# Crop = Crap.



## jwbryson1 (Jul 31, 2013)

Don't crop in PP.  Crop in camera.  Otherwise, you produce crap.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 31, 2013)

Cropping will tend to enlarge flaws...so it would be better to work at eliminating those flaws, rather than removing the option of cropping IMO.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 31, 2013)

Shoot slightly fat so that you can crop / adjust tilt in post. Otherwise, you're likely to have elements too close the edge of the frame, which looks like crap.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 31, 2013)

What'chou' talkin' 'bout Willis????  Granted that you want to get in-camera framing as close as possible, but lots of times I don't know if the final product is going to be 4x5, 8x10, 11x14, web-only, or...  I don't think it's fair to say that cropping = crap product.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jul 31, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> Cropping will tend to enlarge flaws...so it would be better to work at eliminating those flaws, rather than removing the option of cropping IMO.




^^^  This.  Mikey = Boy Genius


----------



## Derrel (Jul 31, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Don't crop in PP.  Crop in camera.  Otherwise, you produce crap.



Ummm, that seems a bit dogmatic...but it's the way I was taught "serious" photography back in the 1980's. Of course, this was from a mentor who liked knock-out borders around every enlargement...and preached a tripod and long exposure and f/16 whenever possible...all dogmatic concepts that I later abandoned.

Today's newer, higher MP cameras create some gorgeous files that can be cropped quite a bit and still make nice images.

I'm cropping more today that I ever have before!


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 31, 2013)

I don't think that's entirely true. Cropping, I've found, is a very useful tool. If you don't have the focal length to zoom in, and got enough megapixels on your camera, you can crop in quite a bit without significant loss in image quality.


----------



## DarkShadow (Jul 31, 2013)

When I could get 2 feet from a bird and fill the frame with a 300mm lens, then I can stop cropping. Until then its not an option not to crop. I have to build my own  powerfull autofocus telescope F2.8 Nikon mount.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jul 31, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Don't crop in PP.  Crop in camera.  Otherwise, you produce crap.



Maybe you should use a bit more forethought when shooting.     I for one print a lot of 8x10s, but amazingly, my camera isn't 4x5.  Meanwhile, the images still look quite good.  I also do a lot of 16x9 landscapes.  Funny, but my sensor isn't 16x9, it's 2x3.   Another thing I like to do is shoot at f/1.2 at night.  This often means shooting "loose" so I can crop in later and still have adequate DOF on my subject.    Granted, some times you just can't get in close enough and you have to crop, or you are moving fast in low light and need to use your most sensitive AF point, knowing you'll have to crop later. . . . . . . . .oftentimes an image just needs a bit of rotation to get the verticals or horizontals straight.  That too is still cropping.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 31, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Don't crop in PP.  Crop in camera. ..........




How do I do that for both an 8x10 and a 5x7?  Take two shots?  3 shots if I might need an 11x14?

What do I do if I want a 48" long panoramic?


----------



## tirediron (Jul 31, 2013)

480sparky said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't crop in PP. Crop in camera. ..........
> ...


get a 6x17 back for your came...  no wait, that doesn't work...  get a 5.9x16 back?


----------



## DarkShadow (Jul 31, 2013)

Wait I am so confused, is that the same as 1080P


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jul 31, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Don't crop in PP. Crop in camera. Otherwise, you produce crap.




Yes...if you shoot staged shots like most of you do or are a wizard at street shooting.

For the rest of us, if a street shot is crap uncropped...you crop it to clean up the crap.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 31, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Don't crop in PP.  Crop in camera.  Otherwise, you produce crap.


*
Horse Apples! * If you are producing crap with simple cropping in PP then your technique is Crap.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jul 31, 2013)

Love the responses!  I don't fully buy into my argument either, but I did post this to get people to think.  Less cropping = more thinking upfront which likely produces better images.

Just my $0.02.  YMMV.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 31, 2013)

Sorry, but this is one of those no-brainers, kind of like breathing.   Do you really need to think about it?


----------



## Overread (Jul 31, 2013)

The problem is most who are in need of the learning will only read the first post and the title - those who weigh into the discussion are those who have been there - done it and are giving critique on the advice itself; thus those who would benefit from the general teaching that doesn't appear till later in the thread never see it to gain the benefit. 

As such the thread fails to communicate the full message to users and only provides a very tiny, restrictive and not practical in the real world advice tip.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 31, 2013)

Overread said:


> The problem is most who are in need of the learning will only read the first post and the title - those who weigh into the discussion are those who have been there - done it and are giving critique on the advice itself; thus those who would benefit from the general teaching that doesn't appear till later in the thread never see it to gain the benefit.
> 
> As such the thread fails to communicate the full message to users and only provides a very tiny, restrictive and not practical in the real world advice tip.




Call my silly, but don't mods have the ability to change thread titles?


----------



## Overread (Jul 31, 2013)

Yep we can - we can also edit posts but I think I'd get in trouble if I started changing titles and posts to just say what I want


----------



## table1349 (Jul 31, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is most who are in need of the learning will only read the first post and the title - those who weigh into the discussion are those who have been there - done it and are giving critique on the advice itself; thus those who would benefit from the general teaching that doesn't appear till later in the thread never see it to gain the benefit.
> ...



Hi there* "Silly!"*

Be careful what you ask for.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 31, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Hi there* "Silly!"*
> 
> Be careful what you ask for.



Trust me......... I've been called worse.


----------



## jenko (Jul 31, 2013)

I have certain lenses where I know in advance that I will crop because the focus starts to fall off at closer distances, even though I may want a tighter frame. It happens often in macro. I want the super close shot, but not the super shallow DOF. So I take a step back until what I want is in focus and I just plan on cropping in post. To a certain degree, this is the case with all of my primes. Not for every shot, but there are certain situations where cropping is preferable to the focus falling off ... unless I want it to.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 31, 2013)

It's my photo and I'll crop if I want to, Crop if I want to, Crop if I want to.
You would crop to if it happened to you.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 31, 2013)

I shoot as tight as possible, but pretty much everything I shoot does need a little cropping. I don't see it as a big deal.


----------



## KmH (Jul 31, 2013)

Cropping in the viewfinder, or cropping in the camera?

Many cameras today have retouching/editing functions in their menus, like Nikon's *Trim*.


----------



## Overread (Jul 31, 2013)

My honest biggest problem is that I tend to crop way too tight in the camera which tends to leave me lopping off bits of things that shouldn't be lopped off. Cropping a little wide in camera is, I think, a far better habit than cropping too much - you can always shave off a bit in editing; you can't do the reverse.


----------



## AlexanderB (Jul 31, 2013)

I'd love to have a multi-aspect sensor in my camera, but I have not.


----------



## slow231 (Jul 31, 2013)

Overread said:


> My honest biggest problem is that I tend to crop way too tight in the camera which tends to leave me lopping off bits of things that shouldn't be lopped off. Cropping a little wide in camera is, I think, a far better habit than cropping too much - you can always shave off a bit in editing; you can't do the reverse.



I wholeheartedly agree with this. situations where i need to straighten or crop (due to aspect ratio, subject position, background, insufficient reach, insufficient time to properly consider the framing, or just plain ole not getting it right) come up far more often than my need to preserve every last bit of the 24MP that i have available.  Seriously there's been maybe a handful of times (literally as in < 5) where i wish i had more resolution in a cropped image, and 100's if not 1000's of shots where i'm kicking myself for not having enough in frame.  I was taught with the mindset of "fill the frame" in-camera and this does make you think about the shots more and pre-plan and visualize/conceptualize your end result BEFORE pressing the shutter.  but at this point it couldn't be clearer that i'm actually hurting and not helping my image production by being overzealous with my in-camera crops.  i almost want to say that with today's high MP cameras, once you're past using it as a learning tool, "filling the frame" in camera is actually bad advice.


----------



## Richichi (Aug 1, 2013)

read this whole thread .... what a waste of time ! Call Adobe tell them to remove the crop tool from their products


----------



## bratkinson (Aug 1, 2013)

Actually, for me, cropping in post is a way of life. I've found that since I keep my glasses on while shooting, virtually every picture is shot 'somewhat wide', even with the near 100% image size in the viewfinder on the 5D3. That gives me latitude for not only straightening out my crooked shooting, but eliminating 'clutter' I may not have noticed while taking the picture, AND, it leaves me with multiple print size cropping options later on.

So for me, CROP = GOOD.

PS...having 21mp RAW to start from helps greatly!


----------



## CowgirlMama (Aug 1, 2013)

bratkinson said:


> PS...having 21mp RAW to start from helps greatly!



This part is the key. I remember the first digital my family owned. It shot something like 2 mp. Yeah, don't crop that, if you want to print.  I can crop quite a bit on the 6D's photos, though, because they're massive and I don't print bigger than 8X10 with very rare exceptions (I've printed *one* poster for a friend). FWIW, the poster was printed from a majorly cropped photo from the XTi. Shows how long ago I did it, too.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Aug 1, 2013)

Sometimes you just have to crop, my first digital camera was an Sanyo with 0.3mp that`s vga

John.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 1, 2013)

It's good for you to strive always to get it right in camera.

It's surprising how often not cropping is the right answer, too. Sometimes your hands and eyes actually know what they're doing.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 1, 2013)

In my experience any theory that summarily dismisses a method as "crap"... is crap.  I have yet to find a single thing in photography that does not have its uses.

FOR EXAMPLE...

If you are taking a picture of a building and you crop it to the size you need in camera... and later on you get home and decide you need to perspective correct it.  Guess what?  You're going to be cropping a lot of things you NEED in that shot just because the perspective correction will pinch part of the image.

So there's at least ONE example where you NEED to make sure to shoot the shot wide, and therefore your assertion is devalued.


----------



## jenko (Aug 1, 2013)

What about the fact that nearly every other artistic medium practices revision? The exception being watercolor, because you just can't go back? 

Even sculptors of marble create molds and drawings before they embark on their final piece. Many probably make little revisions as they go into it and make mistakes. Revision is simply a way to refine an original impulse. 

I just wonder why revision in photography became so taboo compared to other artistic mediums where it is almost always encouraged and thought of as part of the artistic process. I think limitations and traditions are good for artists and they can help create more interesting work, but it seems to me the artist should define those limitations and adopt traditions that push their work forward rather than mindlessly conforming to something they have heard or read.


----------



## KenC (Aug 1, 2013)

I end up with more than a few square crops, many of which I visualized that way in camera, BTW.  I suppose I'll have to go find a square-format digital camera and carry that around too.


----------



## cynicaster (Aug 1, 2013)

Every armchair photography pundit on the planet could call me names for cropping in post, and I'd still shamelessly shout from the mountaintops that cropping is an indispensable capability that I use all the time, and will continue to do so.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 1, 2013)

Why is this even a thing? Haha, I feel like this is a troll thread - of course cropping is an important tool, and we all seem to be in agreement about that.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 1, 2013)

My sensor is already cropped; I'm doomed from the start.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 1, 2013)

Overread said:


> My honest biggest problem is that I tend to crop way too tight in the camera which tends to leave me lopping off bits of things that shouldn't be lopped off. Cropping a little wide in camera is, I think, a far better habit than cropping too much - you can always shave off a bit in editing; you can't do the reverse.



I always intentionally 'overshoot' so I have plenty of space to not only crop to a specific aspect ratio, but also to correct for perspective / keystoning, lens distortion (barrel, pincushion and even mustache), rotating a slightly not-so-level/plumb shot, etc.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 1, 2013)

DGMPhotography said:


> Why is this even a thing? Haha, I feel like this is a troll thread - of course cropping is an important tool, and we all seem to be in agreement about that.



It's a thing because not everyone agrees with it, actually. Saying "don't crop" is actually pretty much the same thing as "nail the exposure in camera", it's just a different dimension, and nobody gets all testy when someone says "You should try to get the exposure correct in the camera".


----------



## gsgary (Aug 1, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't crop in PP. Crop in camera. Otherwise, you produce crap.
> ...



HCB never cropped his, nor do i, if i have to crop i think i failed. If something is in the frame with street photography it was meant to be there


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 1, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > jwbryson1 said:
> ...




That is OK. We all have our likes and dislikes. HCB was the godfather of street work. Maybe you are a wizard as well as HCB, I don't know?

For me, I am on a much lower level. So, I crop 80% of my work or more. Not heavy crops, but yes sometimes heavy. If a crop has to be too much and the photo is bad quality from the crop, then it was not meant to be and trashed. That is my guideline for cropping...is it doable?

Ruining a photo due to dogmatic ego based determination is against my religion. I put image first, ego last. I try to be flexible. If people don't like my work becasue of cropping, no big deal. They will most likely not like the HDR as well. in the end we only have to please ourselves with our work. (Unless we are paid, then we must please the client.)


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 1, 2013)

Hell, most of my best shots would be trash without some or a lot of cropping...


This shot was nothing without the crop. The chiaroscuro treatment also helped make it. No crop = trashed shot for this one.

ArtSlant - Makes Me Grateful for My Bed




OK, this one required no crop. But it is a posed, take your time shot. I still crop posed shots sometimes. There always seems to be some stray thing I overlooked that gets in the photo. That is where being a studio photog comes in handy. But, me being a street photog and not a studio photog, I don't have the patience for studying comp for very long.

ArtSlant - Crazy




I would never show anyone the un-cropped image of this. It is just terrible and looks like trash. Much worse than the newest newbies garbage they post. But, with the proper crop...it is fantastic. 

ArtSlant - The Strutters




Same as this shot. When in confined and crowded areas with lots of junk it is hard to get a good clean comp. Esp while maintaining the tall perspective of the pole. A crop perfects it best it can be. No crop and it is a snapshot only.

ArtSlant - Pole Dancer Ross County Ohio


----------



## gsgary (Aug 1, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> That is OK. We all have our likes and dislikes. HCB was the godfather of street work. Maybe you are a wizard as well as HCB, I don't know?
> 
> For me, I am on a much lower level. So, I crop 80% of my work or more. Not heavy crops, but yes sometimes heavy. If a crop has to be too much and the photo is bad quality from the crop, then it was not meant to be and trashed. That is my guideline for cropping...is it doable?
> 
> Ruining a photo due to dogmatic ego based determination is against my religion. I put image first, ego last. I try to be flexible. If people don't like my work becasue of cropping, no big deal. They will most likely not like the HDR as well. in the end we only have to please ourselves with our work. (Unless we are paid, then we must please the client.)



Using a rangefinder helps no end shooting on the street because you see more than just the frame


----------



## cptkid (Aug 1, 2013)

My two cents. 

You talking sh*t. 

End of discussion.


----------



## raventepes (Aug 1, 2013)

Hi! I'm new here, but here's my opinion. 

Get the image right "In Body" when you can. If you've maxed out your long end, crop and resize at 110% bi-cubit smoother until you have the image size you want/need. That'll help keep the IQ in tact without much loss of detail.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Aug 1, 2013)

My uncle is old school "always get it on the film." 


I try. Sometimes a crop is needed.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 1, 2013)

cptkid said:


> My two cents.
> 
> You talking sh*t.
> 
> End of discussion.



Who is


----------



## kundalini (Aug 1, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Don't crop in PP. Crop in camera. Otherwise, you produce crap.


I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing most folks on this forum are visually oriented.  Because of that opinion and since there have not been any examples up to this point, please allow me.

I'll post an uncropped (to the best of my knowledge) of the DGN file from Bridge.  I shot these last month.  Let me back up slightly.  My files are imported into LR3.  There I will do a few certain tasks, not much and all edits are global in nature, but no cropping or tilt adjustments usually.  I save the tilt adjustments unitl I open Bridge, since it is just as easy there.  I save the crop tool for CS5.  I'm by no means a PS guru and am pretty lazy for post work anyway, so most of the images I post haven't had a lot of time spent on them.  Bridge gets the tilt corrected,  WB treatment and the top few sliders tweaked.  CS5 gets the curves adjustment, sharpening (USM or High Pass), CROPPED and resized.  I'll stop here and admit that any prints to be made, which are not that many, gets a finer toothed comb ran through it.


Here's the DGN file resized for the web.









And here was my final result.









Did you notice how I turned a portrait oriented image into a landscape?  Why would I do something as silly as that?  Would you believe me if I told you the opposite method has also been done?  Which image do you prefer?  Oh behave, I'm not about to profess either is a great image, only for an example of why your above statement is filled with holes.  If I bothered to run NR on it, perhaps it could be improved slightly.  BTW, my cameras are only 12MP.

YMMV.  Just my 2¢.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 1, 2013)

amolitor said:


> It's a thing because not everyone agrees with it, actually. Saying "don't crop" is actually pretty much the same thing as "nail the exposure in camera", it's just a different dimension, and nobody gets all testy when someone says "You should try to get the exposure correct in the camera".



Interesting, then whoever said it earlier, this thread could use a different name I think.


----------



## cptkid (Aug 1, 2013)

gsgary said:


> cptkid said:
> 
> 
> > My two cents.
> ...



The OP.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 1, 2013)

cptkid said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > cptkid said:
> ...



That's kinda harsh.  He was trying to get a discussion going.  When I was shooting slide film, there was no cropping, no post processing, no after-the-fact correction.  You either nailed it (exposure, WB, framing, focus) or you didn't.  No chimping.  No histogram to allow you to adjust.  

You had some more leeway with negative film.  And going to digital opened up a world of possibilities.  

Cropping becomes just another tool in the toolbox.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 1, 2013)

kundalini said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't crop in PP. Crop in camera. Otherwise, you produce crap.
> ...



You turned nothing into Nice!

I can't ever remember anyone ever asking me if I cropped!


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 1, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > That is OK. We all have our likes and dislikes. HCB was the godfather of street work. Maybe you are a wizard as well as HCB, I don't know?
> ...




Yes! I wish there more some affordable rangefinder options. You shoot film, so M6 is a great bargain compared to the N240 or the M9.  I love the Leica style. I use Fuji X, but it is only half ass. The AF is very poor for street. If Fuji had some real lenses that focused manual it would be nice. The Fuji focus by wire if just terrible. I can't believe how bad it is and how they approved it.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 1, 2013)

The old "*Interview*" magazine was expressly formatted for full-frame 35mm images, so the mag was very tall, and very "skinny", having a 3:2 aspect ratio on each facing page. Interview used to pride itself on running top-quality work, with a lot of celebrity/musician/actor/newsmaker/icon portraiture, run un-cropped. It was an interesting concept, and back when photography meant basically "film pictures", and the majority of the above kinda' work was shot with 35mm SLRs, Interview made a lot of sense. It gave photographers a special place to see work printed UN-cropped, and AS-shot.

The knock-out borders, made by filing out negative carriers, so a nice, thick, BLACK line would show around enlargements, held a certain snob appeal/esoteric appeal for a long time. The idea of showing exactly what was captured, no more, no less, was so,so revered that many people insisted that shooting and not cropping was some type of near religious experience, some kind of goal worthy of devoting one's self to. And, I think a lot of the people who subscribed to Interview magazine really felt that way, that un-cropped, 35mm and its 3:2 aspect ratio was somehow a very worthwhile cause/goal/way of thinking.


----------



## DarkShadow (Aug 1, 2013)

kundalini said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't crop in PP. Crop in camera. Otherwise, you produce crap.
> ...



Yep You turned a nice shot into a very nice shot and close up to see all the detail.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 1, 2013)

I'll let you decide which you prefer:


SOOC:








Or cropped:


----------



## amolitor (Aug 2, 2013)

It's like deciding to write sonnets. By placing the sonnet restriction on yourself, various things happen, many beneficial.

There's simply no denying that it's a great exercise to shoot uncropped. Some people find it creatively empowering.

What's irritating is the people on both sides who sneer at the other side. You people can eff-off, 'k?


----------



## Compaq (Aug 2, 2013)

Whatever, I do what I want.

(fake-rebell Cartman reference)


----------



## sleist (Aug 2, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Don't crop in PP.  Crop in camera.  Otherwise, you produce crap.



Complete horse**** statement as presented.
I dislike the 3:2 aspect ratio, so I crop a majority of my shots to 5:4, 3:4, 16:9 ...
I guess everything I shoot is crap then.

People should learn to frame their shots appropriately for the intended purpose with minimal pixel loss.


----------



## cynicaster (Aug 2, 2013)

> I dislike the 3:2 aspect ratio, so I crop a majority of my shots to 5:4, 3:4, 16:9 ...
> I guess everything I shoot is crap then.



This is the fundamental problem I have.  It comes down to a matter of creative vision; I simply do not find the native aspect ratio of my camera pleasing most of the time.  For whatever reason, I have  strong affinity for 5:4, so the vast majority of my keeper images are cropped to that ratio or its portrait counterpart.

I realize I can probably set the camera to shoot in that ratio (I havent even bothered to look), but I feel it would be silly to not use all of my sensors pixels to capture the original image.  Not only that, but it seems almost masochistic to deprive myself of those extra pixels just for the sake of somebodys arbitrary standards of what constitutes honesty in digital photography.     

Note, I made a point of mentioning digital.  I did this because I dont understand why some people insist on perpetuating archaic film-era limitations when shooting digital, as in you wont catch me doing such-and-such because back in the days of film we couldnt do this and that and blah blah blah.  Right.. and everybody knows that real men do their taxes using a slide rule and long division.  Tools change and methods follow.  I know cropping has always been possible, but in the digital realm it happens to be a simple and reversible 2-second operation, so if it makes for a stronger result, you can be darn sure its going to get done.  If youre hell-bent on upholding quaint dogmatic principles, then for crying out loud, put your money where your mouth is and just shoot film.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 2, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Ilovemycam said:
> ...




Can you turn off manual focus ? because i never focus when doing street photography thats why i can shoot quicker than a DSLR user, all i do is set camera to F8-F11 take a light reading (handheld meter) to get shutter speed and then set focus distance to 10feet so everything from 5 feet to infinity is in focus


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2013)

cynicaster said:
			
		

> I simply do not find the native aspect ratio of my camera pleasing most of the time.  For whatever reason, I have  strong affinity for 5:4, so the vast majority of my &#8220;keeper&#8221; images are cropped to that ratio or its portrait counterpart.



Exactly!!! I find the 3:2 ratio of d-slr cameras to be kind of a pain in the butt on a lot of scenes...not "tall enough" many times, or "too skinny" on the verticals...

I think the 4/3 cameras and the 6x7 cameras for example, are good examples of cameras that offer different aspect ratios that really tend to look quite good.

As to the 5:4 aspect ratio...the pro Nikon bodies offer that as one of the in-camera options, and it's pretty darned useful.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 2, 2013)

Derrel said:


> cynicaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, there's only one solution.......

..........carry one of every camera made.  :mrgreen:


----------



## Derrel (Aug 2, 2013)

Okay...I need a new Olympus OM-D E whatever 5 4/3 aspect cam....and of course the spiffy new Voigtlander Bessa 667 folder that shoots 6x6 AND 6x7 aspect []Voigtlander Bessa 667 - Google Search

 and a Speed Graphic for the BIG 4x5 sheets, and of course some kinda Medium Format Digital for 645 aspect...


----------



## DiskoJoe (Aug 2, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Love the responses!  I don't fully buy into my argument either, but I did post this to get people to think.  Less cropping = more thinking upfront which likely produces better images.
> 
> Just my $0.02.  YMMV.



Well less work in post is always the best approach. But cropping alone will not produce a crap image. This is especially true if you are cropping for a specific size and not just to eliminate unwanted elements. But you need to keep in mind that if you have a high MP camera then cropping can still produce excellent images even at a 100%.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2013)

68 posts and seven pages on whether or not cropping is a good thing? Really guys?


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 2, 2013)

manaheim said:


> 68 posts and seven pages on whether or not cropping is a good thing? Really guys?




OK, here's your answer:

Cropping MIGHT make an image worse.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 2, 2013)

480sparky said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > 68 posts and seven pages on whether or not cropping is a good thing? Really guys?
> ...



Awesome.  Now someone lock the stupid thread.  Lol


----------



## Pallycow (Aug 2, 2013)

For some folks, pressing the shutter release button makes a worse image.


----------

