How to crop...

[DJdeRidder]

After having another image rejected on that famous photo site for 'poor cropping', I thought let's start a discussion on how to crop. I think, generally we all agree we must center our subject, at least in some way (exceptions excluded). But when is an aircraft really centered perfectly?

BEFORE you answer the poll, please realize that I'm asking you to answer this question in general, not specifically for this image!

First, here's the original I'm talking about.



A: Original (uncropped)
Not cropped, nor leveled.



I think there's two methods to center this aircraft by composition/cropping (see below).



B: Airframe centering
This method is where you 'ignore' the wings and center the airframe from the back of the tail to the most forward point of the nose.





C: Wingtip-to-wingtip
The name says it all really. This way you crop the image from wingtip to wingtip, regardless of whether the airframe will be very close to either side.



How do you crop such images in general?

[evhest]

The way I crop has more to do with any possible motion that is in the picture. If an aircraft is moving from right to left in a picture, I tend to leave a bit more room on the right the create the suggestion of motion.

This probably doesn't apply in your picture, as there's hardly any speed at all. I would have choosen wingtip-to-wingtip, but I have to say the method of airframe centering creates a far more scenic and interesting picture in this case.

[CBR]

I guess you got slapped on the wrist for B: Airframe centering ... imo generally only C: Wingtip-to-wingtip creates balanced pictures (... thats what I voted for).

[Erik_7Xi]

It totally depends on the picture - I use a combination of A, B, C .. and sometimes even more extreme cropping, cutting off parts of the fuselage or so if I want to emphasize a specific part of the plane, e.g. the pilot/cockpit, a specific weapon on a hardpoint or the cat crew that are connecting the strut on a carrier tc.

On helicopters I sometimes want the entire rotor blades in the picture, but other times I go for airframe centric - and cutting off the spinning blades as long as there is enough of them left to show what's going on. Also when the subject is flying, I try to give some space for the aircraft to "fly into".

If you go by the rule of thirds -I think the 3rd picture would be the best, as the cockpit / nose attracts the most attention by being on the other 3rd axis - although I would also want to move it up, have less sky and more ground to get the nose into the upper right section of the frame.

There is nothing wrong any of the 3 pictures in the starting post - it just depends on what you want to show and how you do you want to show it.
Also remember that normally no one knows what the original picture looks like.. if would post picture B or C, without showing A, any discussions on what people would have done differently is moot anyway.
(The same with removing objects from the background - much discussion and debate about it, but in the end who would know any better, provided they weren't there or it's not a very known spot?)

And don't feel too bad about these 'people' that judge photos on that particular site .... they wouldn't know a good picture if it would bite them in the arse.
I wouldn't upload my photos there if they'd pay me anyways.

[nustyR]

It totally depends on the picture -

[DJdeRidder]

I guess you got slapped on the wrist for B: Airframe centering ... imo generally only C: Wingtip-to-wingtip creates balanced pictures (... thats what I voted for).

Balanced? Is that the right word here? All the 'weight' (both physically and in terms of what percentage of the frame is non-empty) is on the right. Apart from that, the aircraft is taxiing to the right, but the viewer cannot see where it's going. Example B has some sort of a 'viewing line' (if that's the right word): the viewer looks where the aircraft is going, after which the background subjects get attention. Or am I just the only one trying to look at my photos like this?

Let me say it clearly. I started this topic because I think wing-to-wing cropping is ugly in cases like this. I didn't want to mention it in the opening post, not to influence the outcome of the poll. I like how Elmer and Erik mention things like leaving room to suggest motion and using rule of thirds. To me, bluntly said, it appears like wing-to-wing cropping is done if you have no clue about such composition terms and if you just want the whole aircraft in the picture. I get the impression it goes like: "The aircraft starts here and ends there. Crop. Finished."

Another example below for a 'static' subject. I still think it's an ugly cropping method, but does the fact that the aircraft is standing still make it any different?

And don't feel too bad about these 'people' that judge photos on that particular site ....

I'm not. I'm just interested to hear what other people have to say about this. Not just by answering the poll question, but by explaining it as well. Your reply is a good example for what I was hoping for, so thanks for that!

[Glidepath]

Als eerste; doe wat je zelf wilt, niet wat anderen willen. Het is jouw hobby, geniet er van op jouw manier.

Ik kan mij helemaal vinden in de opvattingen van ''7xi''. (zie aldaar)
Vaak genoeg maak ik een post-process cut-out van een plaat en daarna nog een, om te zien welke de beste/ mooiste/leukste, meest sprekende) is, om niet zelden vervolgens mijn schouders op te halen, geen afvalkeuze te maken en ze allebei mooi genoeg te vinden om eenvoudig en snel beide te bewaren en apart te taggen. (maar wel in de wetenschap dat zelfs als ik iets weggooit ik altijd nog eens op nieuw kan inzoomen en knippen. (zolang ik de grootste (en of het org) bewaard hebt.)

In je eerste voorbeeld zou ik als het moest, kiezen voor 'B' en ik leg uit waarom: Daar zie je de achtergrond het beste, shelters! de inkijk en de tweedst-buitenste shelter doet HET voor mij, het geeft diepte aan de foto, laat mooi de entourage zien en je hebt (hier bij gevolg vrij veel) ruimte om het vliegtuig ergens heen te laten gaan. Iets meer gras erin, minder lucht.

het 'randje-randje' fotograferen van vliegtuigen is iets dat je veel tegenkomt (ook op fotobeurzen e.d.), maar is eigenlijk nooit mijn ding geweest. Een vliegtuig / heli moet 'ergens heen gaan' of 'ergens vandaan komen'.

Als het jouw ding kan worden of al is, denk ook (weer) eens aan de 'gulden snede' (zie wiki).
Ik volg liever mijn gevoel voor schoonheid, dan conventies en geschreven en ongeschreven regels.
en posten op fotwebsites? no way josé.

[LarsEHAM]

Crop so it looks good!

[Flyboy]

Crop so it looks good!

[bvdboomen]

Croppen, gulden snede en vlakverdeling. Daar gaat het voor mij om in de fotografie voor wat betreft de compositie.

Ten eerste, probeer ik een foto zo te maken dat het croppen tot een minimum beperkt kan worden. Daarna kijk ik naar de vlakverdeling of balans. Is die goed, dan vind ik de foto al goed.

De gulden snede (rule of thirds) is natuurlijk ook belangrijk maar de vlakken die over blijven moeten wel functioneel gevuld zijn. Denk daarbij aan de horizon die op een derde staat maar dat heeft pas zin als de overige 2-derden van de foto functioneel gevuld zijn, tenzij je voor de "minder is meer" regel gaat maar dat is een creatief aspect en creativiteit kan alle regels breken.

Voor mij is vlakverdeling en dus balans het belangrijkste in een foto. Daarin neem ik natuurlijk de beweegrichting in mee.

[CBR]

Apart from that, the aircraft is taxiing to the right, but the viewer cannot see where it's going. Example B has some sort of a 'viewing line' (if that's the right word): the viewer looks where the aircraft is going, after which the background subjects get attention. Or am I just the only one trying to look at my photos like this?

By cutting it this way I do not at all get a feeling of where the aircraft goes but somehow my attention is unwantedly drawn to the far right shelter.

Balanced? Is that the right word here? All the 'weight' (both physically and in terms of what percentage of the frame is non-empty) is on the right. Apart from that, the aircraft is taxiing to the right, but the viewer cannot see where it's going. Example B has some sort of a 'viewing line' (if that's the right word): the viewer looks where the aircraft is going, after which the background subjects get attention.

Another example below for a 'static' subject. I still think it's an ugly cropping method, but does the fact that the aircraft is standing still make it any different?

Funny to see how there are very different perspectives. By balanced I mean emotionally (so for me it has nothing to do with physically and in terms of what percentage of the frame is non-empty). It just does not feel right.

I get a shiver down my spine if people cut of parts of aircraft like in your second example. In your opinion the viewer gets an (imo very limited) idea where the aircraft goes but at the same time you deny them viewing the subject in its full glory.

So again I absolutely go for picture 1 ...

It reminds me of the discussion how to photograph a helicopter - with full rotorblades or cut.

Still I like the different points of view and respect different choices.

[GaRi]

I prefer the w2w crop, because I can't stand photos with parts of the aircraft cut away (except for close-ups, of course, or other particular shoots).

[Iwan Bogels]

Hi DJ,

Interesting discussion. For myself, I just crop it in a way that the photo comes out in a way that I enjoy most. To me it must be optically OK. And that's a matter of taste......

I just don't like it that a rule tells me that a photo HAS to show all parts of the aircraft. It's my hobby, and I crop my shots in a way that I like best. It's nice if others enjoy my results as much as I do, but feel free to dislike them on your own grounds.

Here is one of my favorite crops from 2011, which many people didn't like. It's also one of the most extreme crops in my collection.

Cheers,
Iwan

[Arthur Bijster]

It's in deed a nice discussion what to do when you crop a picture. For me it's more like the composition of the picture. In the picture of the AB-212 you see the whole aircraft including the main rotor, so the object is more to the left in this case. In case of the F-16, I tried to place the aircraft in the center of the picture and the Mirage is more to the left, because I want to see more of the afterburner flame that's so obvious to see.







Greetz Arthur

[SquAdmin]

Here is one of my favorite crops from 2011, which many people didn't like. It's also one of the most extreme crops in my collection.

Hi Iwan, the thing is: a picture like this can be cropped to get a great composition, but the noise in the result is spoiling it (especially, since the original was already shot at ISO800). Noise is one of the downsides of extreme cropping, lack of visible details the other. Based on some of the pictures that I see on this forum, there are quite a few people that don't mind extreme cropping, but it's not my cup of tea...