You know, I've recently been receiving advice that I'm not committing hard enough on my compositions, cropping being one of my issues. I'll take your advise and hunt away!
Cropping is fine - but the DOF / compression is very different from a cropped version of, say a 50mm lens compared to the same scene captured using a 135mm, 200mm or 300mm focal length lens. I have no issue with cropping but, speaking personally, I'd much rather fill the frame using a zoom or telephoto than waste film negative or pixel real estate to get the same composition.
You can also take a cheap camera with a medium-resolution sensor, equipped with a zoom lens and instantly compose all your shots as you take them. As you said, not everybody can afford a $7k, 100Mp camera equipped with a $3k prime lens, and the famous ‘zoom with your feet’ statement is a wrong concept.
With zoom lenses, you commit the crop when doing the shot. But even though, you can crop a photo taken with the analog zoom lens! The point is that cropping is totally okay!
Yes, of course. I got your point and I have cameras with 60 and 100 Mp sensors, where I can crop in post down to 20 Mp, but sometimes I enjoy going out with my Olympus MFT (20Mp, BSI sensor) equipped with a FF-equivalent 24-200mm lenses and come home with OOTC JPGs which I can use immediately, without even opening my computer.
Yet another interesting angle. Being an old timer, I was used to shooting in a square format and then recomposing under the enlarger to make 10 × 8 inch prints, which in turn was a throwback to working with the 4 × 5 inch format of technical cameras. Like you, I have never really subscribed to the idea that cropping is cheating. At the same time, I can see the logic of the old 35mm Leica photographers of the Cartier-Bresson era. Once they started over-enlarging and cropping into a small 35mm frame, especially with the film quality of that period, the image could begin to fall apart in the final print.
Now fast forward to the digital era, where resolution often outperforms 35mm film. It does make me wonder why we feel the need to always fill the frame. If the scene in front of us works as a panoramic view in our mind’s eye, then it makes sense to hold that framing in mind, make the exposure, and crop later. No shame in that, just the picture as intended.
Where I do have some reservations is with the idea that cropping somehow increases focal length. Cropping a wide-angle file to mimic a telephoto view never quite feels the same as filling the frame with a true telephoto lens.
Thanks for the article, it has certainly given me something to think about.
Some of the greatest photographers in history took some of the greatest photographs in history and they were cropped. This whole everything has to be done in camera dogma is crap. Personally, I blame Cartier-Bresson!
You know, I've recently been receiving advice that I'm not committing hard enough on my compositions, cropping being one of my issues. I'll take your advise and hunt away!
That’s very nice to hear! I wrote that article, but they also applies to me.
Cropping is fine - but the DOF / compression is very different from a cropped version of, say a 50mm lens compared to the same scene captured using a 135mm, 200mm or 300mm focal length lens. I have no issue with cropping but, speaking personally, I'd much rather fill the frame using a zoom or telephoto than waste film negative or pixel real estate to get the same composition.
I agree. When that’s not possible, medium format and bruteforcing photodiodes and pixels can help 😅
I frame in camera and have respect for those who can do the same. Cropping as part of a workflow is like spray and pray. Beginner approach.
I don’t disagree. But I think cropping isn’t a sin. It’s just a matter of not abusing from it.
I’m glad someone is saying this
You can also take a cheap camera with a medium-resolution sensor, equipped with a zoom lens and instantly compose all your shots as you take them. As you said, not everybody can afford a $7k, 100Mp camera equipped with a $3k prime lens, and the famous ‘zoom with your feet’ statement is a wrong concept.
With zoom lenses, you commit the crop when doing the shot. But even though, you can crop a photo taken with the analog zoom lens! The point is that cropping is totally okay!
Yes, of course. I got your point and I have cameras with 60 and 100 Mp sensors, where I can crop in post down to 20 Mp, but sometimes I enjoy going out with my Olympus MFT (20Mp, BSI sensor) equipped with a FF-equivalent 24-200mm lenses and come home with OOTC JPGs which I can use immediately, without even opening my computer.
That’s very cool! I wish I had a zoom lens too! I thought about getting one these days! Thanks for reading my friend!
Yet another interesting angle. Being an old timer, I was used to shooting in a square format and then recomposing under the enlarger to make 10 × 8 inch prints, which in turn was a throwback to working with the 4 × 5 inch format of technical cameras. Like you, I have never really subscribed to the idea that cropping is cheating. At the same time, I can see the logic of the old 35mm Leica photographers of the Cartier-Bresson era. Once they started over-enlarging and cropping into a small 35mm frame, especially with the film quality of that period, the image could begin to fall apart in the final print.
Now fast forward to the digital era, where resolution often outperforms 35mm film. It does make me wonder why we feel the need to always fill the frame. If the scene in front of us works as a panoramic view in our mind’s eye, then it makes sense to hold that framing in mind, make the exposure, and crop later. No shame in that, just the picture as intended.
Where I do have some reservations is with the idea that cropping somehow increases focal length. Cropping a wide-angle file to mimic a telephoto view never quite feels the same as filling the frame with a true telephoto lens.
Thanks for the article, it has certainly given me something to think about.
Some of the greatest photographers in history took some of the greatest photographs in history and they were cropped. This whole everything has to be done in camera dogma is crap. Personally, I blame Cartier-Bresson!
Is it really art if you're not cropping with the lens?
Is it really art if you're not shooting film?
Is it really art if you're not painting the image?
Is it really art if you're not producing your paints?
Is it really art if you're not drawing mammoths on the walls of your cave using ashes and berries?
Everything is art!