Whatever happened to Camera-craft?

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

OK, I'll bite.

When I was 11 or 12, a teacher offered a prize to anyone who could draw a triangle with the sum of the interior angles not 180 degrees. There were no takers, but I could do it now, with greater knowledge. The way to make the impossible possible to is question the underlying assumption, in this case Euclidean geometry.

So, on the cropping question: I take a 10x8 contact print and crop it down to whole plate. The technical quality will be exactly the same. But that is the only way I can think of that it can be done. Until we have films and sensors that have infinite resolution and use lenses with infinite resolving power and no aberations.

The post above was made while I was typing. I can see what you're getting at, which is that if done sparingly, you can't see the difference. That then becomes subjective, and in some cases the result could be modified if you could make a side by side comparison with the same print (I always "think print") made from a larger original.
 
Steve Smith said:
No, but you do lose it.



You either lose quality whilst mainatining size or you maintain quality but size is reduced.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Resolution only effects quality up to a certain point, lets say 300DPI anything more is superfluous. You make out like any cropping instantly makes an image unusable.

PS, you spelt maintaining wrong ;) see I can point out spelling mistakes as well.
 
robj20 said:
Resolution only effects quality up to a certain point, lets say 300DPI anything more is superfluous. You make out like any cropping instantly makes an image unusable.
Click to expand...

There are grounds for queryng your figure on resolution, but I'll let that pass - this isn't a technical discussion on the point. I would point out though that there is more to quality than just resolution (I assume we're talking "technical" here) such as tonal transitions which will always become slightly less smooth as you increase magnification.

And I don't think that anyone said that any cropping "instantly makes an image unusable". Although I'd say that there is a limit to print size depending on what you start with, and I have no problem with regarding an image as unusable for me if I can't print it at the size it needs to be.

There is also a well known effect that a print can look fine until you compare it with a better one. There is a transition in fall off, and the fall off is more easily seen if you have a "gold standard" to compare a print to.
 
StephenM said:
OK, I'll bite.

If take a 10x8 contact print and crop it down to whole plate. The technical quality will be exactly the same. But that is the only way I can think of that it can be done.
Click to expand...

So you've used a 10 x 8 Sinar or similar, developed the sheet film, placed it on photographic paper, exposed light to it and made your contact. Fair enough.

You would place it in an enlarger, elevate the enlarge and using an easel expose the crop to what you want. There might be a slight reduction in quality but so what, it will still out perform most digital images today at 10 x 8 or 20 x16 if not equal. If you printed off two images from both mediums most people would not be able to tell the difference apart.

No point taking a smaller crop whatsoever. The quality will remain consistent but the image would be crap. That's a bit like making a cup of tea and only filling the cup up half way - no point !
 
Blank_Canvas said:
You would place it in an enlarger, elevate the enlarge and using an easel expose the crop to what you want. There might be a slight reduction in quality but so what, it will still out perform most digital images today at 10 x 8 or 20 x16 if not equal. If you printed off two images from both mediums most people would not be able to tell the difference apart.
Click to expand...

You've conceded my main point by admitting that there might be a slight reduction. If there wasn't a reduction, I could continue cropping little by little until there's nothing left - it's a continuum. Whether it outperforms digital is totally irrelevant to me. And the last quoted sentence still conceded the point by saying "most people" rather than "everyone".

I'm obviously dense, but your last paragraph went over my head completely. As it stands, it seems to say that any cropping produces a poorer image than not cropping would. If so, heaven help those whose camera doesn't produce images in the same proportions as their view of the subject! They are doomed to always fail. Clearly, I've grossly misunderstood your point.

Either way, I've said my piece. I'm not happy cropping unless I need to adjust to image proportions. I'm extremely irritated with myself if I ever see anything post exposure at the edges that I don't want there because it means I was slipshod in my original composition. Others clearly are happy with cropping and buy cameras with a view to having quality to throw away. I'm concerned to preserve as much as I can. Each to his own. But there's still going to be a drop in quality when you enlarge more...
 
StephenM said:
I'm not happy cropping unless I need to adjust to image proportions. I'm extremely irritated with myself if I ever see anything post exposure at the edges that I don't want there because it means I was slipshod in my original composition.
Click to expand...
Indeed, for subjects that are static or relatively so. Otherwise ...
 
StephenM said:
You've conceded my main point by admitting that there might be a slight reduction. If there wasn't a reduction, I could continue cropping little by little until there's nothing left - it's a continuum. Whether it outperforms digital is totally irrelevant to me. And the last quoted sentence still conceded the point by saying "most people" rather than "everyone".

I'm obviously dense, but your last paragraph went over my head completely. As it stands, it seems to say that any cropping produces a poorer image than not cropping would. If so, heaven help those whose camera doesn't produce images in the same proportions as their view of the subject! They are doomed to always fail. Clearly, I've grossly misunderstood your point.

Either way, I've said my piece. I'm not happy cropping unless I need to adjust to image proportions. I'm extremely irritated with myself if I ever see anything post exposure at the edges that I don't want there because it means I was slipshod in my original composition. Others clearly are happy with cropping and buy cameras with a view to having quality to throw away. I'm concerned to preserve as much as I can. Each to his own. But there's still going to be a drop in quality when you enlarge more...
Click to expand...

I agree.............

I'm not an advicate of cropping at all (as per my earlier post). Having and using knowledge of various focal lenghths, visulising the desired outcome and then then finally, last part of the process using the *viewfinder in a DSLR / SLR, getting the image level, expsoing it correctly all contributes to camera craft.

(*I'm not a fan rangefinder cameras becasue of parralex error)
 
Steve Smith said:
No, but you do lose it.



You either lose quality whilst mainatining size or you maintain quality but size is reduced.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Only if you start off by printing (or viewing) at maximum size for the resolution and IQ you have. If for example you gear is capable under the given circumstances of producing a flawless A3 print, and you're printing A4, then you'll be able to crop down by 50% (in area) without being able to see any difference.
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm not convinced. Please explain.
Click to expand...


Cropping an image, and then representing it at the same size as the original means you've magnified it. Pixels are larger in relation to the original. Quality is lessened.

Sorry, but you're all questioning a fact. Any image that has been cropped is lower in resolution than the original image, hence lower in quality.

This is an indisputable fact.

If I take a 8x10 image, and crop it in half to get a 4x5 image, then if I keep it at 4x5 the relative quality will be identical, yes, but if I then enlarge it back to 8x10 I have reduced quality. Even if I do not though, and keep it at 4x5, it contains less pixels than the 8x10 original, and is therefore a lower quality image.

Fact.
 
Pookeyhead said:
If I take a 8x10 image, and crop it in half to get a 4x5 image, then if I keep it at 4x5 the relative quality will be identical, yes, but if I then enlarge it back to 8x10 I have reduced quality.
Click to expand...

That's almost exactly the example I was going to give.

Shoot something on a piece of 5x4 film them cut out a 35mm sized frame. The quality of the cutout part is identical to what it was when it was part of the whole sheet. Enlarge it up to 5x4 though and the quality is reduced.

I think most of us are agreeing rather than arguing. We are just approaching it from different directions.


Steve.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Cropping an image, and then representing it at the same size as the original means you've magnified it. Pixels are larger in relation to the original. Quality is lessened.

Sorry, but you're all questioning a fact. Any image that has been cropped is lower in resolution than the original image, hence lower in quality.

This is an indisputable fact.

If I take a 8x10 image, and crop it in half to get a 4x5 image, then if I keep it at 4x5 the relative quality will be identical, yes, but if I then enlarge it back to 8x10 I have reduced quality. Even if I do not though, and keep it at 4x5, it contains less pixels than the 8x10 original, and is therefore a lower quality image.

Fact.
Click to expand...
A smaller File maybe, But the quality of the cropped image would still be the same quality before being cropped out of the full image would it Not?
 
I think the conflict comes from people seeing it two ways, resolution = quality and resolution = resolution. I see resolution as having next to no impact on the quality of an image, it just dictates the size.
 
Kingo9919 said:
A smaller File maybe, But the quality of the cropped image would still be the same quality before being cropped out of the full image would it Not?
Click to expand...


Yes., but its now the whole image, and as such, is lower in quality should you chose to enlarge it back to how it was, which is actually what people do in reality.
 
robj20 said:
I think the conflict comes from people seeing it two ways, resolution = quality and resolution = resolution. I see resolution as having next to no impact on the quality of an image, it just dictates the size.
Click to expand...
Which is perfectly fine, until you need the large size.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Cropping an image, and then representing it at the same size as the original means you've magnified it. Pixels are larger in relation to the original. Quality is lessened.

Sorry, but you're all questioning a fact. Any image that has been cropped is lower in resolution than the original image, hence lower in quality.

This is an indisputable fact.

If I take a 8x10 image, and crop it in half to get a 4x5 image, then if I keep it at 4x5 the relative quality will be identical, yes, but if I then enlarge it back to 8x10 I have reduced quality. Even if I do not though, and keep it at 4x5, it contains less pixels than the 8x10 original, and is therefore a lower quality image.

Fact.
Click to expand...

8x10 is 4 times larger than 4x5 is it not?
 
Yes a 4" x 5" negative can be placed on top of a "10 x 8" negative four (4) times.

Extreme caution is advised to avoid scratching the negatives.
 
If I have a nice piece of cheese and I cut it in half and eat half of it, the remaining cheese is still of the same quality. I just have half as much.


Steve.
 
Forget cheese, beer would be a better analogy.

If I have a pint of beer and drink half of it, the remaining beer is still of the same quality. If I top my glass up with water, I'm back to having a pint again but the quality is not what it was.


Steve.
 
Better analogy if I have four pints I can't even focus my eyes so camera craft is a little irrelevant...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Jesus... this is rediculous.


If you want an image at A3, and then someone advises you to crop that A3 image... you will crop it, then resize it back to A3... because you wanted a A3 image. You've lost quality. deal with it.

No one crops and doesn't resize.


Some of you people will argue black is white just for fun. LOL
 
Pookeyhead said:
Jesus... this is rediculous.


If you want an image at A3, and then someone advises you to crop that A3 image... you will crop it, then resize it back to A3... because you wanted a A3 image. You've lost quality. deal with it.

No one crops and doesn't resize.


Some of you people will argue black is white just for fun. LOL
Click to expand...
But we're talking about resolutions and print sizes where it's possible that a 20% crop & resize to desired print dimensions would make a difference in image quality imperceptible to the human eye. A loss in theoretical maximum IQ potential which under the conditions of printing and viewing cannot be seen is a difference which doesn't matter. It's a difference which is indistinguishable from no loss in quality. It's not worth spending any money or time chasing after invisible improvements in image quality. It's a difference which is tantamount to no difference.
 
chris malcolm said:
But we're talking about resolutions and print sizes where it's possible that a 20% crop & resize to desired print dimensions would make a difference in image quality imperceptible to the human eye. A loss in theoretical maximum IQ potential which under the conditions of printing and viewing cannot be seen is a difference which doesn't matter. It's a difference which is indistinguishable from no loss in quality. It's not worth spending any money or time chasing after invisible improvements in image quality. It's a difference which is tantamount to no difference.
Click to expand...
Well said
 
Pookeyhead said:
Jesus... this is rediculous.


If you want an image at A3, and then someone advises you to crop that A3 image... you will crop it, then resize it back to A3... because you wanted a A3 image. You've lost quality. deal with it.

No one crops and doesn't resize.


Some of you people will argue black is white just for fun. LOL
Click to expand...

This is rather like playing chess with a particularly dense pigeon

You may have lost theoretical quality, but if the eye doesn't perceive it who cares - Given that its possible to create a perfectly passable A0 print from a 6MP image , cropping an 18MP image by 2/3 won't actually hurt the ability to print the image to any given size you might desire....
 
Laudrup said:
For what?
Click to expand...
Printing album spreads, printing large prints for people to hang on their walls?

I'm not particularly picky, but no crop Canon delivers anywhere near the quality the modern crop Sony sensors or anyone's full frame sensors can achieve.
 
Phil V said:
Printing album spreads, printing large prints for people to hang on their walls?

I'm not particularly picky, but no crop Canon delivers anywhere near the quality the modern crop Sony sensors or anyone's full frame sensors can achieve.
Click to expand...

but does any non photographer (or any photographer not into pixel peeping) care - as i said I've done hige prints from an 300D with a mighty 6MP so cropping a 70D (20MP) image isnt a big deal in any way that actually maters
 
big soft moose said:
but does any non photographer (or any photographer not into pixel peeping) care - as i said I've done hige prints from an 300D with a mighty 6MP so cropping a 70D (20MP) image isnt a big deal in any way that actually maters
Click to expand...
It's not about what you can get from a 300d file at 100 ISO though, it's about what happens at 3200.
 
big soft moose said:
Given that its possible to create a perfectly passable A0 print from a 6MP image
Click to expand...


LOL.


It's possible to create a A0 image from a ONE megapixel image, but it would look like crap. If you think a A0 print from a 6 mega pixel source is acceptable, then you've got a very different idea of quality than I have. Probably why you're too ashamed to show any work.

All I'm saying is it is impossible to crop into an image and not lose quality. All this rhetoric about whether it's noticeable or not is academic. It does lose quality, and it is a fact. I'm saying no more, or less. Never have :)


Laudrup said:
For what?
Click to expand...

Big prints?

If you don't think it's that important to do everything within your power to maintain quality, why did you spend £3000 on a standard lens if you're then just going to crop into your images and begin the process of losing that MINUSCULE amount of quality you've gained by spending £2700 more than everyone else spends on a standard lens?


****ing hypocrite.. LOL

big soft moose said:
but does any non photographer (or any photographer not into pixel peeping) care - as i said I've done hige prints from an 300D with a mighty 6MP so cropping a 70D (20MP) image isnt a big deal in any way that actually maters
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I said... it would have looked crap... you just clearly don't recognise what crap looks like.

I used to have a EOS 350D (8MP) and even at A3 it looked dodgy unless you were far enough away from it, and NO ONE looks at a A3 print from far enough away to hide it, no matter how much you convince yourself they do.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top