Cropping - the Whens, Whys, and Hows...

[Dan Mitchell]

Okay, so let me say first off that I love this forum.  I've been lucky enough to meet some of you in real life. 

I love photographing planes, but one of the things I really struggle with is cropping.  I've read a lot of these threads, and this one resonated.  One of the most difficult things for me is anything less than the whole.  So if I cut off a control surface, it'll send me into a short fit of involuntary hysteria.  Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating.  Just a little.  But not much.

I see some of the shots you all post, and I'm sure you all have your favorite spots, some secret, some not s secret.  All of my planespotting photos so far have come from Sky Harbor.  Terminal 4 rooftop, or, this last time, Terminal 3.  Since a lot of it is photographing from a downward angle, deciding what to key in to (in the absence of a clear horizon) to use to 'straighten' the photo can sometimes be a bit of a challenge as well.  From that vantage point, the part I struggle with the most is cropping.  I read the "The "Space to Fly Into" Thing" with interest, but I guess what I'm asking is: would any of you feel like talking about how you decide how to frame and crop a photo?

Feel free to take any of mine and re-crop them as you think they should be cropped.  Here are some recent shots of the 787 and from Air Force One's most recent visit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mister326/sets/72157621957061535/

Thank you all in advance!   

[Dan Mitchell]

Oh, and not really related, but I recently got a new lens, and am still getting used to it.  Does the 'Vibration Reduction' feature in Nikon lenses come at the expense of some sharpness, or is it just me?

[Anna M. Wood]

What is the new lens you have?  Camera body and lens?

I am assuming Nikon as some focus micro-adjustment options for the lens camera body combination like Canon does?

[Dan Mitchell]

Anna- Nikon D200 body.

This lens: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70-300mm-f%252F4.5-5.6G-IF-ED.html

[Anna M. Wood]

When your D200 took the header and wrecked the other lens, did you get the camera body checked out as well?  Or did you just get a new lens as a replacement?

The 787 images look soft.  I do not think that is the VR for those images.  You might try stopping down the aperture a few stops and upping your iso to get a shutter speed you wish to shoot at.  Many len's sweet spot for sharpness is not at a wide open aperture.

As far as cropping goes.  The basic rules of composition are a good place to start.   http://petapixel.com/2015/03/16/9-photo-composition-tips-as-seen-in-photographs-by-steve-mccurry/

When I have a horizon that is not clean I go for making sure the buildings and light poles are vertical.

[Joe Copalman]

Regarding the softness, that lens is in the same class as my old Canon 75-300.  It wasn't a bad starter lens, but it did have a tendency to produce soft images, especially at anything wider than f/7.1.

VR can certainly impact an image, and it usually happens for one of two reasons - your VR motor is damaged or worn out, or you're trying to pan outside the tolerance of the VR, essentially fighting the lens.  VR/IS/OS issues in images usually show up as excessive jagginess.

[Anna M. Wood]

To add to Joe's comments.....

VR/IS issues while panning can look like smearing of the pixels, as well as jagginess.  You can see how the stabilization in not keeping up with the panning.  There will be a directional quality to the image fuzziness.

From the images I have seen you post, they just look soft.  Not jaggy or smeared from a fast pan.  Stopping down the aperture should help that.

You may also look into what options are available to you with the D200 for how it handles auto-focus switching points and tracking.

[Joe Copalman]

+1 on what Anna said.

This is basic stuff, but make sure your AF mode is set to servo.  You may want to experiment with the different AF-point set-ups your camera offers.  When I was shooting my Rebel with that 75-300, I found that using the single AF point in the center was the best way of ensuring my gear "knew" what it was supposed to be focusing on.

With regard to framing/cropping, I thought a lot about this and looked at a bunch of my own shots, and I think that so much of it comes down to personal preference.  A lot of my shots are pretty formulaic when it comes to framing and cropping, but I'm a huge fan of rule-of-thirds composition and try to use it whenever the opportunity presents itself.  I have a strong preference for frame-filling shots, and regularly crop images at a 1:2 aspect ratio to cut down on "excess" sky or runway/ramp/whatever.  I'll also used framing/cropping to include a background feature like fireworks or other aircraft, or to get rid of distracting clutter without having to do heavy-handed clone-stamping.

Here are a few examples of shots I've taken with justification on why I framed and cropped the way I did:


Went with a 1:2 aspect ratio on this to reduce the amount of ramp at the bottom of the frame, which was really dark and made the image feel "bottom-heavy" at a 2:3 aspect ratio.  I also cropped on the sides to get rid of some lens flare that I didn't see in live view while composing the shot.  


This is a crop of a much larger shot that was taken with an 8mm fisheye.  There was obviously no filling the frame, so I cropped it as a rule-of-thirds shot and liked how it came out.


Cropped this one as an 8x10 simply to fill the frame.  


Cropped this one with "space to fly into" in mind.  Also a rule-of-thirds image.


Another 8x10 crop, this time to both fill the frame and to get rid of the left landing gear strut, which was white and blown-out by a bright light shining directly on it.


Rule-of-thirds with a 1:2 aspect ratio.  


Some arty bullshit.  


Subject low in frame to include constellation above.  


Rule-of-thirds on a 2:3 portrait-oriented shot.  This is a crop from an image I shot in landscape orientation, but I thought it worked really well as an ROT shot in portrait orientation, especially with the natural gradient of the sky in the background.  


1:1 crop, both the fill the frame and to control for some background clutter and light pollution.  


"Storytelling" crop, shot to show the lone Harrier in front of the empty sunshades during a squadron disestablishment ceremony.  


Standard "documentary" crop.  80-85% of my shots are cropped like this, and I typically use TLAR ("That looks about right") when cropping.  Big thing for me on shots like this is balance, though I do try to leave a smidge more space in front of the nose than behind the tail.    

Sorry for the image spam, just felt it was easier to make my point that way.

[Dan Mitchell]

Wow, so many great responses.  Thank you all.  To answer some questions:

Anna: No, I did not have the camera checked out; from the way it played out, I didn't really think it necessary as the impact was pretty well all on the lens.  I couldn't duplicate it again if I tried, but the camera was pretty horizontal when it dropped; the lens happened to make contact with a concrete bench, but the camera body ended up falling on to my camera bag.  All in all, it was probably no more than a 3 to 4 foot drop (if that), and if not for the bench, it probably would've lived to see more use.  But now you've got me thinking that it might not be a bad idea.

Joe - got it.  I'll try some shots restricting the aperture to f/8 and/or f/11 and see how they look.  I loved your acronym ("TLAR").   I do use the 'rule of thirds'; if only because I haven't been introduced to many other methodology(ies).  As most of my photos (the ones that *I* think turn out, anyway; who knows - I may have some diamonds in the rough that I've thrown out that you all might have done something creative with.) end up being side or 3/4 views, I like 16:9, as I personally think it fits the best.  I don't know, it's just something about cutting off a part of the plane.