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

[jointdoc]

I don't get it, I guess I'm showing my age, but I have thousands of color transparencies (slide film) that are exposed, framed, orientated (level), focused and composed properly! And they were all done without the ability to see the exposed images until they came back from the lab! Remember slide film only had 1/3 of a stop latitude, so exposures had to be virtually perfect. What am I missing here? I have always strived to get the image correct, in the camera! I am not knocking digitial, I own several of them and haven't used film for several years. However, I wonder what has become of basic photographic skills. We used to have faith in our equipment and in our ability (skill) as photographers. Can you imagine what people today would stress over if the had to wait until they were home to see what they shot, let alone wait days or weeks! With film, we never gave it a second thought, it was just the way it was! It sure seems to me that many of today's photographers are really just "image makers!", relying on post production (editing) to correct their errors when capturing the basic image in the camera. Oh my, how things have changed

Excellent point. I was (am) inthe same boat. I shot Kodakchrome and Ektachrome for many many years. With Dslr, I became very careless. But I got the pictures I want by shootin a lot more pictures. "Memory is free".

I have the same history. With slide film, the only real option was to get exposure and framing right from the start. A great Norwegian photographer, Morten Krogvold, whom I admire a lot ( http://www.krogvold.com/index.php?nr=3 ), is very clear in his teaching that the work needs to be done prior to pushing the shutter and I fully agree. Yes, we now have post processing tools that can fix and trix with almost anything, but you always get a better end result if you did the right things to begin with.

+1

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I don't get it, I guess I'm showing my age, but I have thousands of color transparencies (slide film) that are exposed, framed, orientated (level), focused and composed properly! And they were all done without the ability to see the exposed images until they came back from the lab! Remember slide film only had 1/3 of a stop latitude, so exposures had to be virtually perfect. What am I missing here? I have always strived to get the image correct, in the camera! I am not knocking digitial, I own several of them and haven't used film for several years. However, I wonder what has become of basic photographic skills. We used to have faith in our equipment and in our ability (skill) as photographers. Can you imagine what people today would stress over if the had to wait until they were home to see what they shot, let alone wait days or weeks! With film, we never gave it a second thought, it was just the way it was! It sure seems to me that many of today's photographers are really just "image makers!", relying on post production (editing) to correct their errors when capturing the basic image in the camera. Oh my, how things have changed.

True, during film days I used to be very careful because there were only a limited number of shots I could take with a film roll and I had to worry about the cost of purchasing film rolls, developing charges at the lab etc ... I still remember the film days when I used to cringe at having to pay even for all my sh!tty images ... on top of all that cameras/lenses were bloody expensive... so obviously, I had to be more careful about what shots I wanted to take and how I wanted to take them ... also, I would only take my film camera to special places/occasions. But digital helped me to take as many shots as I want without worrying about film and lab charges, because of which I now have more interesting images than I could ever dream of in the film days. The prices of DSLR cameras these days are so much more affordable than film days, so I am no longer bound by my inability to pay for developing lots of film rolls, hence I carry my digital camera every single day wherever I go ... so yes, I am willing to make lot more images than I could ever dream of in the film days ... I experiment a lot more, learn neat ideas ... imagine taking 8000 images in a day in the film days (that's over 200 film rolls in a single day), I would have sh!t myself thinking of the costs associated with developing them (let alone carrying over 200 film rolls with me ... but that's how many shots I made in a single day during my last vacation to Scotland ... I threw away nearly 7000 of them but I still have over 1000 shots I really like from a single day of shooting and I did not have to waste a lot of time making those images and still got to see the beauty of Scotland and still spend time having fun with my family, something that would not have been possible in the film days).

So, yes, in the film days I was careful, because I had no freaking choice but to be careful, I could not afford to buy and develop over 200 film rolls and even if I could afford I would never in a million years carry that many rolls on me for a single day's shooting (during the film days my maximum number of film rolls in a whole year was around 50). We the old timers (myself included) would like to think of our "glory days" and how we successfully captured a few thousand good shots over a period of many years in the film days ... but the fact is I can do the same number of good shots in just a single day with digital and post production has a lot to do with it. So, I consider post production an art, not everyone can do it successfully, it requires just as much skill and dedication as learning to see/learn how light works and the science of photography ... so I would not relegate today's photographers to "just image makers".
Peace

 

[Zv]

Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.

Well he didn't have to cook it so it's cheaper, right?

No. You pay for the steak AND the cooking of it.

It's nothing like that, unless you were in the market for frozen steak.

It is a perfect analogy by Zv.
But what you said is not, coz if you were in the market for frozen steak, you won't go to a restaurant, you'd go to the frozen meat section of the store or a butcher.

That was my point, people don't go to the market for frozen steak, so the analogy doesn't work. Evidently you missed the point.

There is a market for minimalist PP photography. It exists, people make a living shooting photographs and passing them onto the end user with minimal to no PP. You may not care for it, I don't care for it, but it exists, so there's a market. In his analogy, people do go to restaurants to buy frozen meat. As you said, people don’t do that, they go to the market. The analogy isn’t perfect.

Didn't I already say there was a market for it? Why else would this thread exist if there was no market for minimalist PP. My point was not minimalist but zero PP. The kind of person (and I've read about them) that doesn't even look at the shots they took and simply hands them over. Thus saving time and maximizing profits. It is those types of "photographers" I was referring to.

You've gone a bit off topic by nitpicking at my analogy and now we are arguing about the price of frozen steaks instead of talking about how and why we edit our images.

Most of us do to some extent. Does anyone here not??

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.

Well he didn't have to cook it so it's cheaper, right?

No. You pay for the steak AND the cooking of it.

It's nothing like that, unless you were in the market for frozen steak.

It is a perfect analogy by Zv.
But what you said is not, coz if you were in the market for frozen steak, you won't go to a restaurant, you'd go to the frozen meat section of the store or a butcher.

That was my point, people don't go to the market for frozen steak, so the analogy doesn't work. Evidently you missed the point.

There is a market for minimalist PP photography. It exists, people make a living shooting photographs and passing them onto the end user with minimal to no PP. You may not care for it, I don't care for it, but it exists, so there's a market. In his analogy, people do go to restaurants to buy frozen meat. As you said, people don’t do that, they go to the market. The analogy isn’t perfect.

I think you have missed the point Zv is trying to make ... he did not say one goes to a restaurant to ask for a frozen stake, he was saying the opposite! What I understand from his analogy was that such a request would be idiotic, so the analogy is perfect example to give when people make uninformed comments about PP (e.g. PP is fake etc). But I do understand what you are trying to say and I absolutely agree that a market does exist for minimal to no PP and I have no problem with it ... to each his own. Peace

 

[Skirball]

Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.

Well he didn't have to cook it so it's cheaper, right?

No. You pay for the steak AND the cooking of it.

It's nothing like that, unless you were in the market for frozen steak.

It is a perfect analogy by Zv.
But what you said is not, coz if you were in the market for frozen steak, you won't go to a restaurant, you'd go to the frozen meat section of the store or a butcher.

That was my point, people don't go to the market for frozen steak, so the analogy doesn't work. Evidently you missed the point.

There is a market for minimalist PP photography. It exists, people make a living shooting photographs and passing them onto the end user with minimal to no PP. You may not care for it, I don't care for it, but it exists, so there's a market. In his analogy, people do go to restaurants to buy frozen meat. As you said, people don’t do that, they go to the market. The analogy isn’t perfect.

Didn't I already say there was a market for it? Why else would this thread exist if there was no market for minimalist PP. My point was not minimalist but zero PP. The kind of person (and I've read about them) that doesn't even look at the shots they took and simply hands them over. Thus saving time and maximizing profits. It is those types of "photographers" I was referring to.

You've gone a bit off topic by nitpicking at my analogy and now we are arguing about the price of frozen steaks instead of talking about how and why we edit our images.

Most of us do to some extent. Does anyone here not??

I was just making a simple comment about the analogy to address an issue I don't think you pay consideration to. Reinz called me out on it, so I restated my opinion. I'm not nitpicking anything, simply responding to comment made on my post. Although I continued your analogy, the point of it was still very much on topic.

And your last comment is really an extension of my point. There are plenty of people out there that just want a simple image to provide an illustration, be it for an article on a sports game, or to get people to come look at a house on the market. Yes, all the people here probably do spend a decent amount of time in PP, but not everyone cares as much about photography as a bunch of guys that spend their day on camera chat forums.

 

[tog13]

Completely depends on the end use. For what passes for "art" for me, when I'm making (not just taking) the photo, and I know that I might print it later (rare), and I have the opportunity to frame it exactly how I want it, then I do so. If the target is the web, I normally don't post an image larger than 1200 (and usually 800) pixels on the long side. It doesn't have to fit some proscribed aspect ratio for framing purposes, so I'll crop the crap out of it if that's what it takes to get the composition I want.

Full disclosure: I *love* PP. Sometimes I think I shoot just to support my PP habit.

 

[Zv]

Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.

Well he didn't have to cook it so it's cheaper, right?

No. You pay for the steak AND the cooking of it.

It's nothing like that, unless you were in the market for frozen steak.

It is a perfect analogy by Zv.
But what you said is not, coz if you were in the market for frozen steak, you won't go to a restaurant, you'd go to the frozen meat section of the store or a butcher.

That was my point, people don't go to the market for frozen steak, so the analogy doesn't work. Evidently you missed the point.

There is a market for minimalist PP photography. It exists, people make a living shooting photographs and passing them onto the end user with minimal to no PP. You may not care for it, I don't care for it, but it exists, so there's a market. In his analogy, people do go to restaurants to buy frozen meat. As you said, people don’t do that, they go to the market. The analogy isn’t perfect.

Didn't I already say there was a market for it? Why else would this thread exist if there was no market for minimalist PP. My point was not minimalist but zero PP. The kind of person (and I've read about them) that doesn't even look at the shots they took and simply hands them over. Thus saving time and maximizing profits. It is those types of "photographers" I was referring to.

You've gone a bit off topic by nitpicking at my analogy and now we are arguing about the price of frozen steaks instead of talking about how and why we edit our images.

Most of us do to some extent. Does anyone here not??

I was just making a simple comment about the analogy to address an issue I don't think you pay consideration to. Reinz called me out on it, so I restated my opinion. I'm not nitpicking anything, simply responding to comment made on my post. Although I continued your analogy, the point of it was still very much on topic.

And your last comment is really an extension of my point. There are plenty of people out there that just want a simple image to provide an illustration, be it for an article on a sports game, or to get people to come look at a house on the market. Yes, all the people here probably do spend a decent amount of time in PP, but not everyone cares as much about photography as a bunch of guys that spend their day on camera chat forums.

OK. Fair enough.

Let's move on. Now, why would anyone pay for a shot like that, where they could just as easily whip out their smartphone and do it themselves? What a cake job! Screw this lighting and exposure nonsense just green box - click and send. Done.

Seriously? People pay for that junk? I am working way too hard then!

 

[Eldar]

Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.

Well he didn't have to cook it so it's cheaper, right?

No. You pay for the steak AND the cooking of it.

It's nothing like that, unless you were in the market for frozen steak.

It is a perfect analogy by Zv.
But what you said is not, coz if you were in the market for frozen steak, you won't go to a restaurant, you'd go to the frozen meat section of the store or a butcher.

That was my point, people don't go to the market for frozen steak, so the analogy doesn't work. Evidently you missed the point.

There is a market for minimalist PP photography. It exists, people make a living shooting photographs and passing them onto the end user with minimal to no PP. You may not care for it, I don't care for it, but it exists, so there's a market. In his analogy, people do go to restaurants to buy frozen meat. As you said, people don’t do that, they go to the market. The analogy isn’t perfect.

Didn't I already say there was a market for it? Why else would this thread exist if there was no market for minimalist PP. My point was not minimalist but zero PP. The kind of person (and I've read about them) that doesn't even look at the shots they took and simply hands them over. Thus saving time and maximizing profits. It is those types of "photographers" I was referring to.

You've gone a bit off topic by nitpicking at my analogy and now we are arguing about the price of frozen steaks instead of talking about how and why we edit our images.

Most of us do to some extent. Does anyone here not??

I was just making a simple comment about the analogy to address an issue I don't think you pay consideration to. Reinz called me out on it, so I restated my opinion. I'm not nitpicking anything, simply responding to comment made on my post. Although I continued your analogy, the point of it was still very much on topic.

And your last comment is really an extension of my point. There are plenty of people out there that just want a simple image to provide an illustration, be it for an article on a sports game, or to get people to come look at a house on the market. Yes, all the people here probably do spend a decent amount of time in PP, but not everyone cares as much about photography as a bunch of guys that spend their day on camera chat forums.

Just to add to the confusion and length of this thread .. Yes, I am probably amongst the slower photographers, with fewer shots/time than most and I´m amongst those who think more than the average photographer before I push the shutter release. But that does not mean that I do not take advantage of the digital age and the benefits of available post processing. I would have liked to be a bit better at it though.
The ways I shoot pictures today are totally different from the old days, in most respects. I love having 12 fps for BIF and action, I love skipping flash due to massive ISO improvements etc. etc. And, like (almost) everyone else, I only shoot in RAW and I run everything through post processing. I change sharpness, white balance, colors, contrast, and all the rest. But my struggle to get the framing, DOF, lighting etc. right is pretty much the same as it was 25 years ago. My only point was/is that too many photographers today seem to rely on volume and chance, and a let´s-fix-it-in-post attitude, rather than conscious thinking prior to shooting.

 

[bdunbar79]

I crop and spend time in pp. Why? Because I can. I can make my photos look the way I want them to look, with less effort. It's called using the technology you have available to you. I COULD frame a volleyball shot perfectly, if I needed to. But instead I leave a little extra room and then crop the way I want. Why not? In film days yes, you had a limited number of shots and you couldn't edit. But that's not the case anymore, so who really cares? If you get the composition almost correct, and the exposure almost correct, due to our technology, then yes it'll be "good enough" with some pp.

I love digital. A football wide receiver catching a pass mid-air with small DOF is commonplace these days, when way back when those photos were rare.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I was just making a simple comment about the analogy to address an issue I don't think you pay consideration to. Reinz called me out on it, so I restated my opinion. I'm not nitpicking anything, simply responding to comment made on my post. Although I continued your analogy, the point of it was still very much on topic.

And your last comment is really an extension of my point. There are plenty of people out there that just want a simple image to provide an illustration, be it for an article on a sports game, or to get people to come look at a house on the market. Yes, all the people here probably do spend a decent amount of time in PP, but not everyone cares as much about photography as a bunch of guys that spend their day on camera chat forums.

why would anyone pay for a shot like that, where they could just as easily whip out their smartphone and do it themselves? What a cake job! Screw this lighting and exposure nonsense just green box - click and send. Done.

Seriously? People pay for that junk? I am working way too hard then!

In India we have lots of weddings (we are over a billion people and premarital sex isn't considered to be a nice thing, however nice it actually feels ;D, so obviously most of us have to get married, especially if we hope to get lifetime of free sex ;D) and we also have thousands of villages and towns but most couples/families (even in cities) cannot afford to buy even a simple cheap digital camera let alone a smartphone that is capable of taking decent images (even if they could afford a "simple" camera, most folk will only manage to take blurry pictures) ... so they hire a "wedding photographer", now those wedding photographers (believe it or not), use a Canon 1000D or a Nikon D3000 with a 18-55mm kit lens and a very bright/harsh tungsten light, (held by an assistant who gets paid less then $5 and the photographer himself gets less than $25) to take the photos for the whole wedding... now you and I (who are fortunate) might scoff at such a set up, but for the people getting married and their families it is a beautiful memory that they want to capture ... they want to see/show off that memory as fast as possible and the photographer takes it to a lab and gets it printed at a lab, slaps all those photos in a gaudy looking album and gives it to them the next morning ... fortunate photographers like us might look down on such photos, but they are priceless treasures for the couple. So yes people do pay for those photos and they are not considered junk by those who want such photos. Since this is the season of analogies, let me make a lame attempt at one: I might think Suzuki Alto is a junk car but for the person who has saved his/her hard earned money for years to buy that car, it is just as good as a Ferrari.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

My only point was/is that too many photographers today seem to rely on volume and chance, and a let´s-fix-it-in-post attitude, .

Nothing wrong with that ... people do what they think/know is important to them, it does not have to conform to the folk who approach photography in a more organized and professional way ... what I understand from your post is that you are a more methodical photographer and probably are more passionate about photography then those who rely on volume and chance, so I guess its a matter of difference in passion ... that being said the "volume and chance" type of photographers might be passionate about something else, (maybe PP?) Peace

 

[fragilesi]

My only point was/is that too many photographers today seem to rely on volume and chance, and a let´s-fix-it-in-post attitude, .

Nothing wrong with that ... people do what they think/know is important to them, it does not have to conform to the folk who approach photography in a more organized and professional way ... what I understand from your post is that you are a more methodical photographer and probably are more passionate about photography then those who rely on volume and chance, so I guess its a matter of difference in passion ... that being said the "volume and chance" type of photographers might be passionate about something else, (maybe PP?) Peace

Agreed, and in action photography like sports where what is about to happen is so unpredictable there is very strong argument for taking volumes of photos.

 

[Marsu42]

In India we have lots of weddings (we are over a billion people and premarital sex isn't considered to be a nice thing, however nice it actually feels ;D, so obviously most of us have to get married

I am in favor of reintroducing this scheme to the decadent western countries, it would at least create more jobs for us photogs :->

 

[nightbreath]

Make your photos breathe, so you don't need to crop them later

 

[jdramirez]

I was just making a simple comment about the analogy to address an issue I don't think you pay consideration to. Reinz called me out on it, so I restated my opinion. I'm not nitpicking anything, simply responding to comment made on my post. Although I continued your analogy, the point of it was still very much on topic.

And your last comment is really an extension of my point. There are plenty of people out there that just want a simple image to provide an illustration, be it for an article on a sports game, or to get people to come look at a house on the market. Yes, all the people here probably do spend a decent amount of time in PP, but not everyone cares as much about photography as a bunch of guys that spend their day on camera chat forums.

why would anyone pay for a shot like that, where they could just as easily whip out their smartphone and do it themselves? What a cake job! Screw this lighting and exposure nonsense just green box - click and send. Done.

Seriously? People pay for that junk? I am working way too hard then!

In India we have lots of weddings (we are over a billion people and premarital sex isn't considered to be a nice thing, however nice it actually feels ;D, so obviously most of us have to get married, especially if we hope to get lifetime of free sex ;D) and we also have thousands of villages and towns but most couples/families (even in cities) cannot afford to buy even a simple cheap digital camera let alone a smartphone that is capable of taking decent images (even if they could afford a "simple" camera, most folk will only manage to take blurry pictures) ... so they hire a "wedding photographer", now those wedding photographers (believe it or not), use a Canon 1000D or a Nikon D3000 with a 18-55mm kit lens and a very bright/harsh tungsten light, (held by an assistant who gets paid less then $5 and the photographer himself gets less than $25) to take the photos for the whole wedding... now you and I (who are fortunate) might scoff at such a set up, but for the people getting married and their families it is a beautiful memory that they want to capture ... they want to see/show off that memory as fast as possible and the photographer takes it to a lab and gets it printed at a lab, slaps all those photos in a gaudy looking album and gives it to them the next morning ... fortunate photographers like us might look down on such photos, but they are priceless treasures for the couple. So yes people do pay for those photos and they are not considered junk by those who want such photos. Since this is the season of analogies, let me make a lame attempt at one: I might think Suzuki Alto is a junk car but for the person who has saved his/her hard earned money for years to buy that car, it is just as good as a Ferrari.

I don't begrudge people their memories... but I think most of us believe that if you pay good money, $25, you want the best bang for your buck. And if you get less than what the market warrants, then the customer got robbed... or cheated maybe...

And so here in the states, if the customer pays $1500, you hope they get $1500 worth of competency.

 

[Dylan777]

I've been told by an alleged pro photog that real photogs don't crop. I am wondering if this is true, or it is an old-school fairy tale from the analog age that falls into the category "real photogs don't use auto iso and only shoot in full m".

What next? you can't PP digital photos through lightroom/PS.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

In India we have lots of weddings (we are over a billion people and premarital sex isn't considered to be a nice thing, however nice it actually feels ;D, so obviously most of us have to get married, especially if we hope to get lifetime of free sex ;D) and we also have thousands of villages and towns but most couples/families (even in cities) cannot afford to buy even a simple cheap digital camera let alone a smartphone that is capable of taking decent images (even if they could afford a "simple" camera, most folk will only manage to take blurry pictures) ... so they hire a "wedding photographer", now those wedding photographers (believe it or not), use a Canon 1000D or a Nikon D3000 with a 18-55mm kit lens and a very bright/harsh tungsten light, (held by an assistant who gets paid less then $5 and the photographer himself gets less than $25) to take the photos for the whole wedding... now you and I (who are fortunate) might scoff at such a set up, but for the people getting married and their families it is a beautiful memory that they want to capture ... they want to see/show off that memory as fast as possible and the photographer takes it to a lab and gets it printed at a lab, slaps all those photos in a gaudy looking album and gives it to them the next morning ... fortunate photographers like us might look down on such photos, but they are priceless treasures for the couple. So yes people do pay for those photos and they are not considered junk by those who want such photos. Since this is the season of analogies, let me make a lame attempt at one: I might think Suzuki Alto is a junk car but for the person who has saved his/her hard earned money for years to buy that car, it is just as good as a Ferrari.

Here in Brazil, we have a middle ground between the wedding photography from India (US$25) and wedding albums in the USA (US$1,500). For 99% of grooms, a wedding album for $ 1500 is a criminal extortion. Here too there are the "photographers" who use D3000 with 18-55 and only the built-in flash. Some charge $ 80 to the newlyweds, and deliver photos on CD, and run away, it will need a lot of Photoshop to correct technical errors. Most photographers need honest talk at length to convince the couple that is worth paying $ 500 for a good quality work, and that no Photoshop will save pictures poorly made. Believe me when I say I have not seen any 5D mark III photographing wedding in my city of 3 million inhabitants. Maybe when there 5D mark IV, then we will see some 5D mark III at weddings.

 

[Famateur]

I usually read a thread all the way through before replying, but I just haven't the time tonight. My apologies if I'm repeating what someone else has said...

I've heard the "pros compose in-camera and never crop" but don't subscribe to it myself. While composition is always in mind as I shoot (for that matter, I'm constantly composing in my mind just looking at things), cropping can be a powerful artistic tool. Even if you nail the composition you had in mind at the time you pressed the shutter button, another (sometimes better) composition can be created with the crop tool.

I'll often be looking through "throw-away" images and suddenly see a different (crop-enabled) composition that takes the image from chopping block to cropping block to favorites folder.

I can't help but mentally crop nearly every image I see, anyway.

 

[deleteme]

Some time ago, I've been told by an alleged pro photog that real photogs don't crop, or at least only do minor angle correction. I am wondering if this is true, or it is an old-school fairy tale from the analog age that falls into the category "real photogs don't use auto iso and only shoot in full m".
[/b]

While I have heard the same thing (or variations such as "Use the whole neg, you paid for it") I see no use in being a slave to an arbitrary shape such as 4x5, 6x6 or 35mm. The fact is that an image is your creation and you can do as you see fit. It is not some sort of whack contest to see what you can stuff in a frame.

Although guilty myself, I no longer am enamored of the "cutout neg carrier"or "sloppy borders" trope that used to attest to ones FF integrity. One can easily drop a black border around any shape if it appeals to you but the notion that one must go "mano a mano" with your format is foolish.

 

[bratkinson]

When I moved from roughly 30 years of shooting primarily slides to the digital age with a G-3, I naturally framed things as best I could and learned to use the freebie version of Photoshop Lite that came with it for editing. Other than straightening things a bit, or sometimes wanting to be 'selective' about the subject, I didn't do much cropping at all.

But since moving from point and shoots to a 30D, then 60D and now 5D3, cropping became a necessity due to wearing glasses when I shoot. I'm seeing perhaps 80% of the image in the viewfinder. So, for me, cropping is a necessity. Having the megapixels of a 5D3 that the 30D didn't have allows some fairly heavy-duty cropping with little, if any, noticable IQ loss. I've even turned landscape format to portrait format pix when I discovered too much 'distraction' on the side(s) of the subject.