There are many ways to make a photo appealing. Light, composition, and depth of field are the obvious ones. Post-processing is also part of this procedure, regardless of whether it's done in-camera or on a computer. Don’t forget cropping, which is an important part of the process.
A good-looking photo is the result of a relatively long process. It starts with choosing the right composition, focal length, and the use of light and shadow. It often doesn’t end there, especially if you are using the raw file format. Well-thought-out processing transforms the raw sensor data into an appealing photo.
One of the processing steps is cropping the image. It basically means you choose which part of the image can be discarded. There are many reasons for cropping, which I’ll address in this article.
Cropping an image is nothing new and definitely not something that is linked to digital photography. It is as old as photography itself and a part of the creative process performed in the darkroom. A well-known example is the photo of Igor Stravinsky by Arnold Newman.
It’s wise to make a well-thought-out decision on what to incorporate in the frame when taking the photo. It’s part of composing a photo. The example of Arnold Newman shows how a wider framing offers a lot of flexibility in defining the final crop. On other occasions, it might even be necessary to use a wider framing. It prevents the loss of important elements in the frame when the canvas has to be transformed or rotated.
There is one thing to keep in mind when cropping an image, no matter the reason. You will lose resolution.
1. Correcting a Tilted Horizon
It’s more difficult to keep the camera level than you might think. Only a slight offset will become prominent when the end result is shown on screen or in print. A tripod might help, but it may prove difficult to get it exactly right.
Correcting a tilted horizon is easy in photo editing software. Rotate the canvas with the help of a grid, or use the built-in horizon correction tools of your favorite software. However, this will result in white space at the edges of the canvas. You need to crop in order to get rid of this excess white space.
A lot of photo editing software offers automated tools to correct a tilted horizon. It’s a process that often includes a crop. You may not even realize you lose a part of the image in the process.
2. Perspective Correction
Wide angle lenses have the disadvantage of perspective distortion. If you tilt your camera up or down while framing the photo, vertical lines will become diagonal lines that lead towards a vanishing point.
Perspective distortion can be corrected in post with the help of transformation tools. Although it corrects any perspective, it results in a lot of white space surrounding the image. You need to crop the image to get rid of the excess parts.
An alternative for perspective control is holding the camera horizontally. Vertical lines will stay vertical, but you end up with a horizon in the middle and a lot of unwanted foreground. Again, a crop is the answer to this problem.
3. Changing Aspect Ratio
There are photographers who are still convinced that the aspect ratio of the camera's sensor must be kept as it is. However, there is no reason to keep a 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio if another one is a better choice.
Choose a 5:4 or 1:1 aspect ratio if that offers a better composition, or any other that fits your needs. Or you can break with the predefined aspect ratios and choose the one that suits you best. Personal preferences play an important part in this choice.
4. Making a Panorama
Cropping a photo into a panorama aspect ratio is perhaps similar to the previous point. However, it’s a good alternative for a real panorama that consists of multiple images.
Unless you need an extreme resolution, cropping a wide angle shot of scenery into a panorama aspect ratio is a good choice. Often you end up with still enough resolution for common use and even large prints.
However, if even the widest wide angle lens doesn’t offer the field of view you desire, a panorama that consists of multiple images is necessary. Due to the perspective correction that is performed to merge the individual images, a crop is necessary to get rid of the white space that surrounds the end result.
5. Getting Rid of Disturbances
There are occasions when you didn’t notice some distracting elements at the edge of the frame. This can be a bright spot that attracts negative attention or something that doesn’t contribute anything to the composition.
It’s possible to remove this in post, perhaps even with the help of AI-generated content. While that can be very convenient if the unwanted element is in the middle of the frame, it is much easier to use a crop if the element is at the edges of the frame.
6. Improving the Composition
A crop is a perfect tool for improving the composition of the photo. Most of the composition is done while photographing, but it’s often a good choice to incorporate more in the frame. This way you have the ability to fine-tune the composition.
It’s similar to the aforementioned photo of Igor Stravinsky by Newman, and it incorporates some of the other points I mentioned in this article as well.
7. Enlarging the Magnification
This is probably the most popular reason for cropping an image. It allows you to simulate a longer focal length. This way your subject will appear larger in the frame. The most obvious situations where this can be of benefit are wildlife and bird photography. But it’s not limited to this.
How Much Are You Willing to Crop?
Cropping results in a lower resolution. After all, you remove a part of the photo. As mentioned, this is rarely a problem, especially with modern high-resolution cameras.
It’s easy to calculate how much resolution you need to keep after cropping. Think of the largest print you’ll ever need. If that is an A3 size, the dimensions are 420 mm x 297 mm or 16.5″ x 11.7″. For a print with 300 dpi, you’ll need 4,950 x 3,510 pixels which translates to roughly 17 megapixels.
For an A0 size print (1,189 x 841 mm or 46.8″ x 33.1″) 100 dpi is often enough due to the optimal viewing distance. In that case, 4,680 pixels by 3,310 pixels is enough, which lies in the range of 16 megapixels.
Nowadays, most cameras have a resolution of at least 20 megapixels. It means you have some room for cropping without making concessions. You have to be careful, though. If you crop too much in order to get that extreme magnification, as mentioned in point seven, you might end up with a low-resolution image.
Still, that’s okay if you only use it for small prints and social media. But it makes it impossible to produce a large print.
Are you cropping your images and is it part of your workflow? How far are you willing to go? Please let me know in the comments below.
When it comes to cropping, one thing that feels so counter intuitive to me but has saved my ass many times is shooting wider than I anticipate. This allows more cropping options depending on the format or layout. I say that only to also mention that Photoshop's gen fill has made this less of an issue unless you are shooting a wedding with people on the edges or photo journalism, sports, or something that requires real, actual pixels.
If I can avoid gen fill, I will do so. I hate adding non-existing content.
I have been doing more and more large panorama shots now with software that is able to piece them together so effortlessly. Then I crop the edges off, and sometimes I have to fix the edges with AI-fill (when I'm not willing to crop too tight) or something, and correct mistakes where the software failed to put the shots together, but the results has been pleasing.
I guess in that last photo... you asked how far are you willing to go? When you make that deep-crop on those Deer. I doubt they will be really 'Sharp'. That's the difference between digital zoom vs optical zoom. Optical zoom always wins. Your other examples seemed fine.
Robert, but isn't an "Optical" zoom another form of cropping ! ? Yes better as far as image resolution but a crop is a crop. I have 20 + years of learning and developing my skill, experience as a photographer only using a zoom in one instance and the image was so inferior to my prime lenses results I haven't used or owned a zoom lens until I entered the realm of digital cameras. I have still retained my photographic eye(s) all three of them, as fair as image composition, previsualization, and post-processing (sorry about this end rant of mine not aimed a your comment but something I needed to get off my chest from an previous Fs member's attack.)
Sure... but software can only work as much 'magic' as the hardware gives the ability to do so. Even when you throw Upscale-AI into the mix. What would be the end result of that deep crop above? The poster said 'Extremes'. Was this a bad example, or did he mean that he was willing to go that far? It doesn't look like the 'Deer' picture will allow that deep a crop without resulting in a junk photo. At least 'Unusable' to many photographer standards. I understand that what might be unacceptable to one person, may be ok to another. Would it end up anywhere near a Stock-photo?
Optical Zoom is a form of Cropping yes. But at least you get an image to the sensor with however many megapixels your camera allows and at the ability of your camera. Than there-after you can do your processing. So obviously there are videos on Optical zoom versus digital. There are Videos on a Prime Long lens versus a Zoom Lens, and of course usually the Prime wins, but you would still need the longer one. Watch Simon D. youtube Video on which zoom is preferred and which is best and he rates all of them in order. 'Digital Zoom' he rates almost dead last.
I don't agree. Zooming is not the same as cropping. It's magnifying the image without loss of resolution. Cropping is just enlarging a part of an image resulting in loss in resolution and thus details. That won't happen with changing focal length
You are absolutely right, Nando. Optical zoom has nothing to do with cropping at all. Cropping involves selecting a portion of the image out from what was captured on the sensor. It has nothing to do with limiting how much of the scene in front of you is captured on the sensor originally.
Nando You have virtually repeating the first sentence of my comment. And two you are writing in semantics, to magnify is to enlarge and vice-versa.
I’m talking image esthetics and compositional integrity. Many people who zoom its done as a main aspect in their (double rabbit ears) composition. Your last two examples show how a composition can be cropped in the field with a zoom lens perfectly. And reality speaking no one of your examples couldn’t be accomplished in field at the time with proper selection of aspect ratio, lens focal length, wether prime or zoom, and acute attention to detail.
If you like to think zooming and cropping are the same, that's your perogative.
:)
For me, cropping is the 1st activity in post processing. Even though one has established a desired composition while shooting, only until you see the image in a larger monitor the appropriate crop comes into play. One also has to consider the presentation intention of the image; large or small print, internet/social media display, etc. Cropping with that in mind is essential. If you regularly "deep" crop for nature/wildlife images, the more megapixels of your camera, the better.
I agree with your opening sentence except “… are the obvious one.” I learn shooting film starting with 35mm and eventually 4x5 primarily transparencies. If it was a successful image other than printing the image was made at the releasing of the shutter. And the moment anyone mentioned the word “crop” they were corrected with the word ‘chop’. The print industry almost dictated the “crop” as mandatory. The only options was tolerate large borders for a full frame image or custom prints from an inter-negative. A long with the first custom print via an inter-neg I became aware that mounted 35mm transparencies were cropping a portion of my carefully composed frame through the viewfinder.
Before my first digital camera I learned post processing photographs by scanning analog film. Once I advanced to a dedicated film scan I found a couple of sources for full-frame slide mounts. As I learned I began remounting my more prized images in these full-frame mounts.
Okay, cropping is rudimental to making an image but in my opinion that’s done during composition not post-processing.
… to photograph is to frame, and to frame is to exclude - Susan Sontag
But what’s that oxymoron “never say never”. Since my first couple of digital cameras I have on rare occasions cropped an image or so, mostly to change the aspect ratio to more appropriately fit a subject every now and again. All the other reasons you suggest, I use an alternative tool, the transform tools. I apply the swings, shifts, tilts and other movements as if working with a large format view camera in the field. In keeping as close to the original aspect ratio and composition’s integrity, then applying content aware fills to small areas as needed.
Oh, and finally, possibly the most famous referenced masterpiece especially among advocates of the crop application. Arnold Newman’s “Portrait of Igor Stravinsky”, his signature image. Shot with 4x5 Speed Graphic camera, while on assignment for a magazine (as a lot of his New York era freelance work was). Originally rejected by the magazine that assigned it to him, according to several internet sources. One source claims Arnold Newman the crop used was intended during the original camera setup. Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on Newman, “Environmental Portrait” or even Portrait photography for that matter, for I am not. But I know what I see and looking at any of several contact sheets available of this session and I think the crop is not only radical by today’s standards but it is radical to Newman’s work and is nowhere close to Newman’s overall composition. And who knows … looks like an editorial crop to me … ! … ?, and maybe it was cause for disagreement between artist and editor leading to the magazine’s rejection of Newman’s original vision. Look more into Newman’s style, his “Signature” image and it’s contact sheet. And let me know what you think or if you need help finding some resource links.
Nando thanks for the thought provoking article ... after all what's a photograph without thought ? .. a snapshot! .. or .. ?
speaking of aspect... the plant's aspect ratio looks to have been altered along the editing way. Is this on purpose? I mean it appears to be stretched. (taller). The Lizard/Gecko... is very nice. (like)
Robert, Yes as I said earlier “mostly to change the aspect ratio to more appropriately fit a subject every now and again.” Both images have been cropped the grass on the sides and lizard top and bottom to more appropriately fit the subject the grass height is as composed as is the lizards length. So yes the grass looks tall but is still the original aspect ratio height whereas the sides were narrowed as planned in my composition. Same with the lizard composed for the lizards length top and bottom cropped to for the subject. Glad you like the lizard.
Thank you for your comment.
I'm also no expert on Newman's work. Regardless on how that particular image came to be, I think it's a good example on how cropping can optimize a composition. I believe it shows that the original aspect ratio or framing doesn't have to be the end result. Nothing or nobody has made a rule it should be.
I don't think cropping is done in-camera. That would be framing. In that way, cropping can be considered framing in post-processing.
Here are a few links that may be helpful to learning more about not only Newman’s “Portrait of Igor Stravinsky” but Newman the photographer :
https://arnoldnewman.com/index.html
https://iconic-photos.com/2009/05/05/igor-stravinsky/
https://readfoyer.com/article/newman-stravinsky-and-legacy-endures
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-jun-07-me-newman7-story.html
Given the capabilities of modern cameras, I use the "in-camera" cropping guides as a key part of my composition work in the field. I find that "cropping in the field" leads to less cropping in post processing. My current cameras "keep the pixels". Therefore, I can go to a new crop in post processing because I still have the full frame. In the film days, I was a Hasselblad user. More and more, I am using a 1X1 crop for many subjects as I was "forced to do" with the Hassy. I almost never use 2X3 or 4X3 native crops. I find that 4X5 works well for a lot of subjects. Moreover, they are great for prints and framing as they lead straight to 8X10 and 16X20 standard crops. Of course 16X9 is a standard for HD TV and is useful for that reason.
I crop a lot of photos for 16x9, just because I expect them to be seen on TVs.
I use the aspect ratio guidelines as well. But it's wise to shoot in raw for that. Otherwise you're stuck to that aspect ratio, of course.
Good point. I take it for granted because I shoot raw 100% of the time. The one quirk of the Fujifilm GFX 100s is that you only get the cropping guides if you shoot in raw+jpg. That’s a bit of a pain, but I delete all jpg’s several times per year to keep my drive free from clutter.
That's strange behaviour of a camera. I never used crop modes with Fujifilm Next time I'll try that to see it for myself.
Another reason: for us who use crop-sensor cameras and basic lenses, cropping an image is a way of getting rid off the borders, which.are usually not as sharp as the center.
It has nothing to to with crop-sensor camera's. A good lens on a crop-sensor camera produces excellent results, also at the borders. The results of those lenses are often much better compared to the performance on a full-frame sensor.
OK, but I don't have a high-end lens. Not all of us can afford one, you know? In my experience with my camera and lenses, borders are always soft and with chromatic aberrations. To solve this without buying an expensive lens, I usually frame the photo a little wider and then crop it just a little bit to have a sharp image even in the borders.
That's true.
Have you ever considered second hand lenses? Just a thought.
That said, if it works for you, then it's perfect of course.
Frederico,
What you say is right on the money. For me, the far edges and deep corners of the frame need to be sharp and bright, just like the center of the image. And that doesn't happen on a full frame camera. Even when I was using my Canon 400 f2.8, a $10,000+ lens, the corners were still a bit darker than the center. The solution is to either shoot wider and then crop the image, or to shoot with a crop-sensor camera. I shot a lot with the 1D Mark 4 on that lens, which was a 1.3 crop sensor APS-H sensor, and that eliminated the darkish corners.
Crop is almost my middle name.
Robert 'Crop' Simpson.
You should change your profile name :)
I'm actually highly considering cropping to a 4x5 (5x4) aspect ratio in post as part of my workflow. Vertically, I like having more of the environment/surroundings while having the subject prominent in the frame. The 2x3 sometimes just feels to narrow. Horizontal wise, 3x2 feels too much unneeded stuff on the sides.
Ed Sanford's comments are really good above. In addition: It highly depends on the 'shot' and where it will be presented. Is the presentation a print? 4x5 might be the crop, because that is the aspect size of many prints. (but obviously not all) Just a normal 8x10 would be a 4x5 or 5x4. If your landscape photographer, maybe those 3x2's in the full-shot still hold much awesome data. So if they are just going to be displayed on 'Screens'... why not keep. Again if the screen are where the shot is going to show why not consider the 16x9 crop. It's very subjective. It also depends on the subject, is the subject 'Square-ish' or 'rectangular'... that might change the crop-size. For me that is what changes my mind on whether to go 3x2 or 16x9. I have yet to do many prints, so I have not gone 5x4. In the future I'll consider it.
--- "So if they are just going to be displayed on 'Screens'... why not keep. Again if the screen are where the shot is going to show why not consider the 16x9 crop."
Except for videos, 16x9 is too dated. It's a photo, not television or a movie.
I guarantee, most photos viewed on screen are not viewed fully to fit the screen. Firstly, it's impossible, depending on the site and your screen size and resolution. Secondly, there's extra steps just to get it view fullscreen, depending on the device. I'd wager most folks are not going to do all that. Thirdly, 16x9 photos on a mobile device are too small, especially with apps like Instagram that don't rotate horizontally; and browsers when rotated horizontally, don't show fullscreen and the images are even smaller. My guess is you feel this because you have photos on your Instagram that are square, not 16x9 or 3x2.
Back in the day (2007 ish) before I was really into photography, I did everything 16x9 because I wanted them to fit my screen. Even played around with 21x9. I was a wannabe "cinematic". Taste changes. Now, for photos, I want more in the scene, without having too much. For videos, I still prefer 16x9.
'Its impossible?' what?... Google Photos for 1 out of 15 photo posting apps that I could name. That has the function: 'Slideshow' when you share.
16x9 is too dated? Not sure what this means. 16x9 is still the predominant screen size. What do you mean by 'Dated'. What is your screen size? There are 16x10 screens, but not as many as 16x9.
Instagram? Not sure how this applies. Instagram dummifies the quality of whatever you put up, and I regard as mostly for the young people. Yes I put stuff up there, but it's just a shadow of the real photos I post to Google or that get accepted to Shutterstock. Instagram prefers only certain size images especially 'Square' ones. Instagram is for the young-people putting up their reels. that's how I see it.
Phones: If you are creating your photos to be shown on phones. More power to ya. That is not my preferred end-result path. I understand that 'Phones' is one medium that they may be shown. But the computer monitor and TV screen is where they will really shine.
This shot is 2.3:1 on my phone it shows absolutely full screen. So again your comments on phones seem off. Because phones are oblong. In order to fill the space on a phone you need a weird aspect like this panoramic photo: https://photos.app.goo.gl/CWfQqqSD7SaHJYwK6
But then not all phones will have the same aspect. But mine happened to match this photos. I think most will be about that aspect ratio.
--- "'Its impossible?'"
Correct. For instance, if you have a 27" screen 2560x1440, and you are browsing through photos from this site, it will not fill the screen because (1) they limit the size upon upload; (2) most photos are not 16x9.
--- "16x9 is too dated? Not sure what this means."
I'm referring to the aspect ratio of the photo, not the screen size. What I meant by dated is it's old school. No one does it anymore, except maybe those still viewing a slideshow of their photos on a TV. Bottom line, 16x9 and wider are not the norm.
Take these Fstoppers' galleries for example:
Portrait: https://fstoppers.com/media/tags/114
Wildlife: https://fstoppers.com/media/tags/15
Landscape: https://fstoppers.com/media/tags/14
Or, Flickr's Explore page:
https://www.flickr.com/explore/
Horizontal images typically are not 16x9+. And, then, take into account the vertical images, which are definitely are not 16x9.
--- "Instagram? Not sure how this applies."
I brought it up because it's more widely used for sharing photos than gathering family and friends around to watch a slideshow on television right after supper. :D
And, no, it's not mostly for young people. They left it for TikTok.
--- "Phones: If you are creating your photos to be shown on phones. More power to ya. "
Correct. That is part of it because most clients and collaborations use their phones.
1stly... 2560x1440 is 16x9 last I checked. If your using a site that limits. Your using the wrong site. In my opinion.
2ndly...
Portrait shots ok are rarely cropped for 16x9, yeah why would they be. They are either printed, or they tend to be more vertical. We in agreement.
Wildlife: The subject is rarely needed to be rectangular, but one of the early examples was: 'a Muscovy Duck',
Landscape: The Trail to Emerald Lake, Picos de Europa, Velvet Sheets (that's in just my first few scrollings... I think 2 were the same guy, so maybe like some people that agree with me above, they like 16x9)
Flicker: Let's count how many of these shots are actually 16x9. I shouldn't even have to. You should be able to tell. 'Last Rays at malin head', Another Sunset at Maasvlakte. In the 'Explore' photos section I think we are just sorta seeing a dump of recent shots? Quality or not. some look awesome, some look like junk. Many don't look cropped at all, and are left 3x2.
Flicker is a better place to see photos, than Fstoppers. Fstoppers does dumb the quality way down. But there are also many photographers on 'Flicker' that just put their thumbnails up there because they want them to buy the actual photo somewhere else, like the real-print. So you just see a low-quality version.
we have to agree to disagree about 'Instagram'. It is an almost total-strip down of your photo. Instagram is good for head-shots or portraits or something square. Great for posting quick 'Reel' videos. but compare quality on a larger screen watching instagram versus 'Google-photo' and you can see the difference.
>>That is part of it...use their phones
I guess is all about who your end-user is. If you are creating photos for the phone user. But as stated in my second post. What is the screen size of a phone? My phone screen size is: 20x9. Which is way wider that 16x9. (Is this what you meant by 16x9 is out of date?) But in order to design for that screen size you need to make really wide images, or really tall ones (9x20?). Not square ones. So the point I made was your argument about phones didn't make sense. I posted an image that looks the best on my phone because it fills the entire screen. Of course as you pointed out, you need a medium that will accomplish this, and I gave one like 'Google-Photos', but even in a boxed medium... a Wider/taller picture would still do better.
Edit: On a computer browser, if the site doesn't immediately give you the 'Full-Screen' option like Google-Photos 'Slideshow' option, hit F11. (Trick) use this yourself if you didn't know. It worked for me on Flicker, when I couldn't find a 'Full-Screen' button.
This site put flickr first 2nd 500px .. google 3rd...than amazon....
https://www.tomsguide.com/best-picks/best-photography-sites
I didn't know google had any photo size limits. But since I have a google-drive subscription (200G), I'm not near my limits. It doesn't limit me. I regularly put jpegs over 20mb. I'm learning that I don't have to though, that I should probably allow them to be more compressed.
--- "2560x1440 is 16x9 last I checked."
Yep. I never said it wasn't. I brought it as a point that images will not fill the screen. Since we are all visual learners, I've attached a screenshot (print screen for you old schoolers. :D) The top image is from Fstoppers with their size limit. The second is from Flickr with a larger image and typical aspect ratio.
--- "If your using a site that limits. Your using the wrong site."
That's a contradicting and weird thing to say when you yourself upload your images to such sites (Fstoppers and Instagram). Don't you think?
--- "Wildlife…examples was: 'a Muscovy Duck'"
--- "Landscape…so maybe like some people that agree with me above, they like 16x9)"
--- "Flickr…Many don't look cropped at all, and are left 3x2.
So, for every dozens upon dozens upon dozens of images, you'd find a small handful of 16x9s. You pretty much proved my point. Yes?
Lastly, you keep bringing up Google Photos. People primarily use that for backup and maybe delivering images. It's quite useless at discovering and being discovered. It's like the recluse of the photo world.
fstoppers is not a good sharing site... your images get stripped of their quality. It's hard to rate them because of how low-Q they look, I'll agree with that point if that's what you going for. We'll have to disagree about Google. On Flicker its easy to find high-quality ones and it's easy to see them (whatever their crop-aspect).
No, the images on this site are not low quality.
Either:
a. You are confusing low-quality to a smaller resolution image. That's not what low-Q means. Low-Q would be like if you had an image that was compressed so much that it has lost sharpness, detail, tonality, etc. And, may have introduced artifacts, pixilation, etc.
b. Or, if you are zooming in via browser because you are adamant about filling the screen. The images will naturally look soft. It's common sense. It could appear even more soft if you do that with a 4k+ monitor.
Below screenshot is what my whole desktop looks like with a 27" 2560x1440 monitor. Notice the image dominates much of the screen and it's sharp and detailed. It's 17" diagonally. That's more than large enough to rate with ease.
That's interesting how you feel about aspect ratio. I often feel the opposite - that 3 by 2 is not wide enough ..... and when editing images for my own viewing and enjoyment I often crop from the native 3:2 down to 16:9. But we shoot very different subject matter, which is undoubtedly why we feel differently about what aspect ratio our images look best in.
Another reason I enjoy the 16:9 ratio is because I enjoy negative space, which for what I shoot often means habitat and/or vegetation. And going wider means that I can fill the frame vertically with my subject, yet still have plenty of room to show a good slice of the habitat that it lives in.
I have an 8th reason to add to your list:
Cropping will help to eliminate one of the ugliest things in a photo - the vignette that many lenses cause because they don't cast a large enough image circle. Dark corners and edges are hideous looking, and by shooting a little wide and then cropping in a bit, you can eliminate the parts of the frame that are darkest due to lens inadequacies.
I like vignetting. Not for all images, but in a lot of occasions.
Besides that, vignetting is almost always corrected with photo editing software (except the one you're using ;) )
The ones about straightening the horizon line are amusing. Do people actually not do that? I prefer to crop while shooting but that is because I'm 71...
Yes fellow old timer. When shooting film, especially slides, we had to get it right in camera. I try very hard to continue that practice. Nevertheless, I get lazy sometimes knowing that I can fix it in one click in post.
I thought fixing was a darkroom process ;)
A darkroom process is an embellishing process to squeeze the essence of beauty from a well made negative. If you are “fixing”, you are wasting artistic time 😎