Should I Crop?

Is it bad sports photography to have to crop an image or is that

normal practice?

 

I often have certain parts of the image which contain nothing and

when i crop that image its turns out perfect?

 

Is this bad practice or is it the norm??

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

Shane

I was always taught to get it right in the camera, but sometimes you just can't, that's why you had enlargers with easels that moved and a crop tool in PS. My problem is what I call negative crop that's when I cut the top of someones head or cut the car in half. So my answer is no, it's the final product that counts.

<I>Should I Crop?</I><P>Eventually the question comes down to which is the visually

stronger image, the cropped or the uncropped version?<P>I am a big believer in trying to

use every square millimeter ofthe frame. I believe in this for practical and aesthetic

reasons. The reasons are that the 2:3 aspect ratio of most 35mm and DSLR cameras is

inherently dynamic and since the format for a DSLR or a 35mm film camera are so small

that I want to use every single square millimeter of that foramt and i want to make

everythign count, nothing superfluous either in what I leave in or what I leave out. The

more purely aesthetic reason is that this is good visualization discipline. Relying on

cropping leads to sloppy framing, sloppy composition and sloppy thinking. It is a good

way to screw yourself up. That is a pretty high standard. But if cropping will on occcassion

make a stronger image, sure, go for it.

Try to get it right in the camera, but if it's better by cropping, then crop. The final product is all that matters.

Cropping after the fact doesn't mean you're a sloppy photographer. You're cropping every time you point the camera and decide what to include in the frame and what not to include. Sometimes it's simple and easy and obvious and there's no need to change anything. Other times you see the photo differently after you get home. You can't add to what isn't there but you can eliminate the extraneous. And there are times -- especially in fast moving sports situations -- where you have to shoot on the fly and clean it up later.

Also keep in mind that if you're shooting for publication, the editors are going to crop the photo however they want it, either for esthetic reasons or to fit the space available. There's nothing sacred about the proportions of the negative.

You avoid cropping by using a zoom or getting closer with the camera. If you're shooting from way back with a huge telephoto, I assume those options are pretty well out, which makes cropping sound better.

I can't say I was always taught one way or the other and I know I'm still learning but I do tend to keep in mind that my subjects and my reach limit how much frame I can fill. If I'm shooting youth hockey or Nascar races both are behind a wall and I can't get any closer. That being said sometimes I just have to crop down do fill the frame. Yes I could go drop $4000 on a 300 or 400mm lens but I don't have that kind of money. TC's aren't an option either as I almost require f/2.8 or more.

<p>

I think the more I shoot such subjects I learn more ways to look at the game and how to shoot it vs. just blindly pushing the button. And once in a great while I get a shot I don't have to crop. I've also seen how cropping can change the story dramatically. I shot a Pro Truck race and cropped down to just one truck which was good until I learned some of the <i>behind the scenes</i> stuff. The one driver I was there to shoot was getting hammered by two other drivers and I had cropped them out of that shot. So I re-finished the image to tell the story better.

<p>

I'm limited by a lot of things but I keep trying to find ways to tackle those obstacles and learn and improve my skills. To crop or not to crop, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous photographers, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles...

 

well that says it all

As needed, I'll say. Try not to by shooting with framing you've envisioned, but if needed, you're gonna have to do what you have to do.

During film days, using medium format allows you to crop freely due to larger real estate but with 35mm, one must use every square mm due to the smaller film area.

 

It is no different with 35mm/APS-C digital sensors. Try cropping the original image heavily and resolution will dramatically decrease when printing the image.

 

Using a 6MP camera as an example, instead of having 2000 x 3000 resolution which equates to 8 x 12 inch prints at 250ppi, one will end up with only 166ppi if one crops to 1333 x 2000 resolution.

 

You can ignore this if one only prints postcard size or for web viewing.

 

Within limits, there are smart upsizing software but one does not really gain any real additional resolution, so cropping with the appropriate lens is always the best option.

 

Having said that due to the the nature of sports photography, good framing is not always possible.

Simple answer.. It all depends on what you intend to do with the image. If you were to tell me "I want to make posters" I would say do as little cropping as possible. If they are for newsprint, magazine, or web.... Go nuts and crop as much as yo uthink you need to.

 

I try to get the shot I want in camera because I make posters. But that doesn't always work. Some art directors want to be able to crop the image as they see fit after I take them. One even went as far as to say he wouldn't use me again if I didn't give him enough room to crop the images (commercial shoot). So it all comes down to what you are going to do with the shots.