p.2 #1 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
Thanks for the welcome everyone.
Sounds harsh, I hope that your classmate ended up getting a good grade! I'm currently writing my doctoral degree so maybe that's why my writing style is the way it is. That's funny because with the conferences I've been to presenters don't get ultra critiqued even if their work or methodology has issues, maybe it's a cultural difference. I appreciate being ripped to shreds as I'm the person who wants to know when I'm wrong.
p.2 #2 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
Thank you Steve.
I definitely agree and think his controversy helps him standout in the creator space, and its probably intentional.
I enjoyed Fro's work for a while when I was first interested in entering photography. I've also found that I agree with about 80-90% of his opinions (shoot in raw, don't pixel-peep, etc.), except for things such as his anti-cropping stance. This was one of the reasons that marred my thoughts day and night when thinking about the type of workflow I wanted with gear.
Overall I'd still say he's a good creator for the impact of getting people interested in the hobby and he even does some philanthropic work with supporting amateur photographers. I also think some of his photos look good but he seems to have taken down his portfolio recently. He advocates himself as a "real world shooter" and often does sports, but his photos sometimes seem so well framed that I wonder if he doesn't secretly do some minimal cropping. He often lists the settings he uses but rarely provides raws too.
p.2 #3 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
Lethimcook wrote:
Thanks for the welcome everyone.
Sounds harsh, I hope that your classmate ended up getting a good grade! I'm currently writing my doctoral degree so maybe that's why my writing style is the way it is. That's funny because with the conferences I've been to presenters don't get ultra critiqued even if their work or methodology has issues, maybe it's a cultural difference. I appreciate being ripped to shreds as I'm the person who wants to know when I'm wrong.
I often crop my photos, usually just a little bit. But, leaving Fro aside, no less a photographer than Henri Cartier Bresson was adamantly against cropping and tried repeatedly to make it a condition of the sale or licensing of his photos that they would not be cropped when they were reproduced in a magazine or newspaper. He was furious when this restriction was not honored.
Some of the differences on this may come from whether the photographer is thinking primarily in terms of the subject or content of the photo vs the composition of the photo. HCB thought that the photo should be composed at the time of taking because of the photographer's response to the scene in front of him and his construction of it as a distillation of the meaning of what was happening. He took the entire scene in front of him into account. So, he would no more crop a photo than he would crop a painting; or than he would arbitrarily remove a major cooking ingredient from a fine and favorite recipe. There are many other photographers who, in the days of film, would leave in their prints the ragged edges of a B&W negative in order to show that the image was uncropped.
Most people crop and none of us have HCB's capacity for composition. But I think heavy croppers are often more focused on the content or the subject of their photo at the moment of taking it and are paying somewhat less attention to the overall composition of the image. So, some of their composing is done later on when they crop the image.
No doubt cropping improves many images. But it is also a good idea to try to get it right the first time, as you compose and take the photo. Doing that will help you to learn more about composition.
As a new photographer, you might gain at least as much or more from looking at HCB's and others' fine images than from watching youtube, where clicks often power thinking.
If you do want to watch some good youtube videos on how to take better pictures, I recommend those made by or about Sam Abell, a distinguished National Geographic photographerr who is very interested in teaching others and who does it very well.
p.2 #4 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
Lethimcook wrote:
Thanks for the welcome everyone.
Sounds harsh, I hope that your classmate ended up getting a good grade! I'm currently writing my doctoral degree so maybe that's why my writing style is the way it is. That's funny because with the conferences I've been to presenters don't get ultra critiqued even if their work or methodology has issues, maybe it's a cultural difference. I appreciate being ripped to shreds as I'm the person who wants to know when I'm wrong.
Heh. I hear you. (I come from an academic background, too. And I’m rarely accused of writing too little…)
p.2 #5 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
chiron wrote:
There are many other photographers who, in the days of film, would leave in their prints the ragged edges of a B&W negative in order to show that the image was uncropped.
Some today go so far as to add fake edge stuff to make their photos look like old-school stuff, in some cases not realizing why they were that way!
Today, some very skillful and highly-regarded photographers have let that approach go. One I know, who is an utter stickler about composition, typically carefully works out his compositions in the field and then… expands the frame a bit so taht he can reserve the ability to perfect his composition in post.
To me, the notion that you must stick with exactly what you captured in the field and not alter it later as you work to perfect it is roughly equivalent to being a writer who holds that the first draft should always be the published version. and that editing (and God forbid you work with an editor!) signifies an ethical lapse of some sort.
p.2 #7 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
To the OP: I am in the anti-cropping camp. Not because of quality reasons, but rather that I like to "see" the scene exactly how I would view it later on. When I have cropped, it is for those rare photos of wildlife I take once in two years.
p.2 #8 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
Lethimcook wrote:
Thanks for the welcome everyone.
Sounds harsh, I hope that your classmate ended up getting a good grade! I'm currently writing my doctoral degree so maybe that's why my writing style is the way it is. That's funny because with the conferences I've been to presenters don't get ultra critiqued even if their work or methodology has issues, maybe it's a cultural difference. I appreciate being ripped to shreds as I'm the person who wants to know when I'm wrong.
Flip side, those doing the ripping the hardest often produce the most middling work Not all critique is valid or warranted.
Either way, welcome to FM, you're in the midst of thousands of collective years of experience with photography and you can learn just about anything you want here.
p.2 #9 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
Lethimcook wrote:
Thanks for the welcome everyone.
Sounds harsh, I hope that your classmate ended up getting a good grade! I'm currently writing my doctoral degree so maybe that's why my writing style is the way it is. That's funny because with the conferences I've been to presenters don't get ultra critiqued even if their work or methodology has issues, maybe it's a cultural difference. I appreciate being ripped to shreds as I'm the person who wants to know when I'm wrong.
My experience was in journalism school. We got used to being ripped apart. One professor kept a public list of losers, people who would amount to absolutely nothing, because they hadn’t turned in enough assignments. I was on that list several times. But then there was another list of winners, people whose pieces had been published in major newspapers. Luckily, I was on that list too, so not completely lost. But, yes, real journalism used to be pretty nonsense proof.
p.2 #13 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
johnvanr wrote:
My experience was in journalism school. We got used to being ripped apart. One professor kept a public list of losers, people who would amount to absolutely nothing, because they hadn’t turned in enough assignments. I was on that list several times. But then there was another list of winners, people whose pieces had been published in major newspapers. Luckily, I was on that list too, so not completely lost. But, yes, real journalism used to be pretty nonsense proof.
Off topic, but...
As a person who had a career was as a tenured college faculty member, I can't help but note my disgust with any academic colleague who would keep a list of "winners" and "losers." College is a time of testing and change and growth and figuring things out. It is a time when students, given the right circumstances, "catch fire" and become engaged. I saw this many times.
A story.
Among other things I taught a general education survey course in my subject. No surprise, the class included a lot of students who were motivated only by fulfilling a graduation requirement. One of my goals was to see how many I could inspire to something beyond that.
During one class session I happened to describe a technique that they could use for truly studying a text. It is not an easy approach, but it works really well.
One of those "loser" students with an unimpressive record of performance, a low level of commitment, and little native interest in my subject apparently was primed for change... and for some reason took this advice to heart.
I later found out that this student, to my surprise (and to the surprise of the student's parents, as I discovered later on) graduated with honors and transferred to a University of California campus to earn a masters degree, and to then completed a PhD in psychology (not my field) at the University of California Berkeley.
I shudder to think of how many students are thwarted by my (fortunately few) colleagues who think it is their job to tell students that they are losers.
At one point in my career I actually did work with faculty members to help them teach more effectively. (In their defense, most higher education faculty "learned how to teach" by the seat of their pants rather in a systematic manner, and sometimes their models were not so great... like that winners and losers person.)
One issue had to do with hot to give effective criticism. There are a lot of harmful notions about what "criticism" is in this context. One of the worst is that it is "telling people wha they did wrong." (The reasons that is problematic are too extensive to fully describe here.)
p.2 #16 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
gdanmitchell wrote:
Off topic, but...
As a person who had a career was as a tenured college faculty member, I can't help but note my disgust with any academic colleague who would keep a list of "winners" and "losers." College is a time of testing and change and growth and figuring things out. It is a time when students, given the right circumstances, "catch fire" and become engaged. I saw this many times.
A story.
Among other things I taught a general education survey course in my subject. No surprise, the class included a lot of students who were motivated only by fulfilling a graduation requirement. One of my goals was to see how many I could inspire to something beyond that.
During one class session I happened to describe a technique that they could use for truly studying a text. It is not an easy approach, but it works really well.
One of those "loser" students with an unimpressive record of performance, a low level of commitment, and little native interest in my subject apparently was primed for change... and for some reason took this advice to heart.
I later found out that this student, to my surprise (and to the surprise of the student's parents, as I discovered later on) graduated with honors and transferred to a University of California campus to earn a masters degree, and to then completed a PhD in psychology (not my field) at the University of California Berkeley.
I shudder to think of how many students are thwarted by my (fortunately few) colleagues who think it is their job to tell students that they are losers.
At one point in my career I actually did work with faculty members to help them teach more effectively. (In their defense, most higher education faculty "learned how to teach" by the seat of their pants rather in a systematic manner, and sometimes their models were not so great... like that winners and losers person.)
One issue had to do with hot to give effective criticism. There are a lot of harmful notions about what "criticism" is in this context. One of the worst is that it is "telling people wha they did wrong." (The reasons that is problematic are too extensive to fully describe here.)
I think the context matters, though. The journalism school at Columbia was very practically oriented, with professors who came or still worked in journalism. And at the time it was widely considered the top journalism school, so I doubt anybody there considered themselves a real loser.
The scary thing was that despite that sometimes harsh treatment, once you hit the job market, reality was harsher still. My test for my first job consisted of an 8-hour editing and writing exercise in a working newsroom, sitting underneath a monitor where the real staff gathered to watch a World Cup soccer. School deadlines could be extended. Real deadlines could not. In my first job, they measured performance sometimes in seconds and you’d better make sure you got your facts straight.
I did law school before and there I would agree with your take on academic growth and the behavior of professors. I remember a TA telling me that my pushing for a review of my grade showed that I wasn’t made of attorney material. I didn’t care personally, because I had no intention of becoming an attorney, but I found her comment extremely off-putting. Then again, this was in Holland, where people are known to lack a sense of tact.
p.2 #17 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
gdanmitchell I completely agree. Ironically, the highest level of education is actually taught by professors who require no formal training in education. Very often the prestige of professors come from their research impact measured through bibliometric data. So when universities hire pedagogical proficiency and teaching ability are not necessarily the top-criteria. They just assume that if someone is an expert in a field that they automatically would be a good teacher. You also see this with retired NBA players who are world-class athletes, but end up not being able to translate such success in their coaching.
It feels like some are not fond of my thinking/writing out loud. Thinking out loud and journaling have tangible pedagogical benefits on cognitive learning. My doctoral supervisor advocated for speaking out loud because what sounds good in your head may actually sound awful once you speak it and verbally process it. Also if you speak or write publicly you get some funny reactions too if you truly had some awful ideas. And if you get responses, you can get a discourse, hopefully everyone learns something when we have discourse.
Slightly off topic:
This forum is of course full of people with tons of experience. I wonder what portion of this site's traffic come from those with accounts versus those who simply browse and lurk without an account. Anecdotally I visited and bookmarked over 100+ threads over the course of 12 months before I felt like joining in the conversation. Maybe Fred has some data.
I point this out because someone has mentioned that beginners would not benefit from my thoughts...there would certainly be a response bias in this thread since I believe the majority of users on this forum would not classify themselves at the 'beginner' level.
p.2 #18 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
Lethimcook wrote:
gdanmitchell I completely agree. Ironically, the highest level of education is actually taught by professors who require no formal training in education. Very often the prestige of professors come from their research impact measured through bibliometric data. So when universities hire pedagogical proficiency and teaching ability are not necessarily the top-criteria. They just assume that if someone is an expert in a field that they automatically would be a good teacher. You also see this with retired NBA players who are world-class athletes, but end up not being able to translate such success in their coaching.
It feels like some are not fond of my thinking/writing out loud. Thinking out loud and journaling have tangible pedagogical benefits on cognitive learning. My doctoral supervisor advocated for speaking out loud because what sounds good in your head may actually sound awful once you speak it and verbally process it. Also if you speak or write publicly you get some funny reactions too if you truly had some awful ideas. And if you get responses, you can get a discourse, hopefully everyone learns something when we have discourse.
Slightly off topic:
This forum is of course full of people with tons of experience. I wonder what portion of this site's traffic come from those with accounts versus those who simply browse and lurk without an account. Anecdotally I visited and bookmarked over 100+ threads over the course of 12 months before I felt like joining in the conversation. Maybe Fred has some data.
I point this out because someone has mentioned that beginners would not benefit from my thoughts...there would certainly be a response bias in this thread since I believe the majority of users on this forum would not classify themselves at the 'beginner' level. ...Show more →
You can always start a poll to ask a question.
But, yes, most threads are populated by a relatively small number of people. Some presentation threads are going on for seemingly forever with just a handful of people posting images. It’s one reason I hardly look at them.
I point this out because someone has mentioned that beginners would not benefit from my thoughts...there would certainly be a response bias in this thread since I believe the majority of users on this forum would not classify themselves at the 'beginner' level.
Beginner photographers and even advanced ones prefer an instructor to write in simple English terms. When you use words like above, many may think you are a pompous ass trying to impressive them with your 'fancy' words, even though that may not be the case.
If you want beginners to benefit from your thoughts, then maybe express them in words they want to hear. Just saying.
They also want to see images made from the gear that the instructor recommends.
Aug 19, 2025 at 03:37 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #20 · Thinking out loud: thoughts on cropping, zooms & primes
Lethimcook wrote:
Thank you Steve.
I definitely agree and think his controversy helps him standout in the creator space, and its probably intentional.
I enjoyed Fro's work for a while when I was first interested in entering photography. I've also found that I agree with about 80-90% of his opinions (shoot in raw, don't pixel-peep, etc.), except for things such as his anti-cropping stance. This was one of the reasons that marred my thoughts day and night when thinking about the type of workflow I wanted with gear.
Overall I'd still say he's a good creator for the impact of getting people interested in the hobby and he even does some philanthropic work with supporting amateur photographers. I also think some of his photos look good but he seems to have taken down his portfolio recently. He advocates himself as a "real world shooter" and often does sports, but his photos sometimes seem so well framed that I wonder if he doesn't secretly do some minimal cropping. He often lists the settings he uses but rarely provides raws too.
I like Fro, but I definitely disagree with him at times. I'd guess the vast majority on here, myself included, crop
Cropping math gets scary fast, though. 50% off a 24mp ff sensor, half in each direction, leaves you 6mp and a smaller sensor area than the old 6mp Digital Rebel or D40. Relatively minor 70% crop each direction, i.e. 6000 to 4300, gets rid of over half your pixels, so it’s a good idea to avoid cropping, but good composition is bigger.
The other thing is, major manufacturers often seem to control YouTube so you can't depend on it 100%. Suppose there never is 100% accuracy anyway but it can get annoying
