvebounce said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > luckydude said:
> ...



The fixed price should cover your PP time. I always include that in my invoice and in my contract. If I need more time then that's on me, that's just part of the service. Depends how far you're willing to go. It's like working overtime but without pay. Sure, that is incentive for me to get the job done quicker and next time I can adjust my price accordingly. 

Though I do see if you had multiple jobs lined up and your time overlapped it could potentially lose you money. Again that's just poor planning.


----------



## Skirball (Oct 9, 2013)

Zv said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



And if your fixed price doesn't get you the job, then you don't have to worry about PP anyway.


----------



## Zv (Oct 9, 2013)

Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up. 

Well he didn't have to cook it so it's cheaper, right? 

No. You pay for the steak AND the cooking of it. 

Even uploading, backing up, sorting and rating is part of the editing process. Maybe some cropping thrown in at least. Then there's output sharpening. So saying you don't do PP is basically jpeg in camera straight to client, no middle man PC work at all. I'm sure some people work like that and make money (excluding sports photogs on deadlines where the editor needs the shots right away) but they can't be all that great which is why they value their own work so cheaply. 

Sorry I just feel really strongly about people who don't take the time and effort to produce high quality images and call themselves "professionals". (Again not talking about sports togs who work on deadlines).


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 9, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> but I always have this nagging feeling that leaving more space around a subject simply isn't considered "proper".


I don't really care about what the so called "pro" photographers (or anyone else) consider something "proper" ... photography is my hobby that gives me a great deal of joy and happiness ... if cropping an image gives me the look I want in an image, I'll do it. Having said that, I've seen professional bird photographers cropping their images to death ... I suppose to each his/her own. Generally though, when I use a tripod I tend not to crop my images as I have enough time to compose the image the way I want. But its when I'm doing run and gun situations, I tend to crop - in those situations I deliberately leave a little room for cropping in PP.


----------



## Dick (Oct 9, 2013)

I crop images a lot. 

1) The wider I shoot, the more I tend to crop when there are people in the photos. For some reason I prefer tightly framed shots when taking pics of people.

2) I'm using a 5D3 and the AF points are in limited spots. When I use servo (quite often), framing a moving object correctly with AF point location limitations to consider is very hard at least for me. This causes me to crop the images in PP to get the wanted framing.

3) I also like to try different photo rotations and crops. Often I end up with something better than what I could have thought of while taking the pictures. Some unexpected facial expression can for example work nicely with a rotated photo.

4) Instead of removing unwanted objects in PS, I prefer cropping when ever possible.

5) I shoot lots of insects. Most of them with a 2x magnification due to gear limitations. Because of this it is almost a necessity to crop a lot. Otherwise there'll be tiny insects in pictures of blurred crap.


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 9, 2013)

I tend to printing and mount a lot of photos. So not only do I need my image to fit into the intended print size, but I also lose a few millimetres behind a mounting board. Consequently, I often frame a little more loosely than others.


----------



## ckwaller (Oct 9, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> I tend to printing and mount a lot of photos. So not only do I need my image to fit into the intended print size, but I also lose a few millimetres behind a mounting board. Consequently, I often frame a little more loosely than others.



This.

I tend to think of the endgame for the photo: will it live online or "onwall?" If it's the latter, then I tend to crop relatively loosely, as long as the general composition is where I want it to be. This way, if I were to have the photo printed on canvas and wrapped, I've got a bit of wiggle room wherein the edges are wrapped, and the main, composed part of the image is preserved fully on the front of the canvas.


----------



## steven kessel (Oct 9, 2013)

My hobby is nature -- especially bird -- photography and I almost never leave a photo "as shot." With the subjects in motion most of the time it's usually impossible to get the perfect composition in the viewfinder. Also, I find that there's usually a lot of extraneous background in my photos even with some pretty powerful optics (400DO + 1.4 extender). So, substantial cropping becomes a necessary evil, if only to present a viewable subject.


----------



## Skirball (Oct 9, 2013)

Zv said:


> Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.
> 
> Well he didn't have to cook it so it's cheaper, right?
> 
> No. You pay for the steak AND the cooking of it.



It's nothing like that, unless you were in the market for frozen steak. Perhaps a better analogy would be a steak at a fine restaurant and a 'tube steak' from Weinerschnitzel. I'm not going to eat the latter, but someone out there does, or they wouldn't be in business.

I agree with your philosophy, I don't even let my wife have photos off my camera for her Facebook until I've done my thing, but I'm not here to put my philosophy on others. There are plenty of run and gun markets out there, from Sports guys, to the ultrabudget Realestate guys, to journalist, to business planning types, to even - sadly - wedding photographers. If a market didn't exist for them, they wouldn't be out there. I think there's a better way to do it, but if it works for them who am I to tell them otherwise.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 9, 2013)

Skirball said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.
> ...



don't disparage Weinerschnitzel... I make a point to eat there every time I go back to my home town... and of course I realize why I left.


----------



## Botts (Oct 9, 2013)

Zv said:


> Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.
> 
> Even uploading, backing up, sorting and rating is part of the editing process. Maybe some cropping thrown in at least. Then there's output sharpening. So saying you don't do PP is basically jpeg in camera straight to client, no middle man PC work at all. I'm sure some people work like that and make money (excluding sports photogs on deadlines where the editor needs the shots right away) but they can't be all that great which is why they value their own work so cheaply.



I've run into this before. I didn't want unedited images to save money, I was paying the photog the same either way. I really liked her images, we just didn't share the same post philosophy. I told her to rate and edit down, but send me her edited JPEGs and RAWs.

Also, I was willing to spend a serious amount of time editing each image, far more than she would be able to. I'm not opposed to compositing faces from one shot on to another, if for example, I looked really good in one, and my fiancé blinked and vice versa. My fiancé is a blinker with ETTL, so I'm used to doing this for her. Unless you take the time to use manual flash she'll blink in over 80% of shots with ETTL.

It let me sharpen to my output, and resize to my needs, I was also able to composite multiple exposures as necessary, she took beautiful photos, and I retouched them how I like and it worked out great.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Oct 9, 2013)

Whenever I read or hear blanketed statements starting with "real pro photographers..." I just take their opinion with a grain of salt.

To answer your question, I take into consideration what my client wants before deciding whether to compose tightly or leave room for cropping. In some cases a client needs photos for a specific magazine spread or website design in which the images will rarely be used in their native 2:3 or 3:2 aspect ratio. In these circumstances I always ask for the specific image guidelines in order to meet their deliverables because there's nothing worse than having to redo an entire photo shoot.

In addition to the idea of composing tightly, one must also consider the flaws of the specific lens they're using. Whether it be barrel distortion, CA, pincussioning, or vignetting.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 10, 2013)

Skirball said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.
> ...


It is a perfect analogy by Zv. 
But what you said is not, coz if you were in the market for frozen steak, you won't go to a restaurant, you'd go to the frozen meat section of the store or a butcher.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 10, 2013)

Zv said:


> Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.


Well said.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 10, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.
> ...


Throw a raw egg on top, and it is called a steak tartar. Actually quite good, provided you have the right quality meat and you don´t get it too often


----------



## Zv (Oct 10, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 10, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...


Not when it is out of the freezer


----------



## Steve Todd (Oct 10, 2013)

I don't get it, I guess I'm showing my age, but I have thousands of color transparencies (slide film) that are exposed, framed, orientated (level), focused and composed properly! And they were all done without the ability to see the exposed images until they came back from the lab! Remember slide film only had 1/3 of a stop latitude, so exposures had to be virtually perfect. What am I missing here? I have always strived to get the image correct, in the camera! I am not knocking digitial, I own several of them and haven't used film for several years. However, I wonder what has become of basic photographic skills. We used to have faith in our equipment and in our ability (skill) as photographers. Can you imagine what people today would stress over if the had to wait until they were home to see what they shot, let alone wait days or weeks! With film, we never gave it a second thought, it was just the way it was! It sure seems to me that many of today's photographers are really just "image makers!", relying on post production (editing) to correct their errors when capturing the basic image in the camera. Oh my, how things have changed.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 10, 2013)

Steve Todd said:


> I don't get it, I guess I'm showing my age, but I have thousands of color transparencies (slide film) that are exposed, framed, orientated (level), focused and composed properly! And they were all done without the ability to see the exposed images until they came back from the lab! Remember slide film only had 1/3 of a stop latitude, so exposures had to be virtually perfect. What am I missing here? I have always strived to get the image correct, in the camera! I am not knocking digitial, I own several of them and haven't used film for several years. However, I wonder what has become of basic photographic skills. We used to have faith in our equipment and in our ability (skill) as photographers. Can you imagine what people today would stress over if the had to wait until they were home to see what they shot, let alone wait days or weeks! With film, we never gave it a second thought, it was just the way it was! It sure seems to me that many of today's photographers are really just "image makers!", relying on post production (editing) to correct their errors when capturing the basic image in the camera. Oh my, how things have changed



Excellent point. I was (am) inthe same boat. I shot Kodakchrome and Ektachrome for many many years. With Dslr, I became very careless. But I got the pictures I want by shootin a lot more pictures. "Memory is free".


----------



## Eldar (Oct 10, 2013)

Rocky said:


> Steve Todd said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get it, I guess I'm showing my age, but I have thousands of color transparencies (slide film) that are exposed, framed, orientated (level), focused and composed properly! And they were all done without the ability to see the exposed images until they came back from the lab! Remember slide film only had 1/3 of a stop latitude, so exposures had to be virtually perfect. What am I missing here? I have always strived to get the image correct, in the camera! I am not knocking digitial, I own several of them and haven't used film for several years. However, I wonder what has become of basic photographic skills. We used to have faith in our equipment and in our ability (skill) as photographers. Can you imagine what people today would stress over if the had to wait until they were home to see what they shot, let alone wait days or weeks! With film, we never gave it a second thought, it was just the way it was! It sure seems to me that many of today's photographers are really just "image makers!", relying on post production (editing) to correct their errors when capturing the basic image in the camera. Oh my, how things have changed
> ...


I have the same history. With slide film, the only real option was to get exposure and framing right from the start. A great Norwegian photographer, Morten Krogvold, whom I admire a lot ( http://www.krogvold.com/index.php?nr=3 ), is very clear in his teaching that the work needs to be done prior to pushing the shutter and I fully agree. Yes, we now have post processing tools that can fix and trix with almost anything, but you always get a better end result if you did the right things to begin with.


----------



## Skirball (Oct 10, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



That was my point, people don't go to the market for frozen steak, so the analogy doesn't work. Evidently you missed the point.

There is a market for minimalist PP photography. It exists, people make a living shooting photographs and passing them onto the end user with minimal to no PP. You may not care for it, I don't care for it, but it exists, so there's a market. In his analogy, people do go to restaurants to buy frozen meat. As you said, people don’t do that, they go to the market. The analogy isn’t perfect.


----------



## jointdoc (Oct 10, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Steve Todd said:
> ...



+1


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 10, 2013)

Steve Todd said:


> I don't get it, I guess I'm showing my age, but I have thousands of color transparencies (slide film) that are exposed, framed, orientated (level), focused and composed properly! And they were all done without the ability to see the exposed images until they came back from the lab! Remember slide film only had 1/3 of a stop latitude, so exposures had to be virtually perfect. What am I missing here? I have always strived to get the image correct, in the camera! I am not knocking digitial, I own several of them and haven't used film for several years. However, I wonder what has become of basic photographic skills. We used to have faith in our equipment and in our ability (skill) as photographers. Can you imagine what people today would stress over if the had to wait until they were home to see what they shot, let alone wait days or weeks! With film, we never gave it a second thought, it was just the way it was! It sure seems to me that many of today's photographers are really just "image makers!", relying on post production (editing) to correct their errors when capturing the basic image in the camera. Oh my, how things have changed.


True, during film days I used to be very careful *because* there were only a limited number of shots I could take with a film roll and I had to worry about the cost of purchasing film rolls, developing charges at the lab etc ... I still remember the film days when I used to cringe at having to pay even for all my sh!tty images ... on top of all that cameras/lenses were bloody expensive... so obviously, *I had to be more careful about what shots I wanted to take and how I wanted to take them ... also, I would only take my film camera to special places/occasions*. But digital helped me to take as many shots as I want without worrying about film and lab charges, because of which I now have more interesting images than I could ever dream of in the film days. The prices of DSLR cameras these days are so much more affordable than film days, so I am no longer bound by my inability to pay for developing lots of film rolls, hence I carry my digital camera every single day wherever I go ... so yes, I am willing to make lot more images than I could ever dream of in the film days ... I experiment a lot more, learn neat ideas ... imagine taking 8000 images in a day in the film days (that's over 200 film rolls in a single day), I would have sh!t myself thinking of the costs associated with developing them (let alone carrying over 200 film rolls with me ... but that's how many shots I made in a single day during my last vacation to Scotland ... I threw away nearly 7000 of them but I still have over 1000 shots I really like from a single day of shooting and I did not have to waste a lot of time making those images and still got to see the beauty of Scotland and still spend time having fun with my family, something that would not have been possible in the film days). 

So, yes, in the film days I was careful, because I had no freaking choice but to be careful, I could not afford to buy and develop over 200 film rolls and even if I could afford I would never in a million years carry that many rolls on me for a single day's shooting (during the film days my maximum number of film rolls in a whole year was around 50). We the old timers (myself included) would like to think of our "glory days" and how we successfully captured a few thousand good shots over a period of many years in the film days ... but the fact is I can do the same number of good shots in just a single day with digital and post production has a lot to do with it. So, I consider post production an art, not everyone can do it successfully, it requires just as much skill and dedication as learning to see/learn how light works and the science of photography ... so I would not relegate today's photographers to "just image makers". 
Peace


----------



## Zv (Oct 10, 2013)

Skirball said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Skirball said:
> ...



Didn't I already say there was a market for it? Why else would this thread exist if there was no market for minimalist PP. My point was not minimalist but zero PP. The kind of person (and I've read about them) that doesn't even look at the shots they took and simply hands them over. Thus saving time and maximizing profits. It is those types of "photographers" I was referring to. 

You've gone a bit off topic by nitpicking at my analogy and now we are arguing about the price of frozen steaks instead of talking about how and why we edit our images. 

Most of us do to some extent. Does anyone here not??


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 10, 2013)

Skirball said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Skirball said:
> ...


I think you have missed the point Zv is trying to make ... he did not say one goes to a restaurant to ask for a frozen stake, he was saying the opposite! What I understand from his analogy was that such a request would be idiotic, so the analogy is perfect example to give when people make uninformed comments about PP (e.g. PP is fake etc). But I do understand what you are trying to say and I absolutely agree that a market does exist for minimal to no PP and I have no problem with it ... to each his own. Peace


----------



## Skirball (Oct 10, 2013)

Zv said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



I was just making a simple comment about the analogy to address an issue I don't think you pay consideration to. Reinz called me out on it, so I restated my opinion. I'm not nitpicking anything, simply responding to comment made on my post. Although I continued your analogy, the point of it was still very much on topic.

And your last comment is really an extension of my point. There are plenty of people out there that just want a simple image to provide an illustration, be it for an article on a sports game, or to get people to come look at a house on the market. Yes, all the people here probably do spend a decent amount of time in PP, but not everyone cares as much about photography as a bunch of guys that spend their day on camera chat forums.


----------



## tog13 (Oct 10, 2013)

Completely depends on the end use. For what passes for "art" for me, when I'm making (not just taking) the photo, and I know that I might print it later (rare), and I have the opportunity to frame it exactly how I want it, then I do so. If the target is the web, I normally don't post an image larger than 1200 (and usually 800) pixels on the long side. It doesn't have to fit some proscribed aspect ratio for framing purposes, so I'll crop the crap out of it if that's what it takes to get the composition I want.

Full disclosure: I *love* PP. Sometimes I think I shoot just to support my PP habit.


----------



## Zv (Oct 10, 2013)

Skirball said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Skirball said:
> ...



OK. Fair enough. 

Let's move on. Now, why would anyone pay for a shot like that, where they could just as easily whip out their smartphone and do it themselves? What a cake job! Screw this lighting and exposure nonsense just green box - click and send. Done. 

Seriously? People pay for that junk? I am working way too hard then!


----------



## Eldar (Oct 10, 2013)

Skirball said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Skirball said:
> ...


Just to add to the confusion and length of this thread .. Yes, I am probably amongst the slower photographers, with fewer shots/time than most and I´m amongst those who think more than the average photographer before I push the shutter release. But that does not mean that I do not take advantage of the digital age and the benefits of available post processing. I would have liked to be a bit better at it though.
The ways I shoot pictures today are totally different from the old days, in most respects. I love having 12 fps for BIF and action, I love skipping flash due to massive ISO improvements etc. etc. And, like (almost) everyone else, I only shoot in RAW and I run everything through post processing. I change sharpness, white balance, colors, contrast, and all the rest. But my struggle to get the framing, DOF, lighting etc. right is pretty much the same as it was 25 years ago. My only point was/is that too many photographers today seem to rely on volume and chance, and a let´s-fix-it-in-post attitude, rather than conscious thinking prior to shooting.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 10, 2013)

I crop and spend time in pp. Why? Because I can. I can make my photos look the way I want them to look, with less effort. It's called using the technology you have available to you. I COULD frame a volleyball shot perfectly, if I needed to. But instead I leave a little extra room and then crop the way I want. Why not? In film days yes, you had a limited number of shots and you couldn't edit. But that's not the case anymore, so who really cares? If you get the composition almost correct, and the exposure almost correct, due to our technology, then yes it'll be "good enough" with some pp.

I love digital. A football wide receiver catching a pass mid-air with small DOF is commonplace these days, when way back when those photos were rare.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 10, 2013)

Zv said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > I was just making a simple comment about the analogy to address an issue I don't think you pay consideration to. Reinz called me out on it, so I restated my opinion. I'm not nitpicking anything, simply responding to comment made on my post. Although I continued your analogy, the point of it was still very much on topic.
> ...


In India we have lots of weddings (we are over a billion people and premarital sex isn't considered to be a nice thing, however nice it actually feels ;D, so obviously most of us have to get married, especially if we hope to get lifetime of free sex ;D) and we also have thousands of villages and towns but most couples/families (even in cities) cannot afford to buy even a simple cheap digital camera let alone a smartphone that is capable of taking decent images (even if they could afford a "simple" camera, most folk will only manage to take blurry pictures) ... so they hire a "wedding photographer", now those wedding photographers (believe it or not), use a Canon 1000D or a Nikon D3000 with a 18-55mm kit lens and a very bright/harsh tungsten light, (held by an assistant who gets paid less then $5 and the photographer himself gets less than $25) to take the photos for the whole wedding... now you and I (who are fortunate) might scoff at such a set up, but for the people getting married and their families it is a beautiful memory that they want to capture ... they want to see/show off that memory as fast as possible and the photographer takes it to a lab and gets it printed at a lab, slaps all those photos in a gaudy looking album and gives it to them the next morning ... fortunate photographers like us might look down on such photos, but they are priceless treasures for the couple. So yes people do pay for those photos and they are not considered junk by those who want such photos. Since this is the season of analogies, let me make a lame attempt at one: I might think Suzuki Alto is a junk car but for the person who has saved his/her hard earned money for years to buy that car, it is just as good as a Ferrari.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 10, 2013)

Eldar said:


> My only point was/is that too many photographers today seem to rely on volume and chance, and a let´s-fix-it-in-post attitude, .


Nothing wrong with that ... people do what they think/know is important to them, it does not have to conform to the folk who approach photography in a more organized and professional way ... what I understand from your post is that you are a more methodical photographer and probably are more passionate about photography then those who rely on volume and chance, so I guess its a matter of difference in passion ... that being said the "volume and chance" type of photographers might be passionate about something else, (maybe PP?) Peace


----------



## fragilesi (Oct 10, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > My only point was/is that too many photographers today seem to rely on volume and chance, and a let´s-fix-it-in-post attitude, .
> ...



Agreed, and in action photography like sports where what is about to happen is so unpredictable there is very strong argument for taking volumes of photos.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 10, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> In India we have lots of weddings (we are over a billion people and premarital sex isn't considered to be a nice thing, however nice it actually feels ;D, so obviously most of us have to get married



I am in favor of reintroducing this scheme to the decadent western countries, it would at least create more jobs for us photogs :->


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 10, 2013)

Make your photos breathe, so you don't need to crop them later


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 10, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Skirball said:
> ...



I don't begrudge people their memories... but I think most of us believe that if you pay good money, $25, you want the best bang for your buck. And if you get less than what the market warrants, then the customer got robbed... or cheated maybe... 

And so here in the states, if the customer pays $1500, you hope they get $1500 worth of competency.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 10, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> I've been told by an alleged pro photog that real photogs don't crop. I am wondering if this is true, or it is an old-school fairy tale from the analog age that falls into the category "real photogs don't use auto iso and only shoot in full m".



What next? you can't PP digital photos through lightroom/PS.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 11, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> In India we have lots of weddings (we are over a billion people and premarital sex isn't considered to be a nice thing, however nice it actually feels ;D, so obviously most of us have to get married, especially if we hope to get lifetime of free sex ;D) and we also have thousands of villages and towns but most couples/families (even in cities) cannot afford to buy even a simple cheap digital camera let alone a smartphone that is capable of taking decent images (even if they could afford a "simple" camera, most folk will only manage to take blurry pictures) ... so they hire a "wedding photographer", now those wedding photographers (believe it or not), use a Canon 1000D or a Nikon D3000 with a 18-55mm kit lens and a very bright/harsh tungsten light, (held by an assistant who gets paid less then $5 and the photographer himself gets less than $25) to take the photos for the whole wedding... now you and I (who are fortunate) might scoff at such a set up, but for the people getting married and their families it is a beautiful memory that they want to capture ... they want to see/show off that memory as fast as possible and the photographer takes it to a lab and gets it printed at a lab, slaps all those photos in a gaudy looking album and gives it to them the next morning ... fortunate photographers like us might look down on such photos, but they are priceless treasures for the couple. So yes people do pay for those photos and they are not considered junk by those who want such photos. Since this is the season of analogies, let me make a lame attempt at one: I might think Suzuki Alto is a junk car but for the person who has saved his/her hard earned money for years to buy that car, it is just as good as a Ferrari.


Here in Brazil, we have a middle ground between the wedding photography from India (US$25) and wedding albums in the USA (US$1,500). For 99% of grooms, a wedding album for $ 1500 is a criminal extortion. Here too there are the "photographers" who use D3000 with 18-55 and only the built-in flash. Some charge $ 80 to the newlyweds, and deliver photos on CD, and run away, it will need a lot of Photoshop to correct technical errors. Most photographers need honest talk at length to convince the couple that is worth paying $ 500 for a good quality work, and that no Photoshop will save pictures poorly made. Believe me when I say I have not seen any 5D mark III photographing wedding in my city of 3 million inhabitants. Maybe when there 5D mark IV, then we will see some 5D mark III at weddings.


----------



## Famateur (Oct 11, 2013)

I usually read a thread all the way through before replying, but I just haven't the time tonight. My apologies if I'm repeating what someone else has said...

I've heard the "pros compose in-camera and never crop" but don't subscribe to it myself. While composition is always in mind as I shoot (for that matter, I'm constantly composing in my mind just looking at things), cropping can be a powerful artistic tool. Even if you nail the composition you had in mind at the time you pressed the shutter button, another (sometimes better) composition can be created with the crop tool.

I'll often be looking through "throw-away" images and suddenly see a different (crop-enabled) composition that takes the image from chopping block to cropping block to favorites folder.

I can't help but mentally crop nearly every image I see, anyway.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 11, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Some time ago, I've been told by an alleged pro photog that real photogs don't crop, or at least only do minor angle correction. I am wondering if this is true, or it is an old-school fairy tale from the analog age that falls into the category "real photogs don't use auto iso and only shoot in full m".
> [/b]



While I have heard the same thing (or variations such as "Use the whole neg, you paid for it") I see no use in being a slave to an arbitrary shape such as 4x5, 6x6 or 35mm. The fact is that an image is your creation and you can do as you see fit. It is not some sort of whack contest to see what you can stuff in a frame.

Although guilty myself, I no longer am enamored of the "cutout neg carrier"or "sloppy borders" trope that used to attest to ones FF integrity. One can easily drop a black border around any shape if it appeals to you but the notion that one must go "mano a mano" with your format is foolish.


----------



## bratkinson (Oct 11, 2013)

When I moved from roughly 30 years of shooting primarily slides to the digital age with a G-3, I naturally framed things as best I could and learned to use the freebie version of Photoshop Lite that came with it for editing. Other than straightening things a bit, or sometimes wanting to be 'selective' about the subject, I didn't do much cropping at all.

But since moving from point and shoots to a 30D, then 60D and now 5D3, cropping became a necessity due to wearing glasses when I shoot. I'm seeing perhaps 80% of the image in the viewfinder. So, for me, cropping is a necessity. Having the megapixels of a 5D3 that the 30D didn't have allows some fairly heavy-duty cropping with little, if any, noticable IQ loss. I've even turned landscape format to portrait format pix when I discovered too much 'distraction' on the side(s) of the subject.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 11, 2013)

I try to use anything that makes my images look better, whether it is cropping, using layers, LR adjustments ... you name it ... that's in my opinion, is the whole point of going digital. 

I don't care whether anyone thinks PP or cropping is bad or that I am breaking some rule which was made in the days of film.


----------



## sanj (Oct 11, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I try to use anything that makes my images look better, whether it is cropping, using layers, LR adjustments ... you name it ... that's in my opinion, is the whole point of going digital.
> 
> I don't care whether anyone thinks PP or cropping is bad or that I am breaking some rule which was made in the days of film.



Me same


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 11, 2013)

When I had Rebel XT (8 megapixel), avoiding crop more than 10% in order to print A4 size with good quality. Today, with 18 megapixel, feel comfortable to crop more, throwing out 50% of the resolution. But I only photograph at full resolution, and crop after making all adjustments in post production.


----------



## Kwanon (Oct 11, 2013)

I crop as little as possible. 
I am more creative this way as i have to think about the shot more and i see the final product right there.


----------



## chauncey (Oct 11, 2013)

I do crop...after I've taken series of overlapping images and photo-merged them in Photoshop.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 11, 2013)

I am waiting for the next megapixle body, to get maximum resolution. Where´s the logic in throwing it all away in cropping? So, despite all good arguments for birds, sports and wildlife (where I also crop a lot), I stand firm; you should think your composition through before you press the shutter release. 

I am now half way through an excellent Provence rosé. Recommendable! Have a great weekend


----------



## TexPhoto (Oct 11, 2013)

Cropping is like shooting in jpeg. If your photos were good nobody would care. 

Here's the thing, 1. Get it right in camera 2. Get it better in post. 3. It's the photo that matters, not your T-shirt.

Anyway I'll be starting an I don't crop line of T-shirts and accessories.


----------



## Zv (Oct 12, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I am waiting for the next megapixle body, to get maximum resolution. Where´s the logic in throwing it all away in cropping? So, despite all good arguments for birds, sports and wildlife (where I also crop a lot), I stand firm; you should think your composition through before you press the shutter release.
> 
> I am now half way through an excellent Provence rosé. Recommendable! Have a great weekend



Max resolution would only really come into play when printing. For those of us who only publish to the web even 3MP image is enough. Most screens can't display the extra res. Why not crop a little? Give yourself a little working space to rotate and remove distractions or even get creative with aspect ratios? You can't do 16:9 in camera.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 12, 2013)

what i don't get about this is this ----how does this so called pro not crop, ever? Ok, lets talk not only about the framing you desire, but, what any potential client may want. If i shoot something wide, I want it wide, and i get this a lot ---clients who want prints but in 8x10, 11x14, or 16x20 - I always advise that 8x12, 12x18, or 16x24 is the native size of the image, it was how it was composed and it won't look right. More times than not this message is ignored because they are buying frames from the average box store and what do they have mostly in stock? 8x10 format. 

I had one client that I shot their engagement shoot, they wanted prints, I told them about the crop factor, showed them crops vs natural size...they wanted the crops (they liked the 8x12 better, but already had 8x10 frames). then i shot their wedding and what do they include in the order - 8x10's. One was on a group shot. It was framed tight (not like arms falling off tight, like 1/3 of an inch from the border. But, if you lop an inch of each side, there goes the people on the right and the left too. she wisely revised and got the 8x12 of that one.

So, what's right an d whats wrong? In that photog's eye's I should just not satisfy customers because cropping isn't 'pro?' uggg....


----------



## Zv (Oct 12, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> what i don't get about this is this ----how does this so called pro not crop, ever? Ok, lets talk not only about the framing you desire, but, what any potential client may want. If i shoot something wide, I want it wide, and i get this a lot ---clients who want prints but in 8x10, 11x14, or 16x20 - I always advise that 8x12, 12x18, or 16x24 is the native size of the image, it was how it was composed and it won't look right. More times than not this message is ignored because they are buying frames from the average box store and what do they have mostly in stock? 8x10 format.
> 
> I had one client that I shot their engagement shoot, they wanted prints, I told them about the crop factor, showed them crops vs natural size...they wanted the crops (they liked the 8x12 better, but already had 8x10 frames). then i shot their wedding and what do they include in the order - 8x10's. One was on a group shot. It was framed tight (not like arms falling off tight, like 1/3 of an inch from the border. But, if you lop an inch of each side, there goes the people on the right and the left too. she wisely revised and got the 8x12 of that one.
> 
> So, what's right an d whats wrong? In that photog's eye's I should just not satisfy customers because cropping isn't 'pro?' uggg....



Exactly. Clients rarely have a clue what they want. I shot a group portrait the other day and I showed them a few different crops. They liked the tightly cropped one. All done with just one image. In camara it would have meant switching lens back and forth. When you're on a tight sched that aint an option. Cropping a 21MP in post is.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 12, 2013)

The first time I ever travelled from London Euston to Glasgow Central was in a Virgin Pendolino train in 2010, and it was a very beautiful and scenic route (at least for me) ... I wanted to capture the beauty of the landscape I was looking at through the train window, while the train was speeding at around 125 MPH, but there were trees, electric poles, wires, shrubs etc getting in the way of taking a nice photo, the way I saw the beautiful landscape, so I had very little time between 2 trees or poles to make an image ... so I tried to capture images with my Canon 7D + EF 24-105 f/4 L IS lens and whatever little skill I had ... but when I downloaded the images on to my computer they were disappointing, they did not look anywhere close to what I remembered the landscape to be ... so I cropped and edited the image (as you can see below). If any of the (so called) "professional/purist" photographers tells me that I "should not crop" an image, I'll tell'm to go 5crew themselves ... I will crop my images the way I think are pleasing to me. I know the images I posted here are not great in comparison to any of you talented folk can make but I think these images give an idea of what can be done with an ordinary/bad image if it is cropped and edited. The most awesome part of it is that I don't have to do this for every single image separately, I just select all my images and click Sync and lightroom applies all my changes to all of them ... how convenient is that ... one has to be absolutely stupid (or a genius of epic talent) not to use the awesome power PP gives us, if they are throwing away images because they don't want to crop. Peace.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 12, 2013)

You can crop your pictures till they are pixelated, PP till your pictures look like they were colored with crayons. It doesn't mean you have great photography skills. 

Photography and editing skills are not the same. For a great picture get it right at the camera first, the less you have to correct in PP the less it will look fake.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 12, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> You can crop your pictures till they are pixelated, PP till your pictures look like they were colored with crayons. It doesn't mean you have great photography skills.
> 
> Photography and editing skills are not the same. For a great picture get it right at the camera first, the less you have to correct in PP the less it will look fake.


Don't need to have "great" photography skills, just need to know the difference between stupidity (e.g "crop pictures till they are pixelated") and common sense (e.g knowing when to crop). Photography and editing skills require the same basic principals of seeing light, checking composition and much of what goes on with photography.


----------



## Botts (Oct 12, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> For a great picture get it right at the camera first, the less you have to correct in PP the less it will look fake.



This works great if you know your destination, sometimes you don't though. If I'm shooting images for a fun photo book, I don't know if my photo will be cropped to 4:3, 4:5, 16:9 or some other aspect ratio. 

Framing for a perfect 4:3 composition would really limit which photos I could use where.

Similarly, if I'm shooting an event, I'll usually make a slideshow 16:9 if it's full images, or any aspect ratio if it's more like a collage. Also, I'll probably wind up printing some of the images as large 4:3s. I like having some space to work with.


----------

