Show your Bird Portraits
- Thread starter 1982chris911
- Start date
My understanding of 100% crop is that:serendipidy said:
[list type=decimal]
[*]it is a cropped image
[*]when rendered either on the website or on your computer after a download, the image does not get resized
[/list]
Because (and my English teacher would kill me for starting the sentence with the word "because") cropping an image to 100% of its size makes no sense to me
Upvote
0
serendipidy said:
100% crop means that you take a part of the original and do not enlarge or reduce the number of pixels in it. Eg, the upper kingfisher is 1075x776 pixels, which when described as 100% crop means that it was a rectangle of 1075x776 pixels in the original image.
Upvote
0
OK, I think I understand what AlanF has described but it doesn't seem overly useful in telling me what percentage of the original frame the displayed portion is.
For illustration here is a shot that was RAW 5472 X 3648 and 23815 KB. I cropped the bird as shown and it indicated 3041 X 1733. If I posted it as 3041 X 1733, which is likely too large, is that a 100% crop? What is it as posted, 1520 X 867?
It seems to me it would be more userful or interesting to have an idea how this filled the original frame, no?
Jack
For illustration here is a shot that was RAW 5472 X 3648 and 23815 KB. I cropped the bird as shown and it indicated 3041 X 1733. If I posted it as 3041 X 1733, which is likely too large, is that a 100% crop? What is it as posted, 1520 X 867?
It seems to me it would be more userful or interesting to have an idea how this filled the original frame, no?
Jack
Attachments
Upvote
0
Jack
If you state that the image is a 100% crop and the camera on which it is taken, then anyone can work out the fraction of the frame that is displayed as you can look up the megapixel size of the sensor. If you arbitrarily reduce the size and don't state by how much then the viewer can't work anything out. So, I would argue that stating it is a 100% crop and the camera gives you more information, not less. Most images are posted without any indication of the crop size.
Also, by knowing it is a 100% crop you can immediately judge the quality of the original image, which again is informative.
If you state that the image is a 100% crop and the camera on which it is taken, then anyone can work out the fraction of the frame that is displayed as you can look up the megapixel size of the sensor. If you arbitrarily reduce the size and don't state by how much then the viewer can't work anything out. So, I would argue that stating it is a 100% crop and the camera gives you more information, not less. Most images are posted without any indication of the crop size.
Also, by knowing it is a 100% crop you can immediately judge the quality of the original image, which again is informative.
Upvote
0
Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Superkingfisher!
This is a 740x855 100% crop from a Canon 7D. As a percentage of the original it is (740x855/(5184x3456))x100% = 3.53%
I always leave the Exif data on the image so you can download it and get all the info.
This is a 740x855 100% crop from a Canon 7D. As a percentage of the original it is (740x855/(5184x3456))x100% = 3.53%
I always leave the Exif data on the image so you can download it and get all the info.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Please take this the right way!
Looking at this pic I absolutely love it and appreciate it (I try many times myself for bird shots). Breaking it down technically, it is imperfect in its pieces. However, looking past that, the picture as a whole grabs me in and I totally love it. An example where the technical isn't as important as the artistic gestalt. I wouldn't change a thing- Excellent!
Looking at this pic I absolutely love it and appreciate it (I try many times myself for bird shots). Breaking it down technically, it is imperfect in its pieces. However, looking past that, the picture as a whole grabs me in and I totally love it. An example where the technical isn't as important as the artistic gestalt. I wouldn't change a thing- Excellent!
Upvote
0
Nice Owl!Pierre Bonenfant said:
While waiting for some deer to make their way into range, a gang of wild turkeys wandered around the area I had decided to use as a vantage. While turkeys are generally unexciting(but tasty), this one Tom caught my eye when he jumped on top of a rock as a lookout while the hens filed through the area.
Upvote
0
Thanks AlanF. Yes it is useful, and indicating the ratio of crop frame area to frame area, as a percentage, is helpful in judging the technical quality of what's coming from various camera/lens combinations. Many, like myself (Feb 2013 6D, 300 X2 purchase) I am sure skulk around these forums trying to get helpful information before investing $$$ on equipment.
Which leads to the next, probably oft stated point. If only those posting the pictures would include the basic camera/lens/shutter/Fstop/ISO, bird ID, etc., information then a forum like this would be that much more useful. Otherwise, it's not much different than just flipping through a magazine with a child in a doctors office.
Of course, if the data is left in the shot that's helpful but often it isn't and time is wasted checking. Just my thoughts as I reflect on why I'm presently involved, which is primarily to learn. I don't expect everyone to share my perspective.
Jack
Which leads to the next, probably oft stated point. If only those posting the pictures would include the basic camera/lens/shutter/Fstop/ISO, bird ID, etc., information then a forum like this would be that much more useful. Otherwise, it's not much different than just flipping through a magazine with a child in a doctors office.
Of course, if the data is left in the shot that's helpful but often it isn't and time is wasted checking. Just my thoughts as I reflect on why I'm presently involved, which is primarily to learn. I don't expect everyone to share my perspective.
Jack
Upvote
0
Unusually for me, I took this photo of a female kingfisher as a jpeg rather than RAW (420 mm on the f/2.8+1.4xTC, f/4, 1/1250 iso 640, 5DIII). It's a 100% crop of 1104x944 with no sharpening or any processing, at the standard Canon setting. It was dismissed for "lack of sharpness and Photo has too little detail/is too smooth/too much noise removed", which is a bit odd as no noise reduction was used.
Attachments
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
Lack of sharpness? Too little detail? To smooth? Too much noise removed? Whoever passed judgement is "too full of themselves".
That picture is far superior to the best kingfisher picture that I have ever taken..... Where does ability to get into the right spot at the right time come into the judging? That is the most important skill here...
Congratulations, beautiful shot.
Upvote
0