Cropping the image

[Vaughn]

...So cropping is correct framing during shooting am I right?

with regards

PS : The much worst discussions are a amatheuric photo sides were each second reply is a recomandation to crop in this way or crop that.......?
Imagine Vaught I repeat one of your photographs and would give advices : Vaughn you should crop the wall on the right sight a bit because that would better your picture!
You perhaps know what I mean - this wall was perhaps intended????

In-camera 'cropping' is framing during exposure, I suppose. I just call it composition.

Suggesting crops is cool, Defending the strength of ones composition is a good exercise is helping define the way one sees. If for no good reason I center the horizon line, I would appreciate being told the advantages of cropping high or low. If I did it on purpose, for example, to give the image some stability and stillness, then I would say so. But for beginners, looking at other possibilities (crops, contrast, etc) can be very beneficial.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Thank goodness you teach the proper use of tripods.

It is all in the follow-through.

 

[jim10219]

This is the worst and most oft-repeated, misinformation about digital capture hands down. It absolutely fails to understand the process. We are constantly fighting for the very best capture possible because you cannot make good images with junk.

I've been a pro since 1979, working within the limits of film and doing as much as one can in-capture. I made the shift to digital thoroughly by 1999. Along with my professional work I also teach Introduction to Digital Photography amongst other advanced pro classes.

In my classes I do not allow the term "post" or "post processing" as I find them derogatory; see above. In discussion this very day I told the class that we refer to our work after capture as development; bringing out the qualities inherent in our capture. Use of the word "post" will result in immediate death by being beaten with tripods

I spent many years in the music business (not successfully I might add), and this reminds me of an ongoing debate there. These days you can build songs from clips, auto tune anything, and record a billion takes until you get it right. “Fix it in the mix” is a common phrase. It works for the pop industry very well. The average consumer doesn’t know the difference, and doesn’t care. They’re not musicians or music critics. But by doing this, it always makes the music feel dated and superficial. And that’s okay for a pop song, because they’re made to be cool in the moment and sell a lot of albums, downloads, or streams now, not in ten years. A real band playing a song together in a live environment (even when recording) will have a lot more energy and soul. You can tell that the musicians are playing off one another. You can feel their struggle. Musicians and music critics can tell the difference rather easily. Decades down the line, the trendy songs that relied more on style than soul will be forgotten. It’s the songs that most reflect humanity through their faults and feats that will still be revered.

Much like in photography today where photos are processed to hell and back and get lots of attention on social media. It’s great for online exposure, but it’s not the stuff that will be hanging in galleries in 30 years.

But there’s no reason to hold animosity towards that type of stuff. It serves a different purpose and is geared towards a different audience. It’s exceedingly difficult to be both a success in the mainstream populous and a success with the critics in any art form. So it’s best not to see them as competing factions, because in reality, they are two very different worlds.

 

[trendland]

This is the worst and most oft-repeated, misinformation about digital capture hands down. It absolutely fails to understand the process. We are constantly fighting for the very best capture possible because you cannot make good images with junk.

I've been a pro since 1979, working within the limits of film and doing as much as one can in-capture. I made the shift to digital thoroughly by 1999. Along with my professional work I also teach Introduction to Digital Photography amongst other advanced pro classes.

In my classes I do not allow the term "post" or "post processing" as I find them derogatory; see above. In discussion this very day I told the class that we refer to our work after capture as development; bringing out the qualities inherent in our capture. Use of the word "post" will result in immediate death by being beaten with tripods

He he he ....Mike ..... before I would use the word "developing" with digital photography I would prefer "post" indeed
To "post production" yes I've used the term in concern of digital photography - to me it is used from
Motion Film. All the kind of later manipulation (wich is indeed an urgend need today - think of "cut" a scene) is named as "post production"

with regards

PS : I remember from years ago to the first time ever reading an article where was mentioned :
"developed with XYZ" this "developer" was obviously new so I had to google it.
And then it was an APP.....?

 

[trendland]

Printing a negative is post-production.

I would not say anything against "printing a digital photography" (if it is then be done - today it is a minority of perhaps 3% of all digital photographer.) A colleague was extrem proud to tell me :
" with his New Sony Alpha he wanted to know how his shots feel in realiy " therefore he bought a New high quality screen in 4k resolution - now he is impressed about the highest resolution he play with.
(4k has how much??? Out of my mind 4times x HD = 1920x1080. x 4 ~ 8MP....)
And I asked him to make a big print of min. 1 Meter to LOOK at - he wanted to do but he did it not.....? To LOOK with 8MP sreen on 35MP digital is state of the Art today..?

So if you printing in darkroom and Name this post production I would also not say anything against.
(If you don't crop your shots later and Name this : post post production)...

with regards

 

[trendland]

This is the worst and most oft-repeated, misinformation about digital capture hands down. It absolutely fails to understand the process. We are constantly fighting for the very best capture possible because you cannot make good images with junk.

I've been a pro since 1979, working within the limits of film and doing as much as one can in-capture. I made the shift to digital thoroughly by 1999. Along with my professional work I also teach Introduction to Digital Photography amongst other advanced pro classes.

In my classes I do not allow the term "post" or "post processing" as I find them derogatory; see above. In discussion this very day I told the class that we refer to our work after capture as development; bringing out the qualities inherent in our capture. Use of the word "post" will result in immediate death by being beaten with tripods

By the way Mike I forget to state it came just in my mind (no I would not start a new war against digital photography) But here are two examples :
1) how often I wonder about looking to the workflow of many others , when they use their camera monitor ? Ok they have the ability to see what they shot and why not having some short looks?
But I remember to notice : A LOOK after each simple shot.... more and more.
2) I shot a harbour scene with a big cruiser ship. How was my workflow ?
6x7 300mm on tripot for the beginning szene - First the ship was far away.
Later I soon changed to 105mm with 6x7 (within seconds because such ships have indeed speed when they come up). After some shots the cruiser was in the very near - I planned before : then I should change the camera because there will be no time to change a lens (and I hate zooms).
So it was : I switched to Nikon 35mm with 28mm lens. My last option was a Voigtländer with 25mm lens when the cruiser was in front of extreme (You feel like to stand in front of an industrial facility and the ship is as great ).
That was a shooting just for fun without great intention but "professionaly" made on 220 and 135 films
with a result ? Ok I wasn't much expressed but it was nice for others but it was done well and extreme good prepared.
Short before the cruiser came a so called prof. entered the scene. He was the latest but the cruiser had to wait for a while. A tripod ? For what - he was using a 35mm digital Nikon with (I guess 100 - 600mm stabilized lens). The fact this guy stand behind me was a pity to me. He shot every little harbour Ferry coming along the 30min. the cruiser came to late. After a while I was infected and shot some
worthless sailers coming along wich he has shot without brake (clic clic..clic....clicclicclicclic...clic).
So I was forced to change my 220 Films twice AS I noticed "just 9frames avaible" ok then I shot some next little sailers (total worthless but I decided on fresh 220 Film).

The cruiser came and the whole shooting duration then was less than 2 Minutes.Damnet
It passes and I begann to repack my equipment. The cruiser was in the very near and was 5times more
great than my 25mm viewfinder was able to show. But the prof. began with his real shooting at this Moment?????? "ratatatatatata ratatatatatata ratatatatatata ratatatatatata" like a Maschine gune?
Damnet what the hell was this guy shooting there? The cruiser ship was as high as a mountain - a great black wall in front of us (just the need of 12mm lens was not enough).
I felt as if this prof. intend to shot a documentary about each of the cruiser Bulls eyes?
With more than (estimated) 1200 Bulls eyes ! Perhaps he can bring out his stabilized Bulls eyes shot in form of a photo book (encyclopedia of all the Quenn Mary2 Bulls eyes)
Next day I saw his pictures in a daily newspaper -" what a damned louser " was my last thought.
So I will say : Nothing against today's digital profs. but sometimes it is realy strange!

with regards

 

[blockend]

The avoidance of cropping was a pragmatic decision originally. 35mm negatives were at the extreme of what editors were prepared to accept for professional work. With few exceptions, 35mm colour transparency never became mainstream editorial material. Large format was still much in evidence in 1960s press mauls, allowing the picture editor any "focal length" he chose, even if it meant cropping to 36 x 24mm from a 5 x 4 neg. The black border was adopted as a sign of aesthetic integrity among art photographers. I still print full frame for the same reasons I use film (bloody minded familiarity) while maintaining a completely open mind about other people's practice and preferences.

 

[trendland]

The avoidance of cropping was a pragmatic decision originally. 35mm negatives were at the extreme of what editors were prepared to accept for professional work. With few exceptions, 35mm colour transparency never became mainstream editorial material. Large format was still much in evidence in 1960s press mauls, allowing the picture editor any "focal length" he chose, even if it meant cropping to 36 x 24mm from a 5 x 4 neg. The black border was adopted as a sign of aesthetic integrity among art photographers. I still print full frame for the same reasons I use film (bloody minded familiarity) while maintaining a completely open mind about other people's practice and preferences.

Right a great professional told (long time ago) : There were you need highest quality indeed the use of sheed film is first preference and sheed Film began with 9x12.
There were this extreme quality is no need for midt Format 120/220 is a great way (because of cheaper equipment and much less weight).
What he stated about 35mm : 35mm was the all time preference of amatheuric photograpers.
But what made me wonder his statement about sheed Films : 9x12 was also the format to amatheuric
photographers without professional reputation in Europe. 13x18 was the professional Format.
5x7 in the anglo saxon area!
Concerning cropping - blow up......some special experts on 35mm in the past were ask about same pictures but in midt format. They soon realized profit and began to say :"Sure that is no problem - we may bring you shots in all formats you need"

They blow up to 6x7 with reproduction and the help of slide Film holders of the well known Brand "HAMA"........

with regards

 

[trendland]

Sorry mistake were is where I forgot the "H"
with regards

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I would not say anything against "printing a digital photography" (if it is then be done - today it is a minority of perhaps 3% of all digital photographer.) A colleague was extrem proud to tell me :
" with his New Sony Alpha he wanted to know how his shots feel in realiy " therefore he bought a New high quality screen in 4k resolution - now he is impressed about the highest resolution he play with.
(4k has how much??? Out of my mind 4times x HD = 1920x1080. x 4 ~ 8MP....)
And I asked him to make a big print of min. 1 Meter to LOOK at - he wanted to do but he did it not.....? To LOOK with 8MP sreen on 35MP digital is state of the Art today..?

So if you printing in darkroom and Name this post production I would also not say anything against.
(If you don't crop your shots later and Name this : post post production)...

with regards

8mb resolution on a screen ten feet away is very fine. The eye can't resolve greater than that anyway. Theater screens are half that I believe. I shoot my vacation on 20mb and then reduce them to 8mb to fit on my 75" UHDTV. The extra mb's allows more cropping flexibility and data zooming. I add narration, music, credits, titles, etc. The slide shows including video clips are pretty impressive. Plus, my wife tells me there's no more space on the walls to hang prints.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I would not say anything against "printing a digital photography" (if it is then be done - today it is a minority of perhaps 3% of all digital photographer.) A colleague was extrem proud to tell me :
" with his New Sony Alpha he wanted to know how his shots feel in realiy " therefore he bought a New high quality screen in 4k resolution - now he is impressed about the highest resolution he play with.
(4k has how much??? Out of my mind 4times x HD = 1920x1080. x 4 ~ 8MP....)
And I asked him to make a big print of min. 1 Meter to LOOK at - he wanted to do but he did it not.....? To LOOK with 8MP sreen on 35MP digital is state of the Art today..?

So if you printing in darkroom and Name this post production I would also not say anything against.
(If you don't crop your shots later and Name this : post post production)...

with regards

Here's an example I did with a cellphone, not even a regular camera. It's play is three minutes long and only 2K in resolution. But it still looks pretty impressive on a good TV or computer monitor. While prints are wonderful, there're lots of ways to display our work.

 

[trendland]

8mb resolution on a screen ten feet away is very fine. The eye can't resolve greater than that anyway. Theater screens are half that I believe. I shoot my vacation on 20mb and then reduce them to 8mb to fit on my 75" UHDTV. The extra mb's allows more cropping flexibility and data zooming. I add narration, music, credits, titles, etc. The slide shows including video clips are pretty impressive. Plus, my wife tells me there's no more space on the walls to hang prints.

Hallo Alan Edward, from first quick reading (I just first noticed the 8) I thought now you refered about
8mm Film and resolution on screen.
So let me short state : In concern of resolution 8mm/super8 provides no profit any more in comparison to HD Video. Obviously you may have additional reserve with New emulsions (Ektachrome Super8 for example) but with 4k the Game is over (due to the smallest format with super8).
On the other hand a highest quality scan of Super8 (on a 4k medium/transfer for example) looks absolute great (if you may remember it is just super8)
From your experience I would state the same like you : Video made with a phone in 2k/full HD
is just looking perfect.
And a nice screen is comfortable to view it. Sure I can understand you.
But in concern to resolution we shall not forget comparing motion film is different.
Because the resolution is like multiplicating resolution x 24, x 25, x 30, x60 or with 50frames
A SECOND. If this would not be so all People would hate Super8 because a single Super8 frame is real bad. I printed Super8 frames and 16mm frames lompng time ago to compare the print Format was 5x7inch and it was terrible (with both Film formats)

What I stated was in regard of a 4k screen and 35mp still photography. I would state again : It might LOOK nice to regard also digital photography on a high resolution screen but that is nothing in comparison to a high resolution print in higher formats.
But with Video I am on your side (my broken samsung phone offered me more Video resolution in comparison of 80th Video cameras wich cost 174k at the beginning)
Coming back to cropping I also have cropped Videos (on my samsung phone) but that has nothing to do with cropping a picture made as photograph instead of having correct framing while shooting a picture. But I am sure you can not be meant with this critic Alan Edward because you are most experienced (like many others here) and you style your photographs in the camera viewfinder - am I right.
But the world outside apug/Photrio isn't the same. And of course you may also make good shots with an IPhone but the practice in reality is that 99,7% of all the worlds IPhone shots are no good photography and in most cases that is (and here we have it again) caused from insufficient framing.
with regards

 

[trendland]

Here's an example I did with a cellphone, not even a regular camera. It's play is three minutes long and only 2K in resolution. But it still looks pretty impressive on a good TV or computer monitor. While prints are wonderful, there're lots of ways to display our work.

Ok Allen Edward I see (and would imagine) if there is any fire in the neighborhood it is not bad to have contact to Alan Edward because he is familiar with the job of fireworkers.
with greetings

PS : First writing the reply than I watched the media. (Perhaps I should try to make it in opposite direction next,)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Ok Allen Edward I see (and would imagine) if there is any fire in the neighborhood it is not bad to have contact to Alan Edward because he is familiar with the job of fireworkers.
with greetings

PS : First writing the reply than I watched the media. (Perhaps I should try to make it in opposite direction next,)

What did you think of the quality of the video considering it was done with a cell phone, not my usual photography equipment?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Printing a negative is post-production.

No, that term is completely reserved for digital. They own it. Printing a negative is a darkroom process NOT post production; it IS the production.

 

[Pieter12]

I would think anything after the initial exposure is post-production.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would think anything after the initial exposure is post-production.

But we do not use that term with film. We print in the darkroom, not post-process which is a term used to describe computer work. It is like saying "I walked the car to the market." or "The ship steamed out of the railroad station." or "The train chugged out of the harbor past the jetty."

 

[removed account4]

But we do not use that term with film. We print in the darkroom, not post-process which is a term used to describe computer work. It is like saying "I walked the car to the market." or "The ship steamed out of the railroad station." or "The train chugged out of the harbor past the jetty."

some people use that expression to describe what they do after the image was taken. i know i have, and that was 30 years ago.

 

[pentaxuser]

But we do not use that term with film. We print in the darkroom, not post-process which is a term used to describe computer work. It is like saying "I walked the car to the market." or "The ship steamed out of the railroad station." or "The train chugged out of the harbor past the jetty."

Jerry somebody was always saying things like that and had the darkroom prints to prove it. No computers were harmed in the making of such prints, I believe

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

But we do not use that term with film. We print in the darkroom, not post-process which is a term used to describe computer work. It is like saying "I walked the car to the market." or "The ship steamed out of the railroad station." or "The train chugged out of the harbor past the jetty."

These are examples of "mixed metaphors" the use of which is poor and improper English. Since this website is world wide and very multilingual it is important not to miss use English so that we are not only clear in our meaning, but also do not cause writing and speaking problems for non native speakers. After all most of us would not roll around in garbage before going to the food market or to a restaurant.

 

[Eric Rose]

I'm seriously with Sirius on this one.

 

[Arklatexian]

I see where we are stumbling. Who said I had to frame with a mechanically predetermined ratio of a particular camera when I produce a final image?

Only people who think the sizes we can buy from Ilford, Kodak, etc. (which are not the same in all countries) were part of The Ten Commandments and are not to be altered. If your image looks better on a 14" x 17" print, don't ask anyone, just print it that size or even a 5" x 17", print it the way that YOU think it looks best. If you do this, you can still belong to photrio. If you can't, we both are in trouble. You don't have to follow the crowd. It took me a while to learn this but once learned, it felt liberating.........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

In-camera 'cropping' is framing during exposure, I suppose. I just call it composition.

Suggesting crops is cool, Defending the strength of ones composition is a good exercise is helping define the way one sees. If for no good reason I center the horizon line, I would appreciate being told the advantages of cropping high or low. If I did it on purpose, for example, to give the image some stability and stillness, then I would say so. But for beginners, looking at other possibilities (crops, contrast, etc) can be very beneficial.

+1

 

[trendland]

What did you think of the quality of the video considering it was done with a cell phone, not my usual photography equipment?

The resulting quality of video from cell phones is different. In general all phones today offer 720p (1280x720) resolution. One can live with it very well because it is more in comparison to NTSC you probably remember with your TV from the past.
HD with cell phones is 1080p (ATSC wide screen16:9=1920x1080) that is in comparison you remember from your old TV sceen 4times more resolution.
With 4k you will have ecellent video quality but such cell phones are expensive and you have to know you will find the smallest digital sensors in cell phones (the more the squere the more the quality with sensors = the same we are well knowing with film).
So at last also 4k isn't allways the same quality but you might not notice it on the first moment.
Digital cameras with APS-C sensors provides better quality (the final resolution may be the same but the information within the color signals is higher) Full frame 24x36 cameras are offering enough Video quality for local TV Stations and they are real cheap (in comparison to equipment they have to use 5years ago).
So one might ask for what reason does Sony for example offer TV cameras wich are still priced with
> USD 40.000,- ? I can't say ! But as a conclusion one may state : With a minimum of budged you can have imense Video quality today that is also the case with cell phones. But a cellphone let you not have much options in operation because it is simple.
In regard of highest priced TV equipment today one might say : It isn't a neccesarely workflow for people but it is still necessary for Sony...
But perhaps you might see the today's expensive video equipment wich is still in use today's interims solution because the progress is beginning to 8k and here we have it back again (highest priced Video equipment) so also Sony will become hapiest again.
It is looking like this here:

but it is coming from Panavision and is indeed better in concern of Sony 8k alternates.

Are we of topic now ?.....a camera operator who is filming 4k I was told - is also cropping. Because
he is filming for television and it is just in HD (1080p) but they got more often 4k equipment for such productions. So his framing is like described here : he let a bit space outside the framing of his intention. A cameraassistent asked him : "Where is the final picture border this shot the sound engeneer want to know for his mics." And his answer was : " Tell them there mics. have to be at the high of that spotlight - because the final framing they should decide in the post I don't care about now"
hope his producer will not decide to offer this Film on blue Ray in original 4k at last !

But my last conclusion to cell phones is( because you asked ) : with 8k you will see in consumer version within the next 2 years the game to cell phones is over because the space for bigger squered sensors isn't avaible in a phone.

with regards

PS : If your question was also in regard of the approach in your Video from filming I would state :
There are many examples of ABC news reports wich are filmed much worst. And you have to know this is made (on ABC news) by professional teams wich are best payed to do their best.
So (from my personal feeling) you made a good job Allan Edward.....l

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Thanks for your comments. Maybe I can get a part time job with ABC. Being retired, I'm bored sometimes. Also, I don't shoot a video camera that won't fit in my pocket like the one you showed. I use a Sony RX100iv P&S with 4K, good enough for my personal stuff. The problem with cellphones is that you can't see the screen in bright sunlight. Most of the show I shot, both stills and video clips, were aimed with a guess for the most part. I estimated the framing. Also, ergonomically, cellphones are awful. I still haven;t figured out how to hold it comfortably and find the shutter button simply.