Digital Media | Spotlight: Photography | Inside Aperture | Blogs
A Good Crop
Having come up through the newspaper ranks, I’m no stranger to having my images cropped. There was a time when I would even encourage it, cropping out a distracting element or make the picture better by eliminating part of the frame.
But I don’t like to crop anymore. It’s a bit of a test; challenging myself to work within the frame and crop in the field, moving around and working the composition. One of my many photographic heroes, Henri Cartier Bresson would not crop his photographs, going so far as to stamp the “Do Not Crop” warning, on the back of all his prints.
But in the never say never spirit, the rare times when I do crop, I like to keep the same shape of the original frame so you can’t tell the image was cropped. I think there’s something to be said for consistency with a set of pictures.
The crop tool in Aperture works well for me. When you choose the crop icon or just press the crop shortcut C, you get a bunch of options. The one I like is “Master Aspect Ratio”, which keeps all images consistent, the same shape as the original image. (Make sure the Constrain box is checked).
Aperture also lets you choose the “Main Display" or "Second Display" aspect ratio, which lets you maximize the size of the image on the screen by cropping. You also have a list of popular default sizes including square, for those who don’t want to deal with the choice of horizontal or vertical.
Change the shape of your crop by un-checking the constrain option and dragging the crop handles to form any crop shape you want, or create a new default size with the custom option. There really are infinite possibilities when cropping within Aperture.
You can also look to Aperture for some compositional help. Hold down the Command Key and click inside the crop-- a proportional “rule of thirds” grid is now there. But of course-- there are no rules. When you like the crop, just hit return.
Of course cropping is not destructive like most tools in Aperture, so if you change your mind just press C again, and click outside the crop box. Or press M to shortcut to the Master Image and toggle back and forth to see if you’ve done the right thing.
Straighten Tool
It makes sense to use the crop tool in concert with the straighten tool. Select the crop you like and then hit the G key which is the shortcut to straighten, click inside the crop and a yellow grid overlay appears making it easier to rotate and straighten the cropped image. Just hit return, and your new cropped and straightened version is ready for export.
What’s also nice is when you use the straighten tool with the crop tool, the area outside the crop goes dark, making your crop easier to see before committing to it. If you’ve shot a burst of a few images that might need similar treatment, the lift and stamp tool will speed things up.
To crop or not to crop, how do you answer the question?
Comments (11)
There's only one good final result—the strongest image from the material you had to work with.
If an image can be made stronger by cropping, then crop. Why limit yourself to some artificial limitation?
What if you simply can't get close enough to your subject to fill the full frame on site? Do you just not shoot, because the resulting image won't be a good one?
What if the subject matter itself requires a square frame and you're shooting 35mm? Do you leave it alone unless you happen to have a 6x6 camera on site?
What about thinking in terms of a series, where different crops might take away from the flow of a related group of images. There's something to be said of consistency and cropping or not cropping is one way to stay consistent. Of course there are so many variables and each shoot and project is different, but photography is often a compromise. Change one shutter speed, change the f-stop or ISO. I like the idea of exercising some discipline. Sometimes when editing a group, a great shot has to be left out because it doesn't fit with the theme or story, to be used another day or way. So though I agree in principal with everything you say, I'm always suspect when there's "only one good final result"--i think there can be many.
As a part time photographer, I try to look at the background to see what is going to interfere with the subject. Especially with portraits, you want to make sure the background adds to subject so that the subject is the first one seen. So, I don't like to crop out unless it is necessary. But what I have found is when I haven't crop or I did just a free hand crop, and I show the pictures to the client, they may want an 8x10, 5x7.... When I go back to adjust to that size, I found that part of the head gets whack or something else. So, now I try to crop where the picture can easily change to 8x10, 5x7, 4x6(4x5). Then I show the pictures to the client. If anyone has a better suggestion, I love to add that to my workflow.
I love your tips...
Thanks!!
Limitations, artificial or otherwise, breed creativity. That said, keep it fun.
I find I had more to say than fit here, so I put it up at http://tomdibble.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/quickie-cropping/
In summary, though, I ALWAYS plan to crop. I find it a lot easier to capture a little extra in the field than to paint that extra in later when it's needed to fit a particular output aspect ratio.
Hey Tom, some good information there. Action and sports photography are great candidates for cropping since so much is out of the photographer's control and you don't want to be too tight, since you can't get it back. From my documentary point of view, I would never "paint that extra in", because I have chosen to capture reality without altering it in any way beyond the traditional color correcting and exposure controls. Not meaning to get on a high horse here, but this is how documentary photographers operate ethically, since any changes made in one photo puts doubt over an entire archive that photographer has produced. It's journalism and it's the code of ethics photojournalists live by. Those who have breached this code have damaged their reputations and career in ways they could never recover from.
While I certainly admire the discipline of the suggested approach, I'd hate to be stuck with 2:3 aspect ratio of my D200 by default.
There've been a few occasions of late where I've cursed myself after a shoot for having composed to the full frame, leaving myself unable to crop down from the 2:3 aspect during post.
I view and share a lot of my images through my Apple TV on my flat screen TV. I use the 16x9 aspect ratio a lot to optimize that viewing environment.
I just can't understand Steve's contention where ethics are compromised by cropping. Aren't you doing the same thing when you move your angle or alter your composition to frame a shot? Aren't you doing this when you choose the focal length of the lens with which to shoot the image in the first place? As a photographer, aren't you deciding what part of an event your audience will see, and therefore, are in fact, manipulating their opinions? I would argue the simple act of taking a photograph is a crop from the real event. You will not be able to see the entire environment in a picture. You cannot know what happened just before and just after the photograph was taken. The whole notion of cropping sacrificing integrity seems flawed from the outset. I understand the need for photographers, editors and news agencies to preserve the integrity and trust of the public, but those are issues of deceit. Photo manipulation and the manipulative use of cropping with the intent to sway and destroy the purpose and message of the original photograph is the issue.
It sounds like you've fashioned a creative discipline for yourself in regards to framing the shot correctly at the moment - and more power to you. It sounds like a wonderful challenge all photographers should practice. But to mask a personal goal with the slippery slope of lies argument is where I begin to take issue.
My feeling regarding cropping is one and the same as choosing a camera, a lens kit, shooting RAW, or any other variable you need to control in the field. It is always and only about preserving options. I will often compose a shot specifically for the option of cropping for vertical use and horizontal use. Clients change minds, projects are retooled and recycled, art directors are fired - all reasons and motivations to shoot with those variables in mind. Granted, that's a commercial scenario, but it actually does apply to photojournalism. A sudden movement may put the subject or focal point of what would have been the perfect image outside the frame, rendering it useless. Would you rather risk having the hero shot be lost just to serve the cropping gods? Why wouldn't it be just a valid to simply crop it in post the way you would have shot it in the first place? That way no ethics are tread upon.
Cropping is one of the most underrated and underused options budding photographers are taught. I've occasionally gotten several different images from one single frame through the use of cropping. This makes the images you shoot more valuable, you as a photographer more employable, and photography more enjoyable.
Now if we could get custom presets for cropping it would be great. As previously noted, when shooting sports you never know if the customer is going to want 4x6, 5x7, etc. so I use a crop size that allows me to post one image that can be cropped to the most common final aspect ratios. The problem is I have to do each one individually...which isn't really feasible for 200-300+ shoots. If anyone as sorted this out with Automator or other scripting I'm all ears.
FWIW. the crop size is 1600px x 2166px.
Steve mentions later on in the article -
"hit the G key which is the shortcut to straighten"
Personally I have the word 'Gravity' in my head, just helps me to remember that its the 'G' key which I need to use.