Spring Landscape With Poplar Saplings

We are all trying to influence one another thoughts that is what I come to PN for , and what I count on from you. I was less careful than I should have been with my choice of words in my comment above.

Your comment about being heavily influenced by the image as it comes out of the camera is interesting to consider.In most of my work I try to compose in camera rather than after the fact. This is much harder to do with these drive-by images because of the very nature of how they are shot. I end up going through the shots afterwards looking for compositions that best conform to what I had wanted, rather than my usual procedure of either building up the image such as a still life or scanning the scene to figure out a composition based on what I exclude from the scene. I think this is why it can be especially helpful to get other peoples opinions on these shots in particular. I find them the most difficult to crop. I agree that the slightest change of crop can change the balance and composition dramatically. These are good issues for me to be considering because I can be overly rigid about what comes out of the camera. As always Fred thanks for giving me more to consider.

No harm done... I explained privately to Gordon why I deleted my post, as I got burned a couple of times with such comments in the middle of a rather closely knit group inside photo.net. I did not want to hurt any susceptibilities. So let's forget it with a good, healthy, 9% Fin Du Monde made in Québec, Canada. (Incidentally Gordon, the USD and the CAD are almost on par this very morning, with the CAD oh so slightly on top. Whew!)

About Cropping

I, too, try to make the most of the available pixels and put things "right" on the spot. This works well for landscapes usually, a good number of portraits, et cetera. But for a passing shot like this one, it is often virtually impossible. In certain landscapes, we often end up with unwanted elements because there is no other way to do otherwise on the spot. Or, as Ray Banfield very rightly pointed out, you can't get it right on the spot because a 4000 ft fall is waiting for you if you dare try it!

Birds, insects often decide for you. And often, we can't have that, can we? Many action shots are risky as far as framing is concerned. And that's why I personally end up shooting in burts using continuous mode. In those conditions, framing is often as chancy as focus, it can't be helped. So, if we can correct after that, why not? Almost all of my pictures are at least slightly reframed, often quite heavily.

That's why I have this 13 MP thingy, and will buy a 20 MP monster when they become available in 35 mm, full-framed format, in a couple of years I would say.

Now, good modern 35 mm equiv. DSLR almost all have a three on two ratio. Well, this certainly does not work well for all portraits, does it? And in quite a number of landscape shots, you wish you had a more panoramic view. The solution in that case is spelled cropping.

For all those reasons, it is now part of my working procedure to try all sorts of cropping, just in case something quite good would come out. Nothing quite new here. After all, we used to do that in the wet darkroom. Nothing has changed.

I said it already, we will never have too many of those darned pixels. Come on, Canon, Nikon, time for a new generation of monsters. Specially Canon with their full-framed sensors. Get to work.

In friendship,

RogerG From Up North

As for taking what comes out of the camera: to me it is a worthy goal but not one that should have to much excess time and energy spent on accomplishing. With the resolution of DSLRs (mine is only 6mp), you can get excellent images in the 16x20 print size when cropping as much as half the image away.

 

Now, that doesn't mean I don't pay attention to my composition through the lens, I do - be foolish not to. However, I find that when I compose exactly what I want in lens, often, I flinch or move and cut off what I originally intended to capture; a monopod helps with that but I don't always have that handy.

 

Generally, what I find works well is to compose what I want and either step back or zoom out slightly to capture just a little more to ensure I get what I want. Once at my computer, I can crop what I don't want but if its missing, I can't put it back in or recreate it. I almost always crop something off even if I got a very reasonable composition from my camera - you just have more time and leisure to sit back and look at your image and compose how you want when looking at the monitor than when in the field looking through a viewfinder.

 

Good idea to turn this into a discussion on cropping Fred.

 

Just my 2 cents, which I know are beginning to be worth less and less here in the states,

 

Kirk

Glad to see you back and thanks for your further explanation in the mail. I do agree that it would be nice to have more mega pixels. From where I sit with only 8 your 13 seems huge. I keep an eye out for Canon to make the needed upgrades to the 5 D full frame and then I am going to find myself in need of one :)

Pixels aside, I agree that with this type of shooting or as you mentioned, birds animals or any fast moving object, you are going to have to make some cropping decisions as it is darn hard to fill the frame every time and flail about with the camera at the same time.

Thanks for your helpful input. I will find the time this week to work on this further and see what I come up with.

Alway glad to have you drop in and offer your almost 2 cents worth :)

 

I do much the same as you, I alway leave a small amount on the edge of the frame for levelling and cropping. I try to be as close to full frame as I can, but not at the risk of cutting of something at the borders. I also tend to crop to conventional ratios so something is often in need of cropping.

 

You have more experience than I do with what is possible in terms of prints so thanks for that advice. I'm surprised that you can print that large from a half cropped 6 meg image. I am hoping to delve into the printing aspect soon so any help is much appreciated. It sounds as though I may be pleasantly surprised at what is possible.

First things first, I just read through the whole above dialog and appreciate everyone's succinct comments and for a few brief, but profound minutes, I was back in photography class during a critique session with my beloved fellow classmates, those sessions were some of the most productive and pleasurable times I spent in college.....it blew my hair back to have those emotions recreated here on PN. Blah, blah, blah. The wavelenghts of energy and implied motion are definitely what intriques me about this image, it just sorta flows through my subconscious psyche mellowing me out, my eyes keep returning to the left like the head of an old typewriter and clicking across the image taking in the wonderful colors and details.....tap tap tap kaching.

Gordon, I don't have a lot of experience with printing, mine go to a local printer; can't afford a big boy of my own. When I say you can crop and still print that big, there are some disclaimers - it depends on several things. The lower the ISO, and better the lighting, the better clarity you will get at larger sizes. A image shot with a low ISO but is underexposed and brightened in Photoshop is going to be on the grainy side when enlarged.

 

However, many large prints aren't meant to be viewed up close and a print that is grainy up close could look crystal clear across a room or higher on a wall. Additionally, some people go love grainy pictures not that all enlargements from 6 mgs are grainy just saying.

 

Kirk

Who would believe that one single picture would bring such interesting discussions and exchanges?

 

Well, about printing, here is another point of view. This one is personally well documented. The quality of the print is directly proportional... to the quality of the sensor, among other things. For example, with a first-class, full-framed sensor like the one you find in the 5D, shooting at ISO 50 or 100 means virtually no noise. None at all. I've got NoiseNinja installed and never use it for photos ISO 200 or less.

 

Such a sensor allows you to boost many pictures to simply astonishing proportions and 20x30 in prints can be viewed from two feet away and look absolutely, but absolutely perfect.

 

I've got such a photo right now on my desktop if you're interested, I could put it on my server and give a link to it if you want. I have boosted it to... you will not believe it, and will not believe the result I am sure, to, huh, 10 000 x 15 000. It is a 900 MB file in 16-bit per colour and shows just a tiny bit of jagging when seen at 100% on the screen. Better have at least 4 GB RAM, preferably 8.

 

Boosted at 6000 x 9000, it's virtually perfect. You can print such a picture at 30x45 in at 300 dpi if you want... so 20x30 is dead easy.

 

The lower the ISO with a good full-frame, the better the file and the better the print. I've done such huge files twice: one for fun (the one I'm talking about, 17MB in jpeg), another one for a client. Both at ISO 50.

 

I've never personally printed at such huge dimensions, don't have the equipment of course... nothing's perfect.

 

RogerG

Roger, good info, I wouldn't really say its another point of view but rather additional information, first hand from your point of view. Which, very well could be what you mean; I've learned and found quite interesting here on PN that speaking/writing people from different corners of the planet there are often phrases that mean similar but different things.

 

Anyway, your experience is with a higher end body than I have. I used 200 ISO as a low ISO example because that is all my camera goes down to; I didn't even know they went down to 50 ISO. Maybe when I die, my work will be good enough to sell and my son can afford to buy a high end camera and continue where I leave off. I still say that grainy in many cases/applications is not a bad thing.

 

Definately good discussion, glad you threw in your 2 cents Roger.

 

Gordon, I hope I didn't say anything above that you already are familiar with.

 

Kirk