Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 13, 2007, 10:45 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

In reality it is a 0% Crop

You crop/reduce res of an image by a percent, if you are just carving and not reducing the res, then it is a 0% crop

Though understand the misknomer... but it is confusing... technically a 100% crop would be no image at all or maybe 1 pixel.... if 99.999%

OK it is 100% or orig res, but it is a 0% crop.... in the way crop reduction is otherwise meant.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 13, 2007, 11:36 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

???? Where did you pick up this wisdom?????

In the 80's, before the digital revolution, I worked in the pre-print business. I did the typesetting and layout of brochures, books and magazines. Cropping and resizing of pictures was, naturally, a big portion of the job.

For cropping we couldn't use any mathematical method. We simply put a semi transparent paper over the photo and defined with a pencil and a ruler what part of the picture was supposed to be printed in the magazine.

For the size, we used %. 100% meant "dont resize at all", 50% meant "resize to half the length and height of this original photo, 200% meant "enlarge to the double lenght/height of this original photo".

With the computers, a lot of things in the branch changed, but not the way of defining resizing of pictures.

I use Raw Shoopter Premium, Photoshop Elements 3 and sometimes CS2. They all use this same way of defining picture size. Maybe Adobe don't know much about handling pictures, but it would of course be convenient if everyone involved used the same nomenclatura.

With the definition "100% crop" we mean "this is a non-resized picture, but not the full frame, only a certain part which we photo people calla crop". This involves keeping two qualities of the picture in mind at the same time. Might be tough for some people, but most adults and children over three can handle that level of complexity.

Kjell

bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2007, 11:46 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

bilybianca wrote:
Quote:
???? Where did you pick up this wisdom?????
OK so wiser one how would you unconfuse the situation.... again you are clipoing not really cropping.... you are just clipping

How would you differentiate a 100% clip and a 99% actual crop wher e1% of the image is actually missing. (which is the definition of cropping.)

Again what most consider a 100% crop is a clip 100% of what was in that area.... not a crop., which implies removing something.

In a digital world it is rather confusing.... again a 100% crop should mean no image at all.

May have been fine back in the good ol film days where few but pro dealt with such thing but it is PHYSICALLY inaccurate to say crop ans you are cropping NOTHING just taking a CLIP out of something.

Again I think a 0% crop or 100% clip is much less ambiguous and confusing., let alone definition accurate.



Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2007, 11:52 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
clipoing
This word is not to be found in my dictionary (English is not my mothertongue). What does it mean?

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2007, 11:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

TYPICALLY your ONLY response can be to harp on a TYPO vs an actual THOUGHT and RESPONSE

Oviously I am NOT the only one to find it AMBIGUOUS and an inacturate use of termanology.

Again ANY other use of % crop wouldl NOT betaken as resolution, but just image area cut And again where clip is much more accurate, and res would be implied undersood

Intersting this should happen from two people in one day.. 100% crop is very ambiguous... you are REALLY taking a 100% of original CLIP out of an image and CROPPING nothing.

Actually anyone that posts a FULL (even reduced) original image or blank image, is posting a 100% crop as nothing or all is missing (depending which end you want to put 0 and 100 at), again by the definition of cropping... removing something.... vs clipping something as is..
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2007, 1:17 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

So then, do you mean 50% of the original area or 50% of the original lenght/width of the original picture, corresponding to 25% of the area?

The tricky thing about human language is that it isn't logical at all, but requires learning to be understood. The same word might mean one thing in one context, another thing in another context. Everyone is free to use any word for a concept, but for mutual understanding it's good if most people stick to the general use of words. And that general use is not logic, but built by convention.

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2007, 1:35 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

The shape of the final would pretty much tell what the proportion cut was.... but yes by 50% crop I would mean about 50% or the original image area/pixels discarded, reguardless of proportions... and again regardless of then or further reduced/interpolated res just ratio of original to remaining image.

Res is a whole other issue, that really has nothing to do with they physical def of crop. That can be interpolated up or reduced down, without changing the image border to border content other than in clarity.

And again where I am sure the other poster on this was confused.... 100% crop should mean full image or no image... its just not intuative that one just means a ful res clip (and of of ANY proportion size/piece) out of an image.

And again only 100% has that meaning.... all other times it is area.... or someone is really trying to confuse some one by meaning 50% res reduction for a 50% crop.

Again I know likely I can never change the world but 100% CLIP is just so much more precise and unambiguous... Than 100% crop.

Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2007, 1:39 AM   #8
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
Actually anyone that posts a FULL (even reduced) original image or blank image, is posting a 100% crop as nothing or all is missing (depending which end you want to put 0 and 100 at), again by the definition of cropping... removing something.... vs clipping something as is..
When you post a full size picture, it's not a crop by definition, smart guy.

What are you even discussing about here? Are you really that arrogant to contradict the entire online photographing community?

And you're surprised people give you harsh responses...

Tom
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2007, 1:52 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Yeah I'd go for it meaning no image at all.... but again depends which end you want 0 and 100 at.

But what I am trying to get at is confusing to many first seeing it, is
VERY SIMPLE look it up in the dictionary.... were in the non agricultural meaning definition of the word, CROP is there ANY thing about resolution VS triming/cutting back an area or thing by some amount, .

Again 100% CLIP is just so much more specific and unambiguous... than the nonsequitor use 100% crop is, with ANY other % crop meaning definitionally correct cutting/discarding x% area/pixels.

And with CLIP pretty intuitively the res meaning of 100% is there, it is counter intuitively not with CROP.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2007, 3:26 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

It's become a convention among digital photographic enthusiasts. It needs not to be technically correct, nor have any correlation to a dictionary definition. All it needs is to be understood by a significant segment of the community that the term is used by. It probably started as "100% resolution crop", then evolved and shortened along the way. All I know is that I've seen it used for the past 5 or 6 years, and it's always meant the same thing -- and countless explanations have been asked for by countless confused new digital photographers.

In fact, as a relatively obscure digital photographic term -- like bokeh, noise, crop factor, and the idiotic sizing convention for small format sensors -- it probably holds a special prestigiously perceived place as something used, understood, and discussed only by those "in the know".

Let's face it -- Depth of Field, in and of itself has no real meaning except the accepted meaning amongst photographers. Shall we be offended and demand that it be renamed "Horizontal in focus measurement perpendicular to the film plane" -- Hmmmm. . . "HIFMPTTFP" -- kind of catchy. . .

I stopped being annoyed by people calling facial tissues "Kleenex", and refridgerators "Frigidaires" when I was a kid.

Get over it. . . grammar, spelling, and precision in language has probably heard its death knell with the advent of chat rooms and text messaging anyway. . .

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:12 PM.