The Camerazzi Community
Where shutterbugs unite to share their wisdom, skills and resources
Fuzzing about cropping
© 2011
From the digital photography ramblings of Pikkie Wolmarans
So what is the big fuzz about cropping and dimensions/shape/aspect ratio of our photos?
Cropping is just another word for cutting (like cutting paper with scissors) and dimensions, shape and aspect ratio more or less means the same thing when applied to photos – it refers the proportions of the photo or the relation between the width and the height of a photo.
Scaling (re-sizing)
Cropping should not be confused with re-sizing or scaling. The latter refers to making the image bigger or smaller while retaining the same dimensions – in other words both the width and the height change proportionally. (If you ever resize only the width or the height the image gets distorted and of the 7 deadly sins, distorting your pictures is the deadliest!)
The image below shows how a photo is scaled along the diagonal line when enlarged or reduced in size. Note that the dimensions will remain the same no matter how big or small you make it.
Cropping
Cropping a picture is when you (or a machine) cut away some parts of the image and keep whatever is left over. The cutout that you keep can have the same shape (dimensions/aspect ratio) as the original (like in the two samples below) but it can also be cut to proportions that are different from the original.
In the two photos below I cropped out ‘new’ images that have the same dimensions/proportions as the original.
The photo above was cropped to the same rectangular shape as the original, but the cropped part is not really a ‘good’ photo.
In this crop I also retained the same dimensions as the original, but I moved the shape onto a part of the original that gives me a much more ‘sensible’ photo.
Here are two more samples where the same photo had been cropped to dimensions/proportions that are different from the original – which means the shape of the rectangle has changed.
The square crop above changed the dimensions of the photo that I am left with.
The shape of the cropped part is still rectangular but a different rectangular shape from the original
Many togs will reason that the shape of the final photo does not matter, provided the result is a ‘good’ photo.
This brigade also include the photographic societies who organize national and international salons, who will quite happily accept any odd shaped entries when it is a digital entry, however they will prescribe the exact shape and size when they call for printed entries – how is this for double standards? Accepting just any shape practically rules out the possibility to enter the same image digitally and in print format, because if the digital was cropped to an odd shape, it will simply not fit on any standard size photo paper. It will also be very difficult and costly (if not impossible) to print exact copies of your odd-shaped winning salon and competition entries for the same reason – not fitting on standard size papers.
So how should we crop our photos?
There are no real rules for cropping, and everyone seems equally confused on how it should be done. Meanwhile the manufacturers of photographic paper, cameras, TV-screens and computer monitors add their pound of confusion to the equation!
My personal not-so-humble, biased and subjective opinion is that ALL cropping is BAD and should be avoided like the plague as it is screwing up the art of composition! By the lack of authority to pass a universal law against all forms of cropping, I opted for second best by formulating a “Best Practices Policy” on the matter. To understand and willingly adhere to this policy one needs to understand the ‘Why’ and the ‘How’ scenarios of cropping.
Why do we crop a photo?
There are only TWO reasons for cropping a photo:
1. To re-shape it to the same shape as its destination; for example the shape of the paper it will be printed on, the shape of the space it should fill on the newspaper, magazine or web page or even the shape of the monitor or photo frame where it will be displayed – so the shape of the space determines the shape of the crop, no matter of it is digital or paper media. Once it is cropped to the same dimensions as the destination, it can be scaled smaller or bigger for an exact fit.
2. To improve the composition of the photo; getting rid of unwanted areas and/or elements to enhance the impact or aesthetics of the photo. This is the part I’d like to have outlawed as it is nothing but an effort to correct composition mistakes that should not have been made in the first place. Composition is an art in its own right and cropping for composition is a sin that screws up this art – IMHO
Policy
So my policy is straightforward:
Since neither the Camerazzi website nor the social media (fb) require set shapes to fit specific spaces there is no reason to crop for the destination and the first reason for cropping is not applicable – don’t crop.
The second reason should never be applicable – go learn how to properly compose a photo and to ‘crop with the camera’ – it is a sought after skill in photography that is even more important than getting the correct exposure.
OK, I’m first to admit that most of us are merely mortal and do make compositional mistakes and that cropping may be a last resort to improve or save a photo – in which case I make an exemption to my policy of No Cropping: Crop if you need to, but crop sensible!
A sensible crop is cropping to a shape that will at least fit onto some final destinations like certain paper shapes, monitors and TV screens.
Camera proportions
I’ve been hammering on “do not crop out of camera proportions” meaning that you should stick to the shape that the camera produces (which is the shape of the sensor). The truth is that it would be quite acceptable to also crop to a few other standard proportions that correspond with some standard paper and screen shapes. By lack of knowing what all these ‘standard’ dimensions are, it is simply the easiest and safest way to just stick to what the camera manufacturers provided us with, knowing the shape will fit in or on at least some of the most popular destinations.
Aspect Ratio
Aspect ratio is the term used to describe the relation between the width and the height of a rectangle and there are different ways of expressing it:
In units or fractions starting with the long side
4:3 – This means that if the width is 4 units, the height must be 3 units or put in another way – the short side is ¾ of the long side.
3:2 – When the width is three units, the height must be 2 units or – the short side is 2/3 of the long side.
16:9 – When the width is 16 units, the height should be 9 units or – the short side is 9/16 of the long side
Or starting with the short side
1.3334 meaning that you multiply the length of the short side with 1.3334 to get the length of the long side –multiply 6 with 1.3334… and you get 8 – this is the same as 4:3
1.5 meaning you multiply the short side with 1.5 to get the long side e.g. 4cm X 1.5 =6cm. This is the same as 3:2
1.7778 meaning you multiply the short side with 1.7778 to get the long side e.g. 25cm x 1.7778 = 44cm
These examples probably sound like stark raving madness, but there is some method in this madness…
• 4:3 (1.3333) is the aspect ratio of most p&s and advanced digital cameras and also the standard TV screens, computer monitors and 8 x 6 inch photo printing paper.
• 3:2 (1.3334) is the aspect ratio of most digital slr-cameras and also of 10 x 15cm(jumbo) photo paper and of A4-size paper.
• 16:9 (1.7778) is the aspect ratio of the wide screen movies and of the newer High Definition TV’s and computer monitors.
New age cameras?
Interestingly, there are quite a few 16:9 (widescreen) p&s cameras on the market. Apparently the Sony A700 dslr can also record at this aspect ratio – so I’m just patiently waiting to see when our advocates for ‘any proportions cropping’ start shooting with 16: 9 cameras if you will still put up a fight to be allowed to crop the photos into squares (1:1)
I want to go on record with a prediction that the 16:9 aspect ratio is going to become very popular in future simply because photos are moving away from getting printed into electronic format and 16:9 is the shape that best fits the new TV’s and monitors.
Summary:
1. Don’t crop unless you need to fill a space with a differently shaped image.
2. Don’t crop for composition – learn to compose on camera within the shape provided by the camera.
3. If you absolutely have to crop (which is most of the time 
) than stick with the original camera proportions (play it safe).
4. If you absolutely cannot use your camera proportions, crop to any other of the ‘standard’ aspect ratios which are: 4:3; 3:2; or 16:9
Final note:
Cropping to panoramas (16:9) is acceptable; cropping to squares should be punishable with tarring and feathering as neither photo paper nor TV’s and monitors come in squares.
And for the photographic societies? I found them to be somewhere between 10-15 years lagging behind in the digital era – they still think it is OK to allow any cropping dimensions ‘because it is digital.’
Happy Croppings
Pikkie
Thanks well and passionately articulated. You feel strong about this it is clear. Whilst I generally agree with you (as one who has used square crops twice on this site
) I think you have to broaden the debate to encompass the whole ambit of editing and what is “art” or “photography” I think that rules (like the rule of thirds) help newbies like me with very useful “guidance”. But rules are “safe” and every now and then they need to be broken. As you have already pointed out I love “creative” photography and sometimes creativity is more important that sticking to a rule. As you say new formats like 4:3 and micro 4:3 and 16:9 are here (and there will be more) People are printing much less (which is bad/sad) and viewing on the Web more often where IMHO there does exist “space” for other crops (and other forms of edits)it depends on the layout of the article the pic is inserted and NOT the monitor. However I think are ABSOLUTELY correct to challenge this as you have and help newbies such as me and others see the light. This is going to be a GOOD debate.
Thank you so much for this most constructive and balanced feedback, Denis. It is quite difficult to say everything that I believe needs to be said and motivate in detail in the space of an article (I need a book for that
)
I just want to clarify a point: I agree with you 100% that there exists space for other crops depending on the layout – that was exactly my first point as a reason to crop. But I then added that neither the camerazzi site nor the facebook page require a specific shape – implying that for posting on these sites we do not need to crop for insertion in a specific place. Cropping to camera/paper/screen proportions which I advocate, is in fact a last resort if you have to crop but do not have an insertion space to crop for. My apologies if I did not make this quite clear.
There may actually be a good reason even for cropping square – for instance you want to frame the photo in a square frame and hang it in the square space above your fireplace – that is a good reason and cropping for insertion in a specific place is fine! You would have noticed that I wasn’t very harsh on your square crops – the reason being that the digital frames imply that they are cropped to fit in a square frame – if they weren’t digitally framed I would have been on your cropping case long ago
Cropping is of course as old as photography. In the good old days you adjusted your enlarger on a predetermined paper size to get the best possible end result. The same applies today. You should use ALL the means at your disposal to get the best possible end result.
And of course, in the digital environment you are not limited to predetermined sizes although I prefer to stick to my camera proportions just to keep it simple and if I want to print it later.
If you don’t master the art of composition you can crop till you are blue in the face and the end result will still be a disaster. Cropping is the means to ‘fine tune’ composition.
I don’t do it, but why on the one hand is cropping for panorama’s acceptable and cropping squares not? If a square crop enhances your composition – why not? I have seen excellent printed works of art in square format.
If one thinks digital, you should not only confine your line of thought to dx format only. Medium and large format digital cameras have completely different aspect ratios.
Thank you for some more very valid arguments here, Francois. I just need to re-iterate my view that cropping to any proportions are OK (including square)provided it is done with purpose namely to fit a space – this space can be on paper, in an electronic or paper publication, even in a specific frame or against a specific wall etc. (exactly what we did in the darkroom when we cropped for specific paper sizes) By lack of having a specific space to crop for, I advise that cropping (for composition) should be done using one of the 3 ‘standard’ aspect ratios which happen to include the aspect ratios used by most digital cameras.
You are very right about medium and large format cameras, which I did not refer simply because they are not ‘mainstream’ and that I speak to our community which I doubt if a single member has a medium or large format camera – those who do, please mention your camera in your post and I will sing the praises of you square photos – the same goes for those using polaroids
Pikkie – for what its worth, here is my opinion. I think the ultimate for any photographer should be to shoot and publish as is (no cropping, postprocessing). But until you have reached that level (which I think is not easy), you need to make “adjustments” to see what the photo really should look like – this is a learning process because the next time you take a photo you will remember what adjustments you had to make and try to avoid them and what mistakes you could not rectify. Apart from the cropping issue I was really amazed when I joined the community to see comments such as recommending cropping, cloning in and out, flipping, dodging, burning etc. Something like removing an object from a photo or inserting something that wasn’t there, or flipping a picture of something immovable (eg a landscape scene), is to me a bigger “crime” than cropping to a non-standard size. I think there is definitely room for creative photography, HDR, etc. My suggestion is to have six main categories, for example: 1. jpeg (as is (absolute no pp)), 2. jpeg/raw (manual pp according to certain rules), 3. jpeg/raw (manual/automatic pp no rules ), 4. Creative, 5 . HDR, 6. graphics. There should also be a category for members to post a photo to get technical help or ask technical questions if they feel their photo is not “up to scratch”. This would cater for the purist, for those who wants to experiment, and the learner. I think this will help to answer the question I ask sometimes “is this real”. It would be interesting to see how many posts the site gets for the first category. My own photos at this stage? – definitely not in the first two categories. For me this is a great website to learn and get ideas – your (and others) technical recommendations and opinions on “burning” issues cropping up are very valuable. I have also realized that you can learn by posting your own photos and to comment on photos (you will know quickly if your comments are “out of line” with those of our experienced members).
To brand known and accepted photographic techniques as a crime unfortunately brands all the masters as criminals. Photography is an art form and art is about what is pleasing to the eye. Landart for instance is a brand new genre where the photographer has to manipulate something in the landscape while composing to form a piece of art unique to himself.
All the criminal techniques above is as old as the first darkroom. Applying i.e. a digital filter is just much easier than applying a physical filter to a camera. The main thing is to be able to learn and unlearn and adopt to what technology has to offer.
Thanks for the input Danie – appreciated especially from a ‘new’ tog who’s views are being formed in the digital era only.
Correction: I have never (and I believe no one else on the site ever has) advised anyone to “insert something that wasn’t there.” That I would brand a crime!
Aa far as your suggestions on 6 main categories are concerned, I am not quite sure who you suggest should have these categories – are you talking website specific that we should have it on the camerazzi site or that the Societies like the PSSA should recognise that or that the academic subject of photography should have them as sub-disciplines…?
As for the website, it cannot work – we had a previous site with numerous categories and genres etc – we reduced it to two categories on this site: Forum for people to ask/advise/discuss and Showcase to brag/teach/tell something and hard-crit. Complicated sites do not work
And also someone has to foot the bill…
I cannot speak for the rest of the industry though.
It seems like more people want to take this argument further to include Art and what art is – fair enough, but for the moment I need to settle with reasoning the cropping issue only.
Pikkie – Sorry for going outside the cropping issue. I do apologise for using of the word “crime” if it offended anybody – I have never looked at a any piece of art and thought the artist was a “criminal”. What I meant was to rather avoid something like cloning and use cropping to take out what should not be there – even if I compromise standard sizes (of course better to go and reshoot and compose right).
As for the other issues raised, no I am not suggesting to make the proposed categories an “industry” standard. On local level (this website, maybe something that will make it even more unique ) I think what would be nice to have is to in addition to providing technical shooting data (exposure, fstop …) to add a little bit more info, eg: objective, cropped (reason, why non-standard), PS/LR (manual or automated (actions/plugin), HDR, etc. (but maybe this is asking the artist his secrets). The purpose is to learn. If its the original version I look at and its a masterpiece I know what can be achieved (my role model), if it is a “reworked” version and a masterpiece I can learn how it could be done and admire the artist for his skills to use whatever technology is available. But I am still very “young” at this and I am sure my views will change as I learn.
Relax Danie…no one is going to keelhaul you for criminilizing certain actions
This is one site where anyone can state an opinion without any fear of being victimised as your opinion as as valid and valuable as everybody else’s – I was after all the one who wanted to outlaw cropping and tar-and feather the square croppers so I am as guilty of ‘criminilazing’ certain practices! No apology needed.
Just for interest sake, I am on record for speaking out against most of the ‘evils’ you mentioned and I am one of the first to admit that I changed my views on most of these (accept for inserting things…) as both the deveoping technology, new approaches to the art of photography, and interaction with the spectrum of participants in the game kept shaping me. I love to theorize an nit-pick about these issues as that is how we shape and challenge each other. Thruth is that the art cannot be boxed in and there are very few real rights or wrongs, cans or cannots, allows and allow-nots and whatever anyone says here is but a personal opinion and nothing serious enough to offend us thick skinned opinionated togs around here.
I haven’t met all the camerazzi yet, but I can tell you that on 10 contentious issues there are probably 30 opinions amongst Mike, Francois and myself and we still had a ‘goeie kuier’ at the monument two weeks ago!
I conclude with a quote attributed the the French philosopher Voltaire who as known for his satirical wit:
“Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation.”
Much of what is said in these arguments and in poking each other are little more that satirical wit also…
I agree with ‘goeie kuier’ and being friends but – I think 10 contentious issues with 30 options is a bit of and understatement!