100% crop

chuxter said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

chuxter said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

cookedraw said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

And now, for the sixth (I think) time: can you suggest a good term to substitute for the accepted meaning of 100% crop?

Click to expand...

Yes .

Crop.

Click to expand...

That describes a down-sized crop too so it isn't explicit.

Click to expand...

"Crop" is one operation and "resampling"/"resizing" is another operation. People who use "crop" to mean more than crop are part of the problem? That could explain the popularity of unnecessary terms like "100% crop" among these people?

In any editor I have [can't speak to every editor], when I select the "crop" tool in:

• Lightroom, it just crops...nothing else
• In PSE, it just crops...nothing else
• In Faststone, it just crops...nothing else
• In irfan view, it just crops...nothing else
• In XNView, it just crops...nothing else
• In Picasa 3, it just crops...nothing else
• In ViewNX2 and View NX-i, they just crop...nothing else
• In RawTherapee, it just crops...nothing else

Note that in most of these, there is an associated facility to "resize" or "resample", but they are separate operations. If the user just crops, they get "just-a-crop".

Click to expand...

And if you down size first it still says "crop" but what you are cropping from is no longer the original full-pixel-size image.

Click to expand...

That is SO strange, Gerry. I think you are grasping at weird things to save face.

Click to expand...

No. What I'm doing is trying to do is keep the discussion to what the term "100% crop" was introduced for.

Dave posted this link earlier in this thread http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57430121 It shows why someone wants to show a part of an image at its full pixel size. I can't think of any other purpose for using what the poster calls a 100% crop and I don't see any ambiguity about it.

chuxter said:

There must be hundreds of ways to screw up a crop, by doing something else first. It is not logical to say that "crop" is undefined because somebody could have resized it previously!

Click to expand...

True, no doubt, but nothing to do with what I'm trying to get across.

Most of this thread and the previous one linked is about people criticising a term that in the context for which it was devised is perfectly clear, on the basis that the words in that term could have different constructions in other contexts.

But just about every word ever used depends on its context for its meaning to be understood.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

chuxter said:

That is SO strange, Gerry. I think you are grasping at weird things to save face.

Click to expand...

No. What I'm doing is trying to do is keep the discussion to what the term "100% crop" was introduced for.

Click to expand...

In other words, you are being a historian? Why do you think the OP needs to know the history?

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Dave posted this link earlier in this thread http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57430121 It shows why someone wants to show a part of an image at its full pixel size. I can't think of any other purpose for using what the poster calls a 100% crop and I don't see any ambiguity about it.

Click to expand...

I think you also don't admit that other, rational beings can find it ambiguous.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

There must be hundreds of ways to screw up a crop, by doing something else first. It is not logical to say that "crop" is undefined because somebody could have resized it previously!

Click to expand...

True, no doubt, but nothing to do with what I'm trying to get across.

Click to expand...

Then why did you inject the concept of resampling first and then cropping? I was just following your lead... :-0

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Most of this thread and the previous one linked is about people criticising a term that in the context for which it was devised is perfectly clear, on the basis that the words in that term could have different constructions in other contexts.

Click to expand...

I think I can speak for the others "on my side": We DON'T think that. We are thinking that the term "100% crop" is ambiguous in the context for which it was devised. In fact, we don't know of any other context... :-0

Gerry Winterbourne said:

xroxer said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

No it isn't. You are just close minded. Percent and crop are already known to most and logic tells these people what it means.

Click to expand...

Indeed - as I've said before, "crop" means cut and "100%" means uncut so the first logical step is to interpret 100% crop as uncut cut, the second step is to realise that that is nonsense, the final step is to realise that the term must be used in a special sense so one needs to enquire about it.

It isn't logic that tells people what you suggest it means, it's illogic.

Click to expand...

No, you've got it wrong. To most "crop" means to cut a portion of an image out or to remove the outside portions of an image. "100%" means the full amount.

Click to expand...

That's intuition, not logic. If 100% means the full amount then either it isn't a crop at all or it means there's nothing left: either way what you contend isn't logical.

Click to expand...

I guess your argument is that because it is 100% and not 99% or less then the combination of terms is now illogical. Think about that. 100%crop (where % = amount cropped away) is something you'd never do, but it still falls within the logic of combining amount and crop. And don't forget the ambiguity in this definition as well. Many think it means amount left over and many think it means amount taken away.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Aperture does not have this problem. Totally different.

Click to expand...

"Aperture" means opening, opening might have all sorts of meanings, the final step is to realise that the term must be used in a special sense so one needs to enquire about it.

Not different at all.

Click to expand...

It is different in that most people don't know the term, have no familiarity with any portion of the term, and therefore cannot form an opinion on its meaning. So yeah, it is different.

Your position really comes across as elitist and sanctimonious. You really are having trouble putting yourself in the shoes of a beginner.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm putting myself in the position of a beginner who wants to learn more rather than simply wanting to guess at what the terms mean. There's nothing elitist about wanting to share knowledge; quite the contrary - I want to democratise the knowledge.

Click to expand...

I was talking about your position in the argument and defense of the term, not your teaching philosophy LOL. You have an inability to acknowledge why beginners have an issue with this particular term or even the term having any flaws at all. That is all these threads are about. I have no interest in coining a better term. Just pointing out why it is confusing. But you won't admit it.You can counter argue all you like.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

There is a good reason this term inspires multiple threads like these and you seem incapable of acknowledging it.

Click to expand...

There are many threads started by beginners who, simply be virtue of being beginners, don't understand terminology and ask what it means. That applies to virtually every term used, although often the question asks about a phenomenon by its effect rather than its name.

Those questions arise because pretty well any term you care to mention is opaque in meaning until explained. BY your reasoning ("no term should be allowed to mean anything other than what an uninformed beginner might guess from its constituent words") we simply wouldn't have any language with which to communicate.

Click to expand...

It is like you haven't even paid attention. My reasoning was just pointing out why this particular term is a poorly constructed one. It is still learnable. Doesn't change my opinion of its construction.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

You say above, about aperture "It is different in that most people don't know the term, have no familiarity with any portion of the term, and therefore cannot form an opinion on its meaning." You call me elitist but assume that most people don't know what an aperture is?

Click to expand...

So I am an elitist coming from a beginners position??? Sounds like you can't accept you are wrong and that is all.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

The real problem is that you encountered a term and guessed at its meaning, then found out that you were wrong and decided the fault was in the term itself rather than your understanding of it. If it's sanctimonious of me to notice that, so be it.

Click to expand...

No Gerry, the real problem is the term is poorly constructed and is counterintuitive and ambiguous. This is after trying to look up the actual definition and finding so may definitions to consider. Then asking elitist experts like yourself and finding out they themselves can't even agree on what it means.

xroxer said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

xroxer said:

xroxer said:

xroxer said:

No it isn't. You are just close minded. Percent and crop are already known to most and logic tells these people what it means.

Click to expand...

Indeed - as I've said before, "crop" means cut and "100%" means uncut so the first logical step is to interpret 100% crop as uncut cut, the second step is to realise that that is nonsense, the final step is to realise that the term must be used in a special sense so one needs to enquire about it.

It isn't logic that tells people what you suggest it means, it's illogic.

Click to expand...

No, you've got it wrong. To most "crop" means to cut a portion of an image out or to remove the outside portions of an image. "100%" means the full amount.

Click to expand...

That's intuition, not logic. If 100% means the full amount then either it isn't a crop at all or it means there's nothing left: either way what you contend isn't logical.

Click to expand...

I guess your argument is that because it is 100% and not 99% or less then the combination of terms is now illogical.

Click to expand...

Finally. You don't need to guess - that's exactly it.

xroxer said:

Think about that. 100%crop (where % = amount cropped away) is something you'd never do, but it still falls within the logic of combining amount and crop.

Click to expand...

But it falls outside the logic of language. As to crop 100% away means there's nothing left then it makes no linguistic sense to point at noting and say "that's a 100% crop". So there's no logical reason for the words 100% crop to mean nothing.

xroxer said:

And don't forget the ambiguity in this definition as well. Many think it means amount left over and many think it means amount taken away.

Click to expand...

No. As it can't logically or linguistically mean either of those things then the people who think it does aren't thinking it through.

xroxer said:

xroxer said:

xroxer said:

xroxer said:

xroxer said:

Aperture does not have this problem. Totally different.

Click to expand...

"Aperture" means opening, opening might have all sorts of meanings, the final step is to realise that the term must be used in a special sense so one needs to enquire about it.

Not different at all.

Click to expand...

It is different in that most people don't know the term, have no familiarity with any portion of the term, and therefore cannot form an opinion on its meaning. So yeah, it is different.

Your position really comes across as elitist and sanctimonious. You really are having trouble putting yourself in the shoes of a beginner.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm putting myself in the position of a beginner who wants to learn more rather than simply wanting to guess at what the terms mean. There's nothing elitist about wanting to share knowledge; quite the contrary - I want to democratise the knowledge.

Click to expand...

I was talking about your position in the argument and defense of the term, not your teaching philosophy LOL. You have an inability to acknowledge why beginners have an issue with this particular term or even the term having any flaws at all.

Click to expand...

With few exceptions beginners have no difficulty with it once it is explained. In that respect it is much the same as most terms.

xroxer said:

My reasoning was just pointing out why this particular term is a poorly constructed one. It is still learnable. Doesn't change my opinion of its construction.

Click to expand...

Nor make your opinion right.

chuxter said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

chuxter said:

That is SO strange, Gerry. I think you are grasping at weird things to save face.

Click to expand...

No. What I'm doing is trying to do is keep the discussion to what the term "100% crop" was introduced for.

Click to expand...

In other words, you are being a historian? Why do you think the OP needs to know the history?

Click to expand...

The OP wanted to know what the term means. He doesn't particularly need to know where it was derived. But other people have muddied the waters by trying to construct contextless alternatives. What matters is the context; the history helps understand the context.

chuxter said:

chuxter said:

Dave posted this link earlier in this thread http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57430121 It shows why someone wants to show a part of an image at its full pixel size. I can't think of any other purpose for using what the poster calls a 100% crop and I don't see any ambiguity about it.

Click to expand...

I think you also don't admit that other, rational beings can find it ambiguous.

Click to expand...

A great many terms in photography and other subjects can be thought ambiguous until they are explained.

chuxter said:

chuxter said:

chuxter said:

There must be hundreds of ways to screw up a crop, by doing something else first. It is not logical to say that "crop" is undefined because somebody could have resized it previously!

Click to expand...

True, no doubt, but nothing to do with what I'm trying to get across.

Click to expand...

Then why did you inject the concept of resampling first and then cropping? I was just following your lead... :-0

Click to expand...

To explain what it isn't.

chuxter said:

chuxter said:

Most of this thread and the previous one linked is about people criticising a term that in the context for which it was devised is perfectly clear, on the basis that the words in that term could have different constructions in other contexts.

Click to expand...

I think I can speak for the others "on my side": We DON'T think that. We are thinking that the term "100% crop" is ambiguous in the context for which it was devised. In fact, we don't know of any other context... :-0

Click to expand...

Look at the link above. What alternative meaning fits what the poster of it said?

Gerry Winterbourne said:

xroxer said:

Think about that. 100%crop (where % = amount cropped away) is something you'd never do, but it still falls within the logic of combining amount and crop.

Click to expand...

But it falls outside the logic of language. As to crop 100% away means there's nothing left then it makes no linguistic sense to point at noting and say "that's a 100% crop". So there's no logical reason for the words 100% crop to mean nothing.

Click to expand...

Hence the confusion when they read it. Intuition and logic tell them that %crop means amount cropped. That logic extends the full range of percent. Only at 100% do they then question the result as illogical.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

And don't forget the ambiguity in this definition as well. Many think it means amount left over and many think it means amount taken away.

Click to expand...

No. As it can't logically or linguistically mean either of those things then the people who think it does aren't thinking it through.

Click to expand...

Oh but it can. Many people I ask actually believe that crop means what is taken away and not what is left over. When I ask what 100%crop is they are either "the whole image is cropped away" or the "entire image itself is left over" as part of a process. They then invariably ask why you would ever do a 100%crop. The terminology of %crop is what they find logical and they naturally try and extend that logic to 100%. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Aperture does not have this problem. Totally different.

Click to expand...

"Aperture" means opening, opening might have all sorts of meanings, the final step is to realise that the term must be used in a special sense so one needs to enquire about it.

Not different at all.

Click to expand...

It is different in that most people don't know the term, have no familiarity with any portion of the term, and therefore cannot form an opinion on its meaning. So yeah, it is different.

Your position really comes across as elitist and sanctimonious. You really are having trouble putting yourself in the shoes of a beginner.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm putting myself in the position of a beginner who wants to learn more rather than simply wanting to guess at what the terms mean. There's nothing elitist about wanting to share knowledge; quite the contrary - I want to democratise the knowledge.

Click to expand...

I was talking about your position in the argument and defense of the term, not your teaching philosophy LOL. You have an inability to acknowledge why beginners have an issue with this particular term or even the term having any flaws at all.

Click to expand...

With few exceptions beginners have no difficulty with it once it is explained. In that respect it is much the same as most terms.

Click to expand...

More than a few exceptions. It took a lot of searching of threads to figure out what it meant. Even experienced photographers on here did not agree and steered me wrong.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

My reasoning was just pointing out why this particular term is a poorly constructed one. It is still learnable. Doesn't change my opinion of its construction.

Click to expand...

Nor make your opinion right.

Click to expand...

That is the argument. Confirmed by the very existence of threads like these IMO. Impossible for you to acknowledge it seems.