When to crop an image

[kou_lee]

<p>So lately I've been going through the RAW photos that I have and have been picking out and working with the good ones, or at least the ones I have deemed good. My qualm is when an image should be cropped and when it shouldn't.</p>

<p>For instance, I know that cropping is used to remove a section of the image containing something that could distract a viewer from the subject of the image. It is also used to increase the dramatic impact of the photo by bringing it in line with the rule of thirds.</p>

<p>But what I want to know is this: if an image taken as it is, with no cropping, is good without having to be cropped, can be left alone and still remain a good image?</p>

[kou_lee]

<p>Dragonfly (cropped)</p><div></div>

[anthea50]

<p>IMHO both compositions are a bit weak. To make the image more 'dramatic' you would have to re-shoot (preferably horizontal) and much tighter in, getting rid of the background distractions as much as possible. I would prefer the first image, but cropped differently. The second one is too tight across the top. I have taken the liberty of doing my own crop (plus a bit of clone tool to get rid of background distractions). Ok, I know that your question was not about that exactly, but you did ask which one is 'better'. So here goes.....</p><div></div>

[anthea50]

<blockquote>

<p><em>But what I want to know is this: if an image taken as it is, with no cropping, is good without having to be cropped, can be left alone and still remain a good image?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The short answer is of course, if its 'good without having to be cropped' then don't! Judging from your post, you know enough to judge for yourself what you think is 'good without cropping'. Perhaps you just need to have confidence in your own knowledge and experience? Or if you are really stuck, ask someone who's opinion you trust, ot put the image up for critique, but make sure you ask a specific question or concern so that you have a higher chance of getting back specific feedback (no guarantee's though)<em><br /></em></p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Cropping images is one of the cheapest and most effective forms of copyright protection available. As long as the image you retain holds more data and detail than the one you put up on the web, you have gained the upper hand in any dispute over who owns that image. copyright.gov has a FAQ which includes recommending cropping as a form of protection. It doesn't have to be a radical change: retaining a thin margin, putting up a 98% picture with the same aspect ratio, for example, is better than putting up the whole thing. </p>

<p>For this reason, I would recommend cropping pretty much always. It may not be for the compositional reasons implied by your question; but, for "when to crop," I'd say almost always, for that protection reason. Keep in mind, what this is actually doing is laying the foundation for proving ownership later, and is not in and of itself a lock on protection. It'd be a longer discussion, but there would be more to it than just that. </p>

<p>Yet, for copyright reasons, I'd say crop just about everything. It's cheap, quick and easy; it doesn't have to interfere with overall image appearance; and, it can't be undone by image file recipients. </p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>The RAW image will not be changed whether or not you crop. I have many RAW images I have done nothing with. Others I have cropped, processed and re-sized depending on whether I send them in an email, print, or use as a computer background and then I save as jpgs.</p>

<p>If you want to use in a slide show then post process them and crop accordingly.</p>

<p>I doesn't matter if you leave the RAW images as is or crop them. I often crop in DPP and still do nothing with them. Once again, the RAW image remains untouched. However, I think it is good to do post procession just for the experience. With experience, one gets better at it.</p>

<p><em>But what I want to know is this: if an image taken as it is, with no cropping, is good without having to be cropped, can be left alone and still remain a good image?</em></p>

<p>Difficult to answer, but I think this is irrelevant question. If it is cropped or framed when the photo is taken so no cropping is necessary, then you may limit yourself later depending on how you want to crop. The 3:2 format of a digital photo will likely not be the same ratio that you would later crop. If you are too close to the subject, you may not be able to crop to your needs.</p>

<p> </p>

[kou_lee]

<p>Originally I wanted to shoot horizontally, but that would've introduced too many background elements into the image that would detract from the subject, the dragonfly. The background is a vine covered tree that was reflecting heavy sunshine. Shot head on, the twig that the dragonfly is on would have been in the way, and the background would be reflecting sunshine. Moving to my right of the dragonfly puts the background into direct sunlight. Moving to the left is the second image of the dragonfly that was suitable: the background is in the shade but the dragonfly is still in the sun and unblocked by the twig.</p>

<p>As for cropping for copyright purposes, wouldn't possession of the original RAW file suffice?</p>

[hjoseph7]

The dragon-fly cropped might not cause you any problems with resizing, but the dragon-fly recropped will. I would just chalk it up to experience and try not to make the same mistake again. It's not worth all the agravation in photoshop especially since the image is not going into production. I do my cropping through the viefinder and I try to avoid cropping all together unless I definately have to.