Pontia butterfly (4:3 crop ratio added)

[rjlittlefield]

Somewhere I read that true macro doesn't need crop.
Does it look better now?

It does!

And I know you're baiting me again about the "true macro", so I'll just say "twitch!", and you'll know what I mean.

--Rik

[Sven Bernert]

Does it look better now?

A lot IMO! Cropping an image for compositional reasons is okay as long as you mention it. This is at least what I think about cropping.

Sven

[rjlittlefield]

Cropping...is okay as long as you mention it.

Forum policy is that it's okay, and you don't even need to mention it. What the posting guidelines say is this:

Digital enhancement of an image is allowed for contrast control, color corrections, and crop/sizing. Any digital enhancements that alter the "naturalness" of the subject must be declared in the image post. Any image that has had digital enhancements that deviate a considerable amount beyond reality should be so noted in the post.

In previous discussions, we've also agreed that stacking should be noted.

If unusually strong cropping, sharpening, color correction, or contrast control were needed to make the image, then those ought to be mentioned. Even if the posted image still matches "reality", the info will help other members who might want to do something similar.

But there's certainly no need to mention routine cropping, sharpening, etc.

--Rik

[MacroLuv]

..., so I'll just say "twitch!", and you'll know what I mean.

--Rik

... like in fishing?

[MacroLuv]

Just to say that you can also see my early afternoon shots of this beauty with bright background.

[salden]

Simple and beautiful. I love it. You have nice details and a great background. I think the composition works (in both images).

[MacroLuv]

... I think the composition works (in both images).

Sue, thanks a lot!
Already thought I'm weird alone in this forum.