Hoverflies

[Dalantech]

Male Drone Hoverfly. Tech specs: Canon 40D (F13, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MPE-65mm macro lens (@>1x) + a diffused MT-24EX macro twin flash. Hand held.

Link to a 1600 pixel wide version -just click on the photo to expand it.



Female Hoverfly. A feeding female hoverfly. Tech specs: Canon 40D (F13, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MPE-65mm macro lens (@3x) + a diffused MT-24EX macro twin flash. Hand held using the Left Hand Brace Technique.

Link to a 1600 pixel wide version -just click on the link to expand it.

[Cyberspider]

number is awesome with the pollen on its head...very good

[rjlittlefield]

These are beautiful images, but the composition on #2 could be improved for my personal taste.

I am bothered by having in-focus portions of the flower parts be cut off at the bottom of the picture. Also it seems to me that there is some non-contributing space at the left of the frame, leaving the most interesting part of the subject stuck at dead center.

Of course the second issue could be addressed easily by cropping to a different aspect ratio. But the first issue is now locked into the image as a result of too tight framing when the photo was shot.

Dalantech, I admire the purity of your no-cropping approach, and your photos are top-notch. But I am not convinced that your photos are as good as they could be if you gave yourself some more options.

It seems to me that what you are saying is this: "I can make such good decisions in a few seconds, that no amount of careful consideration can improve on them later."

Is that really the case?

--Rik

[Dalantech]

Thanks Markus

...Of course the second issue could be addressed easily by cropping to a different aspect ratio. But the first issue is now locked into the image as a result of too tight framing when the photo was shot.

Dalantech, I admire the purity of your no-cropping approach, and your photos are top-notch. But I am not convinced that your photos are as good as they could be if you gave yourself some more options.

It seems to me that what you are saying is this: "I can make such good decisions in a few seconds, that no amount of careful consideration can improve on them later."

Is that really the case?

--Rik

Rik you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Your critique of my images is biased by your dislike of my stance on cropping...

What I am saying is that I refuse to use the cropping tool to compensate for poor technique with the camera. That if I find myself reaching for the cropping tool in post then I'm doing something wrong and I need to work on my technique to correct it. Notice, by the underlining, that I'm making personal statements about me and my photography -what you, or anyone else, chooses to do doesn't make any difference to me. I have set some VERY high standards for myself and what I'm trying to do with my images -standards that I do not expect anyone else to follow...

Look at my images Rik and tell me that I really need to crop. Tell me that my compositional skills are so poor that I can't look at a scene and determine how to frame the subject. Would you believe that I use my peripheral vision to compose the shot before I get the subject in focus? That because I'm using my peripheral vision I have more time to concentrate on where I'm going to place the area of acceptable focus so that I can take about a frame a second and refocus for each one? I developed those skills Rik because I do not crop in post...

Is it possible, that in a frame that's no more than 7mm wide (the 3x shot) that I could be off by a few tenths of a millimeter? Sure -but I'm not so far off that the composition is ruined. In a print no one would be drawn to the areas you pointed out -they'd be looking right at the leading eye of the hoverfly and it's proboscis. In focus areas in the foreground are not nearly as distracting as out of focus areas, so the composition works. I could have cloned most of those stamen out, but chose to leave it as I shot it -personal choice.

My last two points on cropping: The cropping tool in post will not teach you composition, that can only be learned with the view finder. Last most stock agencies will not accept cropped photos. I know way too many people who got into shooting for stock who struggled because the cropping tool had just about killed their ability to compose with the view finder...

[rjlittlefield]

Dalantech,

Thanks very much for the clarification and additional information.

I don't know if we actually do disagree. I'm still trying to understand your position.

It's a personal curse that I like to have the issues be clear, particularly on points where people look to photomacrography.net for advice.

You wrote

Your critique of my images is biased by your dislike of my stance on cropping...

Partly true, partly not. I posted my critique entirely because I wanted to talk with you about cropping. But my comments about the framing of this particular picture have nothing to do with your technique. They are simply how I feel about the picture.

In my post, I asked a question.

It seems to me that what you are saying is this: "I can make such good decisions in a few seconds, that no amount of careful consideration can improve on them later."

Is that really the case?

I notice that you did not answer the question directly, but some of your comments help me to read between the lines.

Is it possible, that in a frame that's no more than 7mm wide (the 3x shot) that I could be off by a few tenths of a millimeter? Sure -but I'm not so far off that the composition is ruined.

From this, I gather you agree that some compositions might be improved, but in your judgment the improvements would not be enough to offset all the bad aspects of cropping.

Fair enough.

But then I feel compelled to ask, what are the bad aspects of cropping?

You point out that some stock agencies will not accept cropped photos. I'd be interested to hear more about that, but another time would be better.

Regarding other aspects, I've read your post carefully several times, and it seems to me that the bad aspects of cropping in your view have mostly to do with how you relate to your camera and your craft. It seems you worry that having the opportunity to crop will make you less careful with your camera work. I doubt that would really happen, given your obviously high level of discipline, but I understand the concern, and certainly that's your call to make. Sorry if I implied otherwise.

Re-reading my earlier posts at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=7173, I see I used the phrase "badge of honor" in connection with no-cropping-allowed. If that touched a raw nerve, I apologize -- it was not my intention to offend, and as you have explained, there are other reasons why one might see no-cropping-allowed as being the preferred approach.

But in the same vein, you should understand that in writing "I see everything wrong in using cropping as a way to fix mistakes in technique", you imply that there are mistakes in technique. I found that statement offensive in the previous context. The underlines in your recent post make it clear now that your comments refer only to your own workflow and intentions. It seemed earlier that you were making a much broader statement, one that I could not let go unchallenged.

It sounds like we are agreed that "the picture's the thing". And also, I hope, that there's more than one legitimate route to achieving it.

Glad we got that cleared up.

--Rik

[Dalantech]

Honestly Rik how any of us gets from an idea in our heads to a final image is irrelevant -the viewer only knows what they can see in a print or on the screen. So the "how" or the "what" only makes for good conversation -the final image is all that really matters. I see nothing wrong with anyone using any tool, device, or technique -as long as they understand that just because they do something that doesn't mean that I have to

If I were to print and mat that image would I slide it a little more toward one side or the other depending on how I liked the framing? Sure. Is that a crop? You bet

Two of the questions that I get asked the most when I'm at an art show are "How much time do you spend on the computer?" and "Is that image cropped?. I can honestly answer "Less than two minutes." and "No, none of my images are cropped.". Unless you count the view finder, the less than full frame sensor, or the mat

I don't know of a single stock agency that will accept a cropped image -all of the ones I've dealt with want uncropped photos. The more data the better, even though a lot of agencies will up convert them to a higher pixel count.

I write a lot of articles on macro and technique, and I try to let people know that I'm not an authority on any photographic discipline -no one is. But I write so people don't have to start from scratch; maybe they can take something that I've learned and adapt it to their own style of shooting. At no point have I ever said that there is only one way take a macro photo and I have the instruction manual. Anyone who makes that claim, or acts like they are an authority, is someone that no one should listen to...

My stance on cropping is just that -my stance. It forces me to look for new angles and compositions -to work around obstacles instead of cropping them out of the frame later. I don't want to rely on post processing to fix mistakes that I shouldn't be making. Now I know that there are more uses for the cropping tool than fixing errors in composition -granted. But one of the pitfalls to getting comfortable with cropping in post is getting too relaxed with the view finder...

Macro isn't just a means to catalog the small world, it's a photographic discipline and as such composition is king -everything else is a distant second. To that end I keep pushing myself to work on composition -but I want to do it with the view finder and not Photoshop. It's a personal choice that drives me to work on my "pre-processing" every day

[rjlittlefield]

Sounds good to me. I've been through every tutorial on your site. There's a gob of good advice in there, and I agree that in all the tutorials the tone is just "here's what I do" -- very non-prescriptive and non-judgmental. I was probably just feeling grouchy when I thought I read something different in your post in sagarmatha's thread.

I don't have much experience with stock companies, and I'm curious how they work. I checked out iStock and Alamy, the only two I recall being mentioned in the forums. I found lots of criteria about image quality and pixel counts, but nothing at all about cropping. And from a technical standpoint I can't figure how they could detect a resampled crop, assuming of course that the image quality held up. So I'm curious -- just curious -- what are some examples of companies that won't accept digital crops, and how do they enforce it?

--Rik

[Dalantech]

They can look at the EXIF data embedded in the image (required) and know what camera you used to take the photo.

Photoshelter, when they were doing stock, would not accept cropped photos. I know I've seen it on other stock sites as well -too old and too late to remember

[rjlittlefield]

Two of the questions that I get asked the most when I'm at an art show are "How much time do you spend on the computer?" and "Is that image cropped?.

These questions have been running around in my head, and I realize I'm not sure what the questioner might really be concerned about.

One possibility is that the question "Is that image cropped?" really means "How did you get such a small subject to fill the frame?" When people are talking to me, they usually ask "How did you get so close?", or "Is that shot through a microscope?" It has never occurred to me to interpret "Is that image cropped?" as asking about the composition.

The other question, "How much time do you spend on the computer?" may reflect something like "I hate computers. Would I have to spend a lot of time at my computer to make this kind of photo?" Your answer -- indeed your whole technique -- is perfect for those people.

Good discussion. Thought provoking...

--Rik

[Dalantech]

One possibility is that the question "Is that image cropped?" really means "How did you get such a small subject to fill the frame?"

No Rik, they really want to know if the image is cropped because they want to order a large print. I sell 8x12s at shows, and people order 24x36 inch prints. They want to know how good the quality of the shot will be on a larger print...

The other question, "How much time do you spend on the computer?" may reflect something like "I hate computers.
--Rik

Nope, because when I answer the question the person will tell me that they want to know how much of the image quality is due to post processing and how much did I get right with the camera. I'm not kidding...

[rjlittlefield]

Interesting. Different communities. Thanks for the info.

--Rik