Question about aspect ratios

[renan_teuman]

<p>Hello, I was wondering if photos like this one are cropped or shot directly :</p>

<p>are these kind of photos shot with 36x24 frame cameras? I know they can be cropped but that reduces the quality, so what are the other possibilities to do this ?</p>

 

<p><blockquote><strong>MODERATOR NOTE: Image removed.</strong></p>

<p><i> Please note that members may post only images that they made.</p>

<p>Posting other people's images contravenes the Photo.net Term of Use and User Guidelines.</p>

<p>Members agreed to these terms when they join Photo.net.</i></p>

<p>The image referenced is by Mark Power and is <B>“Zaatari Syrian Refugee Camp”</B>, found on this page, here:</p>

<p>http://www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/migrants-theory-and-practice/</blockquote></p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Can't see your pictures</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>You don't loosing any quality, you improving your image with the proper cropping, Ignore the aspect ratio, I never use any of the so called standard.</p>

[Ken Katz]

Cropping an image reduces the total pixel count and as such reduces technical quality, but if the cropped file

results in a stronger image, it is well worth it (IMHO). Modern digital cameras have plenty of resolution, so

cropping should not have a significant impact on the photo's print-ability. Some people claim to be able to

precisely pre-visualize before pushing the shutter button and avoid any cropping. For the rest of us a well cropped image can

result in a stronger photo than using the full file.

[User_6502147]

<p>Actually, the camp could have been shot in a pano fashion (with or without tripod)....creating way more resolution than a conventional shot.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I looked up Mark Power as his name rang a bell. According to he Wikipedia article about him, he use a large format

camera. I am pretty sure that he uses 4x5 inch film. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Power

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Renan, just to be sure, cropping does not necessarily mean changing the aspect ratio. If you crop a photo from a camera with a 36x24mm sensor (or film) to a 3:2 ratio, the aspect ratio doesn't change. Plus, many camera systems use a different aspect ratio than 35mm film (which is 3:2), for example many digital compact cameras have 4:3 aspect ratio by default, or the above mentioned large format cameras which have a 5:4 ratio.<br>

So, based on seeing a photo, it's hard to say whether it is cropped or not, based on only its aspect ratio.</p>

[glen_h]

<blockquote>

<p>I know they can be cropped but that reduces the quality,<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It used to be a contest to see who could get the highest power stereo amplifier, to out blast their neighbors, now it is the most megapixels in cameras.<br>

<br>

Yes cropping reduces the number of pixels in the final image. But why do we buy super high resolution cameras? So we can crop without excessive image quality loss. <br>

<br>

If you crop such that a tiny part of the image is used for a very large print, you might notice. A small amount of cropping should not be much of a problem. Now, in the case of slide film, one pretty much has to get the framing right in the first place. Zoom lenses were a big help for slide film users.</p>

<p> </p>

[Tony Parsons]

<p>OK, so cropping reduces the number of pixels in the final (or published) image. But, AFAIK, the quality in the remaining pixels is not compromised. What will affect them is a large amount of cropping, followed by attempting to increase the remaining image in post-processing, as the software needs to interpolate or otherwise alter the pixels so that they create a larger image. Same-size cropping may often result in a stronger image, by eliminating extraneous detail it was impossible to exclude in the original exposure.</p>

<p>Attention to detail does not equate with adhering to dogma.</p>

<p>Tony</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>If you do the cropping not to increase subject size because you don't have a long enough lens but only to change the aspect ratio then I don't think the quality suffers much. I think you can crop a 3/2 frame to 16:9 or to square without much loss in quality.</p>

[kim_johnson1]

Cropping a small portion of the image to enlarge it or make a larger dimension/size may affect the quality depending on

the amount. Simply cropping for another aspect does nothing to the quality. If you take a 2:3 image and crop to a 2.39:1

(cinematic aspect), you simply cropped off some pixels. The remaining pixels are untouched unless youre resizing them.

[Jochen_S]

<p>You can mount a lot of oddball ratio film backs on a 4x5" camera. <br>

For digital captures there seem only 1:1 to 2:3 sensors available (and in betweens). Does cropping harm? - Not necessarrily. As long as you are filling one side of your sensor with content, you should be pretty fine. - Side note: Cropping is quite popular. The printing industry never adapted to the 2:3 ratio. European paper is usually 1:1.4 (squareroot of 2, to be precise), so yes, a few pixels on the side will be cut off / binned.<br>

OTOH: What is really needed as "output" and what can be captured by a journalist? - A centerfold demands 5040 pixels on the long end conservatively or 3564 pixels sloppily (42cm length, 60l/cm offset screen and quality factors 2 & SQRT2). A portable and affordable A7RII provides <small><small>(max 7.360 x 4.912 Pixel)</small></small> An old 18MP Leica 5.212 x3.472 Pixel. I assume both can produce decent images and will outresolve beat up & missaligned kit zooms on the average camera with their better lenses. The linked images smelled like broad daylight to me, so I guess they can be shot at base ISO without producing noise that demands pixel binning. <br>

IDK how big images have to be to make the news these days, but I guess not everything gets spread over 2 pages, so there might be a chance to sell smaller images too.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>The photo linked to and comments about it being shot with a 5x4 camera just show how one can loose quality by cropping. Since to get the shot he used a wide angle lens and cropped a lot of sky and foreground .... if digital that is probably more than half/ two thirds the pixels thrown away.<br>

Whereas I would, and do, use a regular format camera and take a series of overlapping images to get the width without the height ... again throwing away pixels with the overlaps but ending up with at least three times the pixels of the single shot taken with the WA.<br>

But for the small image seen on a monitor the difference is academic.</p>