Whatever happened to Camera-craft?

I agree with all of this.

Pookeyhead said:
With all due respect, no you can't, because white is so much closer to the limit of over-exposure.
Exactly... so it's not as easy to lose the data, as it requires so much more exposure.
Yes you can, but 127 is mid grey, so much harder to over expose. Everything I'm talking about here is regarding white balance. not exposure. The only reason I suggest using a grey card is because not only is the reflected light levels guaranteed (not important for white balance) but so is its neutrality, which IS important for white balance...
Click to expand...
But not this...
Pookeyhead said:
...Using a white object for white balance makes zero sense.
Click to expand...

A white card is more suitiable in darker conditions because it's less likely to exhibit noise, that noise sampled for WB will be less reliable.
 
Pookeyhead said:
A white card is more suitiable in darker conditions because it's less likely to exhibit noise, that noise sampled for WB will be less reliable.
Click to expand...

Which was one of my points earlier.

Pookeyhead said:
You are missing the point. When you use a grey card to set white balance, you take a reference shot with the grey card in the shot.
Click to expand...

I do agree that if you are just including the card in a shot it needs to be grey in order for auto exposure to work and to compare it with the rest of the scene but I was under the impression that if you wanted to do an in camera white balance, then you had to fill the frame. In that case white or grey would be fine. It then just depends on the manufacturers ability to make a neutral grey or white.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I agree with all of this.


But not this...


A white card is more suitiable in darker conditions because it's less likely to exhibit noise, that noise sampled for WB will be less reliable.
Click to expand...

Again... assuming that the white card is rendered usably dark enough. Just because it's dark changes nothing. In a high contrast setting, placing a white object in a frame you've already metered for, especially one thats' predominantly dark, can easily render the white card actually white, or close to it, which is a crap white balancing reference point. If its dark.. it will be noisy, sure... but that's tough titties. :)

If you have a grey swatch Q card, you can choose whichever swatch you want, and regularly do... which is how I know that white is the least reliable way of setting white balance.

As I said.. try it if you don't believe me.
 
Steve Smith said:
Which was one of my points earlier.



I do agree that if you are just including the card in a shot it needs to be grey in order for auto exposure to work and to compare it with the rest of the scene but I was under the impression that if you wanted to do an in camera white balance, then you had to fill the frame.
Click to expand...


Noooooooo......

We're not talking about setting the white balance IN CAMERA with the grey card.... we're talking post. LOL

The whole point of shooting raw is that you can FORGET setting it in camera.. its a raw file... just click on the grey card within the shot with the Lightroom or ACR WB dropper tool... perfect every time.
 
Last edited:
There's one aspect of 'getting it right in camera' that I've noticed the digital age having a big effect on - framing/composition. These days people seem to think there's need to compose a shot now because it's so easy to crop and clone out crap in post.

I'm not anti-cropping, it has a time and place, but the number of pics I see people being advised to 'improve' by cropping/cloning astounds me. I consider framing shots to be the starting point for making photographs. Maybe I'm a dinosaur!
 
Ed Sutton said:
There's one aspect of 'getting it right in camera' that I've noticed the digital age having a big effect on - framing/composition. These days people seem to think there's need to compose a shot now because it's so easy to crop and clone out crap in post.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Cropping = loss of quality. It's to be avoided if possible. Not always possible of course, but should be avoided if it IS possible.

I see this all too often as well. Person posts image in here asking how to improve, and they get cropping advice. No... if possible, go back and re-shoot the damned thing, and get the composition right in camera.
 
Ed Sutton said:
There's one aspect of 'getting it right in camera' that I've noticed the digital age having a big effect on - framing/composition. These days people seem to think there's need to compose a shot now because it's so easy to crop and clone out crap in post.

I'm not anti-cropping, it has a time and place, but the number of pics I see people being advised to 'improve' by cropping/cloning astounds me. I consider framing shots to be the starting point for making photographs. Maybe I'm a dinosaur!
Click to expand...

Did people never crop shots or blow up portions of them from film then ?
 
big soft moose said:
Did people never crop shots or blow up portions of them from film then ?
Click to expand...


Wasn't as easy... you had to go back into the darkroom.. mix some chemistry, and reprint it.. wash it... dry it... possibly flatten and glaze it if it was fibre based paper... then actually physically take it somewhere to actually get an opinion.

Now you drag a crop box around it and hit return... then post it on here. There's less incentive to reshoot it now.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Did people never crop shots or blow up portions of them from film then ?
Click to expand...
Of course they did, but not in the routine way it's done nowadays. I've already said there are perfectly good reason for cropping - editorial uses for one, because your camera shoots a different aspect ratio to how you conceive the picture for another. It's a pity more DSLRs don't give you a wider choice of aspect ratios like other cameras do.

Today cropping is done to compensate for not getting the framing right to start with or because too short a lens has been used (especially with wildlife where it covers up poor fieldcraft).
 
Pookeyhead said:
Wasn't as easy... you had to go back into the darkroom.. mix some chemistry, and reprint it.. wash it... dry it... possibly flatten and glaze it if it was fibre based paper... then actually physically take it somewhere to actually get an opinion.
Click to expand...

It was a real pain making multiple copies of what you had for lunch and pictures of your cat which you then had to post to all of your friends. Thank goodness Facebook was invented!


Steve.
 
Ed Sutton said:
There's one aspect of 'getting it right in camera' that I've noticed the digital age having a big effect on - framing/composition. These days people seem to think there's need to compose a shot now because it's so easy to crop and clone out crap in post.

I'm not anti-cropping, it has a time and place, but the number of pics I see people being advised to 'improve' by cropping/cloning astounds me. I consider framing shots to be the starting point for making photographs. Maybe I'm a dinosaur!
Click to expand...

Yep i agree you see it being said all the time :(
 
The whole point of a DSLR pentaprism is to reflect the the image before you. I think this has indeed become lost on many people who favour cropping in post processing. Knowledge of your lenses focal length and the predicted outcome negates this but this all comes with practice and experience.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
The whole point of a DSLR pentaprism is to reflect the the image before you. .
Click to expand...

although that said not ever DSLR has 100% FoV from the viewfinder
 
Ed Sutton said:
Of course they did, but not in the routine way it's done nowadays. I've already said there are perfectly good reason for cropping - editorial uses for one, because your camera shoots a different aspect ratio to how you conceive the picture for another. It's a pity more DSLRs don't give you a wider choice of aspect ratios like other cameras do.

Today cropping is done to compensate for not getting the framing right to start with or because too short a lens has been used (especially with wildlife where it covers up poor fieldcraft).
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I disagree with you about cropping. As far as wildlife is concerned one is often in a fixed hide and it is physically impossible to get any closer to your subject. There is also the creature's welfare to consider. Even if you could move yourself or your portable hide closer to the subject, how sure could you be that you are not entering too far into its personal space? There's the risk of desertion of eggs/young too if near a nest. Cropping is the answer to that dilemma, assuming you've got the quality available to make it possible.

For my exhibition almost every image (over 100) was cropped from 3:2 format to 2.7:1 format. That shape appealed to me and I think they worked.

Maybe if you could set your crop ratio in camera at the moment of taking that might be the answer. Cropping is definitely part of the creative process but I would prefer to have the luxury of a desk, a comfy chair and a leisurely look at the monitor to do it.

I often look at wildlife and landscape images and think "God , that would be better cropped to panoramic ......(or something else)" Many images just don't work in one of the standard formats. Why restrict yourself by not cropping?

Cloning is something else entirely although in some cases it could have the same result.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
I'm afraid I disagree with you about cropping. As far as wildlife is concerned one is often in a fixed hide and it is physically impossible to get any closer to your subject. There is also the creature's welfare to consider. Even if you could move yourself or your portable hide closer to the subject, how sure could you be that you are not entering too far into its personal space? There's the risk of desertion of eggs/young too if near a nest. Cropping is the answer to that dilemma, assuming you've got the quality available to make it possible.

For my exhibition almost every image (over 100) was cropped from 3:2 format to 2.7:1 format. That shape appealed to me and I think they worked.

Maybe if you could set your crop ratio in camera at the moment of taking that might be the answer. Cropping is definitely part of the creative process but I would prefer to have the luxury of a desk, a comfy chair and a leisurely look at the monitor to do it.

I often look at wildlife and landscape images and think "God , that would be better cropped to panoramic ......(or something else)" Many images just don't work in one of the standard formats. Why restrict yourself by not cropping?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into the whole hide/fieldcraft thing because that's a whole new discussion and I might start to rant!

I've already said that I don't have a problem with cropping to fit a preconceived vision and that having more cropping options in camera would be great. It's cropping to compensate for a lack of attention to framing when making the exposure that bugs me. It's such a fundamental of photography for me. It's the main thing that sets a photographer apart from a snapshooter IMO.
 
where as those damn brushes killed cave painting dead
 
Pookeyhead said:
Agreed. Cropping = loss of quality. It's to be avoided if possible. Not always possible of course, but should be avoided if it IS possible.

I see this all too often as well. Person posts image in here asking how to improve, and they get cropping advice. No... if possible, go back and re-shoot the damned thing, and get the composition right in camera.
Click to expand...

Dont agree with this at all.
Cropping is just a tool like any other, used correctly it makes no difference to quality. The main reason i purchased my current camera was to allow even more cropping. The ability to crop to a high degree is a big thing for me, its very rare i dont crop an image to some degree, it means instead of carrying a 35mm and a 50 i get away with just a 35mm.
 
Last edited:
Many people only look at images on screen or via social media these days and if pictures are printed the chances are that they'll be waaaaay smaller than the maximum that the equipment would be capable of producing at maximum quality so cropping and even heavily cropping an image could be perfectly fine and still leave you with very good quality.

For example, my A7 images are normally 6000 x 4000 and this gives quite a bit of scope for cropping if all I want is a screen image or an A4 sized print.
 
Whereas I regard A4/10"x8" as the size of a proof print, and A3 or larger as the final size. My equipment choice is determined by this, and I aim to only crop because I don't want to use the format ratio my camera provides. The more I enlarge, the more the imperfections show, so minimum enlargement is my aim for maximum print quality.
 
StephenM said:
Whereas I regard A4/10"x8" as the size of a proof print, and A3 or larger as the final size.
Click to expand...

You and indeed most people here are a tiny minority of the photo taking masses. The main thing is that we think about what final requirement is including image size and quality and these things will/should influence both the kit and the settings but a blanket statement of cropping = loss of quality obviously needs qualifying as for many people and in many output sizes and viewing scenarios it ain't necessarily so.
 
It's not loss of image quality that I have an issue with but that the post production crop suggests a lack of ability to visualise a picture in the first place (except for when a different aspect ratio has been predetermined). If someone is cropping after the fact it suggests to me that they haven't really looked hard enough at their subject.

Putting a frame around a part of the world we see is what photography does. It's the starting point of making photographs. The edges of the viewfinder/screen ought to be used with care and precision. </rant> :)
 
robj20 said:
Dont agree with this at all.
Cropping is just a tool like any other, used correctly it makes no difference to quality. The main reason i purchased my current camera was to allow even more cropping. The ability to crop to a high degree is a big thing for me, its very rare i dont crop an image to some degree, it means instead of carrying a 35mm and a 50 i get away with just a 35mm.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you can disagree. It's simple enough maths, if you crop an image you reduce it's size / quality.

Now whether that's within the required parameters is a different issue. But you'd have to agree we can't crop an image to 100pixels wide and expect a high quality 20" print (exaggerated to show the point).
Better cameras allow us to crop more than older lower res cameras, but that's not the same as 'it makes no difference to quality'.
 
Or maybe thats just the way you do it. I see nothing wrong with doing the majority of the work back at home on the PC instead of out with the camera, just because we did things a certain way back in the old days doesn't mean its the best way or the only way.

Phil V said:
I'm not sure how you can disagree. It's simple enough maths, if you crop an image you reduce it's size / quality.

Now whether that's within the required parameters is a different issue. But you'd have to agree we can't crop an image to 100pixels wide and expect a high quality 20" print (exaggerated to show the point).
Better cameras allow us to crop more than older lower res cameras, but that's not the same as 'it makes no difference to quality'.
Click to expand...

I understand that but some people in here seem to be suggesting cropping is the devils work. For me the whole reason i went high MP was to crop i was more than happy with 8MP now i have 36 so thats a lot of extra cropping i can do and still get the same output.
 
Last edited:
robj20 said:
Or maybe thats just the way you do it. I see nothing wrong with doing the majority of the work back at home on the PC instead of out with the camera, just because we did things a certain way back in the old days doesn't mean its the best way or the only way.
Click to expand...
It's not about the right or wrong or old or new - it's simple maths, you can't dismiss the fact that some people need all the resolution that they bought and throwing it away is just nuts.
It's fine if you're left with enough resolution, but you can't hand it out as advice without the obvious caveats, because other people might think they're 'losing nothing' by cropping, only to find that they have indeed lost a great deal..
 
Ed Sutton said:
It's not loss of image quality that I have an issue with but that the post production crop suggests a lack of ability to visualise a picture in the first place (except for when a different aspect ratio has been predetermined). If someone is cropping after the fact it suggests to me that they haven't really looked hard enough at their subject.

Putting a frame around a part of the world we see is what photography does. It's the starting point of making photographs. The edges of the viewfinder/screen ought to be used with care and precision. </rant> :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I still disagree with you, Dave . Many people use wide/extra-wide lenses for landscapes - for example - and there's often just not enough "foreground interest" or interesting sky to fill the frame. I just don't see the harm in cropping an image later to retain the interesting part of it. Now if they had had an xPan or similar.........

It's only a matter of framing it in camera with a very restricted range of proportions, or on the PC, when there is an infinite number of possibilities. Same process!

How do you feel about zoom lenses?
 
jerry12953 said:
Sorry, I still disagree with you, Dave . Many people use wide/extra-wide lenses for landscapes - for example - and there's often just not enough "foreground interest" or interesting sky to fill the frame. I just don't see the harm in cropping an image later to retain the interesting part of it.
Click to expand...

Indeed, if that's the intention at the outset. But if it's not then the wrong lens has been used or not taken enough care over framing the shots. IMO :)

robj20 said:
How do you feel about zoom lenses?
Click to expand...

They make you lazy and really are the Devil's work!

How about stitched panoramas? :D
 
Ed Sutton said:
It's not loss of image quality that I have an issue with but that the post production crop suggests a lack of ability to visualise a picture in the first place (except for when a different aspect ratio has been predetermined). If someone is cropping after the fact it suggests to me that they haven't really looked hard enough at their subject.
Click to expand...

jerry12953 said:
Sorry, I still disagree with you, Dave . Many people use wide/extra-wide lenses for landscapes - for example - and there's often just not enough "foreground interest" or interesting sky to fill the frame. I just don't see the harm in cropping an image later to retain the interesting part of it. Now if they had had an xPan or similar.........

I
Click to expand...

I understood the part in brackets in the Dave's quoted post to mean the same as the first paragraph in Jermemy's quote
 
StephenM said:
I understood the part in brackets in the Dave's quoted post to mean the same as the first paragraph in Jermemy's quote
Click to expand...

Possibly.....I suspect Dave is a bit more hard line about it than me, though.......

Ed Sutton said:
Indeed, if that's the intention at the outset. But if it's not then the wrong lens has been used or not taken enough care over framing the shots. IMO :)

They make you lazy and really are the Devil's work!

How about stitched panoramas? :D
Click to expand...

Back in the day I used to take an xPan with me along with my 35mm kit. Sometimes a scene really suited the xPan format so I would use it. But then along came digital and I sold the xPan. Now I can get the same format by cropping a digital image. Same result!

It's not laziness, although I can see how that might creep in. I can even see it with myself sometimes.
 
jerry12953 said:
Possibly.....I suspect Dave is a bit more hard line about it than me, though.......
Click to expand...

All 'rules' are made to be broken.;)

jerry12953 said:
Back in the day I used to take an xPan with me along with my 35mm kit. Sometimes a scene really suited the xPan format so I would use it. But then along came digital and I sold the xPan. Now I can get the same format by cropping a digital image. Same result!
Click to expand...

I do wonder if a digital panoramic camera would sell. After all it would be easy enough to crop to a more 'normal' format in post! :exit:
 
Ed Sutton said:
All 'rules' are made to be broken.;)



I do wonder if a digital panoramic camera would sell. After all it would be easy enough to crop to a more 'normal' format in post! :exit:
Click to expand...

But they're likely to crop an already small sensor down to panoramic (like APS) rather than widening the sensor like they used to with the 'old school' panoramic cameras. So we'd be cropping a cropped image.
 
Phil V said:
But they're likely to crop an already small sensor down to panoramic (like APS) rather than widening the sensor like they used to with the 'old school' panoramic cameras. So we'd be cropping a cropped image.
Click to expand...

Like the 16:9 option in mirrorless and compact cameras? I quite like that.
 
robj20 said:
Dont agree with this at all.
Cropping is just a tool like any other, used correctly it makes no difference to quality.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It is impossible to crop into an image and not lose quality. Fact.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Incorrect. It is impossible to crop into an image and not lose quality. Fact.
Click to expand...

Absolute, fair enough. Relative you don't loose quality, which is what i was getting at hence "used correctly."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top