How tightly do you frame your shots & and do you crop?

[Viggo]

I might crop with fl's from 70mm and at 200 although I really try to frame right in the first place. I used to think I could just crop later, and discovered a lot of my wide shots had to be crop to not so wide and that took away impact.

To pay attention to framing when shooting makes me think more about the whole image, what do I need to include/exclude and my angles etc. And it' made my horizons much straighter (VF level FTW)

 

[candyman]

I sure use availble posibilities (crop, exposure compensation, colorimprovement etc) to improve my photos. I don't use photoshop to alter image subjects (add and remove etc)

 

[sanj]

That was deep.

Hahahaha

 

[sanj]

I crop ALL my photos. To some degree or the other.

 

[Faaier]

I find that cropping the pictures afterwards is a good learning school for better framing. You eventually start to see what 'errors' you are making. Angle, trying to capture too much on the photo (and catching nothing)... But I will always leave a bit extra, because cropping afterwards is always better then cropping feet on-camera!

 

[Northstar]

I shoot a lot of sports where cropping is a necessity.

 

[greger]

I shoot the best framing I can get in Camera then crop in PS if needed. I will use any means at my disposal to get the printed pic that I want or if I can't then I won't print that pic and will move on to other photos.
I cropped many pics to get what I wanted. Then I bought the lenses that would let me crop in camera the 100L Macro and 100-400L zoom. I still crop. I might own the longest lens Canon makes someday and still find I crop with pics from that lens. ;D

 

[mrsfotografie]

I frame for the shot I want, and cropping is something I rarely do.
I do fix tilt where the horizon is in the shot; the 5DMkII viewfinder coverage is slightly less than what gets on the frame so that gives a little flexibility for rotational cropping.

 

[mb66energy]

What do I shoot?
Nature (Landscape, Macro), interesting patterns, some table top and similar subjects - no action on a regular base.

Answer to the cropping question:
I try to avoid cropping - except for planned cropping into another aspect ration. For that I really like live view: What you see is what you get and it gives me a similar experience like the Rolleicord or Mamiya 645 - more distance to the picture which is presented on a flat screen.

Why?
It slows down the act of taking pictures and leads to (better) composition. Hopefully. Combine that with a tripod and a great head (Manfrotto 468 Ball Head), it allows "meditative" photography not (or barely) limited by the availability of light.

 

[Sella174]

Mostly I don't crop (old habit of laziness & good technique), but when I do I try not to crop more than 40% off the photograph. But back in the film days, I always framed my shots a smidge wider ... those old slide holders, they automatically cropped 1mm off each side.

 

[m]

Photography is cropping.

So in the good old days, Slide shooters are not photographers????

They are. Why would they not be?

 

[iron-t]

I'm constantly trying to improve my composition/framing to get more dynamic and better shots, and 99% of the time I've of course been relying on my view in the finder for framing. Sometimes you can't get the kid AND the sand castle AND the water (or whatever features you want framed) in the shot without contorting yourself into an odd position, making it hard to get the angle right. Just a few times too often I've fallen into the trap of leaving too little room at the edges only to find that angle correction is needed and part of my subject is thereby cut off, ruining the image. I'm thus learning to leave at least A LITTLE cropping room, which the 5D3's 22MP accommodates easily.

On my 60D because of the few/far between AF points (and the practical usability of, pretty much, only the center point) I often had to crop just to get a well-composed image. It worked fine in general.

 

[Zv]

I crop a lot. Almost every shot is cropped to some extent. With 21MP a little cropping in post is easier than wasting time perfecting the framing of every shot. (Don't get me wrong - if I have time I will frame to near perfection in camara but not when walking about doing street photography!)

Also, I like tightly framed shots with the 135 and 70-200. Ideally I'd like to always carry a telephoto lens with me. My problem is that I like wide angles around 17-24mm AND telephoto shots of 100mm and over but hate switching lens. The 24-105 is one solution, I guess.

 

[MonteGraham]

that's silly. i have my trust 50 mm lens and I want to take a picture of that lion when he yawns... but I left my 400mm at home... so I guess I should walk right up to the lion and wait for him to yawn.... because cropping is taboo.

+2

 

[Policar]

Only to change aspect ratio or to correct for perspective distortion.

 

[jdramirez]

since I went full frame, I expect to crop. I shot a good deal of sports and I use a 1.4 teleconvertor but I'm not going to get the shot I want without stepping into the field or buying a really expensive lens.

having said that, k was at a game on Sunday feeling pretty good about myself and my mkiii and 70-200 ismkii, and then some guy comes out with a cannon sized Nikon lens... I'm guessing 800mm and it reminded me that someone else will have s bigger #/&&, but it is all about how you use it.

 

[Zv]

it is of course OK to crop, rotate and fiddle with all the things PS and the others let you fiddle with. But I still believe you´ll become a better photographer if you try to frame things right from the start.

One other consideration is for stuff like commercial sports or weddings where you are doing it cheap. If you have to post process you are losing money.

I don't do that sort of work but I know people who do and I was surprised to learn they shot jpeg unto they explained that post processing cut into profits.

I don't follow. Surely more time spent PP = more billable time to the customer and therefore more profit!

For me I don't care how long it takes I'm not handing over trashy shots. Money comes and goes, reputation lasts a lot longer.

 

[Valvebounce]

it is of course OK to crop, rotate and fiddle with all the things PS and the others let you fiddle with. But I still believe you´ll become a better photographer if you try to frame things right from the start.

One other consideration is for stuff like commercial sports or weddings where you are doing it cheap. If you have to post process you are losing money.

I don't do that sort of work but I know people who do and I was surprised to learn they shot jpeg unto they explained that post processing cut into profits.

I don't follow. Surely more time spent PP = more billable time to the customer and therefore more profit!

For me I don't care how long it takes I'm not handing over trashy shots. Money comes and goes, reputation lasts a lot longer.

Hi Zv
I fully understand and agree with what you say about reputation, but would it not be true that a wedding (and possibly sports shooting) would be contracted to a fixed price hence the statement that PP = lost profit as you can't add to the price?

Cheers Graham.

 

[Northstar]

it is of course OK to crop, rotate and fiddle with all the things PS and the others let you fiddle with. But I still believe you´ll become a better photographer if you try to frame things right from the start.

One other consideration is for stuff like commercial sports or weddings where you are doing it cheap. If you have to post process you are losing money.

I don't do that sort of work but I know people who do and I was surprised to learn they shot jpeg unto they explained that post processing cut into profits.

I don't follow. Surely more time spent PP = more billable time to the customer and therefore more profit!

For me I don't care how long it takes I'm not handing over trashy shots. Money comes and goes, reputation lasts a lot longer.

So true...such a good point. I've seen many photog's produce and distribute photos that are very "average" at best....not good for your brand/reputation.

 

[Zv]

it is of course OK to crop, rotate and fiddle with all the things PS and the others let you fiddle with. But I still believe you´ll become a better photographer if you try to frame things right from the start.

One other consideration is for stuff like commercial sports or weddings where you are doing it cheap. If you have to post process you are losing money.

I don't do that sort of work but I know people who do and I was surprised to learn they shot jpeg unto they explained that post processing cut into profits.

I don't follow. Surely more time spent PP = more billable time to the customer and therefore more profit!

For me I don't care how long it takes I'm not handing over trashy shots. Money comes and goes, reputation lasts a lot longer.

Hi Zv
I fully understand and agree with what you say about reputation, but would it not be true that a wedding (and possibly sports shooting) would be contracted to a fixed price hence the statement that PP = lost profit as you can't add to the price?

Cheers Graham.

The fixed price should cover your PP time. I always include that in my invoice and in my contract. If I need more time then that's on me, that's just part of the service. Depends how far you're willing to go. It's like working overtime but without pay. Sure, that is incentive for me to get the job done quicker and next time I can adjust my price accordingly.

Though I do see if you had multiple jobs lined up and your time overlapped it could potentially lose you money. Again that's just poor planning.