# How much do you crop? (with photos)



## Micah (Feb 12, 2009)

I was just wondering how much crop is acceptable. I tried some wildlife and ended up having to crop about 1/2 of the picture to make it look right. I'm sure the pros would take the time to get close and get it right with no crop, but what is the norm?

1. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





2. not wildlife, just my Dad's goats


----------



## DanCanon (Feb 12, 2009)

I think that  the crop all depends on the image subject and how many megapixels you have.  The more you crop down the more information you are losing.  As long as the image is around 300 ppi at full size you should be good.


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 12, 2009)

It depends on a few things.  For example, if I'm making a large print, I really don't want to crop much because off all the pixels I'd be loosing.  If it's just for web viewing or my own amusement, then I'll crop as much as I think the image needs.  

I tend to shoot slightly wide and leave room for cropping...because sometimes I need different aspect ratios (8x10 for example) and if my original 2:3 image is too close, the 4:5 crop just doens't work.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Feb 12, 2009)

I crop as much as I need, but I generally shoot with the intention of not doing any, or as little as possible. More often than anything I'll crop to a 4x5 ratio, just because I like that shape sometimes and can't get it out of the camera.


----------



## memento (Feb 12, 2009)

Micah said:


> I was just wondering how much crop is acceptable. I tried some wildlife and ended up having to crop about 1/2 of the picture to make it look right. *I'm sure the pros would take the time to get close and get it right with no crop*, but what is the norm?


 

the 'pros' use a seven thousand dollar super telephoto lens to get close..


----------



## Micah (Feb 12, 2009)

Ok the 2:3, 4:5 is greek to me. anyone care to splain?


----------



## Captain IK (Feb 12, 2009)

Micah said:


> Ok the 2:3, 4:5 is greek to me. anyone care to splain?




It's the print size ratio...
2:3  could be a 4x6" print
4:5 could be a 8x10" print.
Since each of these examples has a different ratio of length to width, a photo taken on a digital camera will need to be cropped differently for either size


----------



## Captain IK (Feb 12, 2009)

BTW...I like the squirrel shot.


----------



## Micah (Feb 12, 2009)

Gotcha. Thanks. But theres math involed, and I hate that stuff.


----------



## Micah (Feb 12, 2009)

Ok so my math aint so good. What would be min. PPI for 8x10? Or does that question even make sense?


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 12, 2009)

I make it a point not to crop the image after shooting.
I make the best attempt of shooting what I expect as the final image.

Now, I know this cannot always be done as some objects/subjects are just too far away ... but then I make the decision not to take that image ... and find a slightly different image of the object/subject that does fit.


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 12, 2009)

My favorite photographer, Arnold Newman, possibly the greatest 20th century portrait photographer, was a cropping mad man.  

Rent that documentary about James Natchway (spelling?), and listen to what his printer says about photographers, and their unwillingness to crop out of the camera.  He asks what's more important?  The pride of getting it right in camera?  Or the pride of creating a better photograph?

Obviously cropping in camera can be an important concern when using small format cameras, but as usual when it comes to art, sticking to the rules all the time gets in the way of the creative process.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Feb 12, 2009)

Micah said:


> Ok so my math aint so good. What would be min. PPI for 8x10? Or does that question even make sense?


No, that's a good question, though you may or may not know why.  It's generally agreed that 300dpi is a good standard for printing at any average size. That's usually, very generally speaking, 11x14 and under.   Although when you print larger, and the viewer is expected to be seeing the print from farther away, then you could get away with a printing resolution of under 100dpi.

For instance, highway billboards sure aren't printed at 300dpi.


----------



## Overread (Feb 12, 2009)

I try to take shots that do not require cropping to get the final image - that helps you preserve as much of the image and quality as possible.
However I am not limiting myself to not cropping and will crop as much as is needed to get a shot to look right provided that I can get away with it without impacting the quality of the shot.

I think the best stance to take is to shoot without the intent of cropping as a standard method - though there will be many times where one cannot get close enough to a subject to get the shot. In those cases use the crop tool to the best of you advantage. I would not trick yourself into ever thinking that "pros" never to such things - some will and some won't - neither way is better than the other provided that you get the image (At the highest possible quality level) that you desire


----------



## Micah (Feb 12, 2009)

Thank you all for taking the time to respond. I feel a little better now.


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 12, 2009)

A great place to go for this sort of information is your lab.  For instance I use Mpix.com for C prints, and always assumed 300 ppi was optimal.  When I actually asked they recommended 250 ppi, and said 300 ppi will not result in any increase of print quality with the machines they use.


----------



## Chairman7w (Feb 12, 2009)

I love that squirrel shot!  Nice pic.

Keep in mind also, that what we do is art.  Art is, and always will be, VERY subjective.   What YOU consider a good crop, others may not.  (and vice versa).

There are, of course, general guidelines (don't look off the page, etc), but it still comes down to the image YOU want to present, NOT the image that you think the people on a message board will want to see.


----------



## Micah (Feb 12, 2009)

Another math question. What does 300ppi convert to? ???x???


----------



## hankejp (Feb 12, 2009)

All you have to do is to multiply the PPI by the size of the picture you want.

8x10 = (8x300) x (10x300)  or 2400x3000
4x6 = 1200x1800

The above was using 300 PPI.


----------



## Mr.SuperHero (Feb 12, 2009)

Usually not much unless there is a lot of un needed dead space.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 13, 2009)

How much to crop is picture content and size desired dependent.  No matter what, though, I always compose the picture with the thought that if I put this print in a frame, there is room around it and doesn't clip something like an arm leg or head.  

In BOTH of the above pics, this is impossible (squirrel tail in one is right at the edge, and the legs of the sheep are clipped on the 2nd one and just visually looking, neither look like a standard photo size).  So I always leave a little room around the edges.  Nikon D700's eyepiece is 97% coverage and I use it to give me the added room without even needing to think about it.


You also have to crop to maintain or enhance the composition of the picture at the same time.


----------



## Torus34 (Feb 13, 2009)

Crop as required to provide the greatest impact.

Then, and only then, decide on how large the final print should be.

A large final picture which is poorly composed doesn't merit much attention.  A good subject, well-composed and properly matted, even if a 'lowly' 5" x 7" or 6" x 9", can be a delight.


----------



## NickJ (Feb 13, 2009)

Typically I try not to crop more than 40% of the frame off, otherwise it's obviously a different shot that needs redoing. But then I like a bit of space around my images... for example, your shots of the squirrel is great, but I would've left a bit more space around it "to breathe". 

It's all down to you though, if the prints come back low quality from the lab, then you've cropped too much. Trial and error is the key really.



Micah said:


> I was just wondering how much crop is acceptable. I tried some wildlife and ended up having to crop about 1/2 of the picture to make it look right. I'm sure the pros would take the time to get close and get it right with no crop, but what is the norm?
> 
> 1.
> 
> 2. not wildlife, just my Dad's goats


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 13, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> I make it a point not to crop the image after shooting.
> I make the best attempt of shooting what I expect as the final image.
> 
> Now, I know this cannot always be done as some objects/subjects are just too far away ... but then I make the decision not to take that image ... and find a slightly different image of the object/subject that does fit.


 
You're not using all the tools at your disposal.



ksmattfish said:


> My favorite photographer, Arnold Newman, possibly the greatest 20th century portrait photographer, was a cropping mad man.
> 
> Rent that documentary about James Natchway (spelling?), and listen to what his printer says about photographers, and their unwillingness to crop out of the camera. He asks what's more important? The pride of getting it right in camera? Or the pride of creating a better photograph?
> 
> Obviously cropping in camera can be an important concern when using small format cameras, but as usual when it comes to art, sticking to the rules all the time gets in the way of the creative process.


 
W3rd. Just another tool, just like flash. Some people are just as stubborn as me when it comes to things, but I like to use my tools. A lot. Flash this, flash that, crop, crop summore.

When you got 21mp you can crop everything.


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 13, 2009)

One of Arnold Newman's famous photos of Marilyn Monroe is cropped so severely that the area of film used was smaller than a 35mm frame.  He typically shot with 4x5 or larger film.


----------



## Early (Feb 13, 2009)

In the beginning you'll probably do most of your cropping in ps or whatever program you use, but after learning what you like, you'll start cropping in the viewfinder.  At least that's the way it was for me when I did darkroom work.


----------



## Tighearnach (Feb 13, 2009)

just to add to this. So if I'm cropping a photo and I have any intention at all of printing it I have to crop it to an aspect ratio that can be printed such as 2:3 or 4:5? If I crop it randomly and send it for printing they may have to crop it a bit themselves?

Does anyone know if there is a guideline in Gimp that makes this easy to figure out? 

Thanks


----------



## Overread (Feb 13, 2009)

It will depend on your printers as to how they deal with it. 
Some will request more info from you as to your intentions whilst others will just print with what ever auto setting they use.
Common work arounds are:

Adding a boarder to the photo in the missing spaces - a printer is likley just to add board on the misssing side - leaving the other running up against the edge of the print as normal - if you add your own boarder you have it running all the way round and just thicker on the needed side

cropping the shot to apsect ratio then printing - not ideal for you as it means you are losing areas of your shot

resizing the shot to fit - again not ideal for you as now the shot is going to have odd dimensions to the components - one way will be stretched.


----------

