Helping With Cropping!!

Ahhh, I see.

Now you’re proving you’re being a bit childish. I have more important things to do anyway, like practice my Photoshop technique.

Paul

Was that supposed to prove a point? If it was, I kinda missed it!

Paul

Ahhh, I see.

Was that supposed to prove a point? If it was, I kinda missed it!

Paul

In saying you can’t simply set an aspect ratio and then size around it, you’re saying you can’t use a set aspect ratio. You already have a set aspect ratio and that will be either 3:2 or 4:3; the aspect ratio your camera naturally produces, and again, if you’re wanting to get your aviation work to a standard acceptable by photo sites you have to use one of these two, which is what I assumed XPboy was wanting to ultimately do.

In that case we’ll go out shooting, I’ll give you my Canon 30D and nice L series lens and I’ll shoot with your Fuji, and we‘ll see what the results are like. If you think equipment means everything your really won’t ever get anywhere. Equipment is far less important than ability.

What limitations? Look through my images on Flickr, I break every compositional and technical rule in the book because I know how to and I’ve worked damned hard to know how to. I really don’t know what your problem is but it seems you’re the one who can’t see beyond your own limits, no-one else.

Paul

You’re all missing the real point. Which is that it isn’t about the “ability” or otherwise of any particular individual. It is about the limitations that surround those that don’t want to stick to the norm.

I certainly have little use for photographs in a 4:3 format, and I suspect many others do to.

Indeed, the sensor on many digital cameras doesn’t even fit photo papers for a printer. You have to alter the AR, or end up with distorted or under/over printing, but it’s pointless doing that until you’ve sorted out everything else first.

But that’s exactly my point twisted about. I don’t have trouble working with any AR, from your responses it seems you consider that AR is the be all and end all of photography.

Nuff said. :rolleyes:

don’t YOU lash out at me because you fail to grasp the fundamentals.

So you’re now telling someone with more years experience behind a camera than I’ve been alive that he fails to grasp the fundamentals?

I think you need to take a break at this point! :rolleyes:

Paul

It would be, if I did. I don’t recall saying that, because you’re right, it would be puzzling.

TTBOMK you can’t simply set an aspect ratio and then size that around the information you want to keep.

In saying you can’t simply set an aspect ratio and then size around it, you’re saying you can’t use a set aspect ratio. You already have a set aspect ratio and that will be either 3:2 or 4:3; the aspect ratio your camera naturally produces, and again, if you’re wanting to get your aviation work to a standard acceptable by photo sites you have to use one of these two, which is what I assumed XPboy was wanting to ultimately do.

Frankly, Paul has equipment that is light years better than mine, so of course his results in terms of image quality are going to be miles better. I simply cannot compete, if indeed it is a competition.

In that case we’ll go out shooting, I’ll give you my Canon 30D and nice L series lens and I’ll shoot with your Fuji, and we‘ll see what the results are like. If you think equipment means everything your really won’t ever get anywhere. Equipment is far less important than ability.

You’re all missing the real point. Which is that it isn’t about the “ability” or otherwise of any particular individual. It is about the limitations that surround those that don’t want to stick to the norm.

What limitations? Look through my images on Flickr, I break every compositional and technical rule in the book because I know how to and I’ve worked damned hard to know how to. I really don’t know what your problem is but it seems you’re the one who can’t see beyond your own limits, no-one else.

Paul

And who is stopping you from expressing yours, exactly?

You seem to be lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you now.

Maybe you should give yourself an hour or so to calm down before you post in here again, eh?

Why? I’m not the one having problems understanding what’s being said.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read our posts.

If you have something constructive to say, then by all means say it, don’t YOU lash out at me because you fail to grasp the fundamentals.

Saying X is better than Y is hardly conducive to a tempered discussion.

I’m not quite sure why you do!

But that’s exactly my point twisted about. I don’t have trouble working with any AR, from your responses it seems you consider that AR is the be all and end all of photography.

Oh, I see, I understand, expressing an opinion is only allowed by the people you authorise is it?

And who is stopping you from expressing yours, exactly?

You seem to be lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you now.

Maybe you should give yourself an hour or so to calm down before you post in here again, eh?

You’re all missing the real point. Which is that it isn’t about the “ability” or otherwise of any particular individual. It is about the limitations that surround those that don’t want to stick to the norm.

I certainly have little use for photographs in a 4:3 format, and I suspect many others do to.

Indeed, the sensor on many digital cameras doesn’t even fit photo papers for a printer. You have to alter the AR, or end up with distorted or under/over printing, but it’s pointless doing that until you’ve sorted out everything else first.

now by your own admission, can’t measure up.

That’s a nonsense argument, and you know it. I never said anything of the sort.

I think it’s called “expressing an opinion”. We tend to encourage that in here, strangely enough

Oh, I see, I understand, expressing an opinion is only allowed by the people you authorise is it?

If you mean this:

TTBOMK you can’t simply set an aspect ratio and then size that around the information you want to keep.

I’m talking about the limitations of the editing software, and it’s inability to work directly with all aspect ratios.

You said you “can’t” work with a fixed aspect ratio and fit whatever you want to in the frame, which is a puzzling thing for any photographer of experience to say.

It would be, if I did. I don’t recall saying that, because you’re right, it would be puzzling.

I can fit anything I want, wherever I want it, if it’s in range of my lens, of course.

If you don’t understand what we’re discussing, why are you commenting….

I think it’s called “expressing an opinion”. We tend to encourage that in here, strangely enough.

Speaking as someone who has watched Paul progress over the years from being “just another punter” into a talented and respected photographer – and not just of aeroplanes – I strongly advise you to respect his opinions and advice. I certainly do, and I know many others who do the same.

Unless, of course, you know it all already.

I’m reading this stuff simply because I AM trying to learn and understand because it might help me to improve. My point is simply this: If the OP wants to try and improve their editing skills would he be better following someone with a proven track record or someone who, now by your own admission, can’t measure up. I believe Paul is a screener for one of the photo sites so it seems common sense to me that xpboy would be wiser to take advice from Paul.

Simply that and nothing more.

Regards,

kev35

You’re completely missing my point, and I’m not entirely certain why you seem to think I don’t understand a photo can be something other than 3:2. I’m advanced enough to have a fairly good understanding that isn’t the case. You said you “can’t” work with a fixed aspect ratio and fit whatever you want to in the frame, which is a puzzling thing for any photographer of experience to say. I have my reasons for preferring 3:2; it cuts down on dead space that means nothing, it focusses you more on your subject and it just looks more balanced for the vast majority of subjects I shoot. Because of that, I have no problem whatsoever in composing whatever I shoot within a 3:2 frame. That said, I understand composition well, so you could give me 4:3, 16:9 or any other aspect ratio and it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference to me. I’d work with it with the same ease I work with 3:2 and still get balanced compositions because I don’t see an aspect ratio as a limit. Film, digital, camera phone, it makes no difference to me!

Besides, my original point related to uploading images to sites like Jetphotos, where you have to use 3:2 or 4:3. Thousands of photographers around the planet have no problem working with either of these aspect ratios for a huge variety of purposes, including print, web display, etc. I’m not quite sure why you do!

Paul

The problem here Rob is that you’re arguing not only with someone who knows what he’s doing, his photographs are proof of that fact. I know nothing about aspect ratios and all the other issues which you are discussing, the simple fact is that Paul’s photos, with all due respect, are absolutely light years ahead of yours in terms of their aesthetic appeal. You can put that down to whatever you wish, equipment, knowledge, understanding or just simple talent.

Regards,

kev35

If you don’t understand what we’re discussing, why are you commenting, unless it is simply to put me down? Something I’ve noted you have an increasing habit of doing recently.

Frankly, Paul has equipment that is light years better than mine, so of course his results in terms of image quality are going to be miles better. I simply cannot compete, if indeed it is a competition.

The problem here Rob is that you’re arguing not only with someone who knows what he’s doing, his photographs are proof of that fact. I know nothing about aspect ratios and all the other issues which you are discussing, the simple fact is that Paul’s photos, with all due respect, are absolutely light years ahead of yours in terms of their aesthetic appeal. You can put that down to whatever you wish, equipment, knowledge, understanding or just simple talent.

Regards,

kev35

You’re making the mistake, in your argument, that everyone wants to view digital photos on a 4:3 monitor. They don’t. Different techniques are required these days to get an image that matches your needs, or even to cater for several different display media.

You have to move on from the blinkered view that a photo is only any good if it fits a postcard, or you must keep the same AR as the original image. These days, that’s bonkers.

As I said earlier. I often have to make my photos fit several different ARs, and they don’t all have presets you can rely upon to cut a nice handy square(ish) picture. In fact 1:1 is one of the AR presets that aren’t offered in particular, but I think you (should) get my point. There’s often little choice but to use Free Form and tailor for your own particular needs.

So AR isn’t everything, it’s often the last thing that I consider these days. And composition is mostly worked out during processing.

When you say “film” the word “arc” springs to mind.