Semantics of "100% crop"

[Marcodpr]

This helped me

Loading…

www.mdavid.com.au

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Leonard,

That explanation is EXACTLY the same as what I explained in the post you quoted. You just explained it better

I was trying to supply some historical background to explain how such an unintuitive phrase became standard usage.

 

[xroxer]

This does help. The missing part of my understanding was that 1:1 has to be maintained through the process. If you take any sized 100%crop and look at it at 100% (actual size) it is a representation of the original picture detail.

Thanks for this. It changed my mind.

So someone using an 8k small monitor will really have no use for 100% crops.

 

[LynniePad]

This does help. The missing part of my understanding was that 1:1 has to be maintained through the process. If you take any sized 100%crop and look at it at 100% (actual size) it is a representation of the original picture detail.

I still like my definition where a 100% crop means that the original image has been cropped before any reduction in resolution. I believe you are being misled into thinking that 1:1 has to be maintained throughout the process.

If the crop is a reasonable proportion of the original (perhaps just the main subject, like a person), there's no problem viewing that crop, although I sometimes include a low resolution version of the original with the cropped region high-lighted. However, if it is a small crop to illustrate a minor feature, there's no point in uploading a tiny part of the image in its original form.

I don't see any objection to enlarging a crop to demonstrate something like excellent resolution, CA or anything else. Earlier, I submitted some "blow-ups" of feather detail and a central crop from a landscape. If they were to be viewed directly on an average monitor, they would have been tiny images, less that 1mm on a side. As it was, I viewed them on my monitor at greatly increased magnification and took a screen shot which I uploaded as a representation of the crop.

I note that you also used the word "representation". If I took one of my crops and paid someone to paint it on the side of a warehouse 50 metres long, it would still be a representation of my original 100% crop.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

If 100% crop means take a full image (100%) and cut a smaller image out of it (crop it) then it is complete nonsense. If you then say to someone "this is a 100%crop" it tells them zero useful information. I don't understand how people can't see that?

The problem is your lack of understanding, not the expression 200% crop.

The meaning and usefulness are clear enough to most of the people who have replied.

If 100% crop means map your monitor 1:1 with the image and crop the exact definition of your monitor out (this is the actual definition IMO) then it is still meaningless as you need to know the monitor definition and the original photo definition to understand anything.

No you don't. Al you need to know is that you are seeing each pixel in the base image; and that's why people look at 100% (crop or not).

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

It is a 100% crop according to your definition. In fact any size picture is a 100% crop.

If you mean any picture that displays pixel-for-pixel between image file and monitor, of course it is. There's nothing amiss with that. As long as the image is 100% all the picture size governs is how much of the whole image is shown.

See how meaningless it is!!

Not at all meaningless.

The term should tell you exactly how big the original photo was compared to the crop. It doesn't.

Why? That's a different thing. It may be interesting but it isn't what 100% crop is about.

 

[Mike_PEAT]

I have to agree with this. After seeing some of the responses here I feel that people don't understand just how dumb a term it is.

Or is it that YOU just don't understand the term and benefit of a 100% crop!

If 100% crop means take a full image (100%) and cut a smaller image out of it (crop it) then it is complete nonsense.

Not if you're trying to show a camera defect/issue. It's the actual pixel size, neither increased or reduced in size.

If you then say to someone "this is a 100%crop" it tells them zero useful information. I don't understand how people can't see that?

No, it tells me the image hasn't been altered in size, that it is a 100% zoom capture from the image. Again elsewhere in this thread I posted a 40% crop which is a distortion of the original image...if you wanted to see the actual repair done you'd have to see it at 100% zoom (that's not 100% of the entire image).

If 100% crop means map your monitor 1:1 with the image and crop the exact definition of your monitor out (this is the actual definition IMO) then it is still meaningless as you need to know the monitor definition and the original photo definition to understand anything.

You don't need to know that. All you need to know is that the image was 100% of the original image size, not 100% of the monitor size. Doesn't matter if the image was viewed on a 800x600 pixel monitor, or a 5k monitor, as long as it was 100% when it was cropped. It's still being seen at 100% (the actual pixels) and not distorted by enlarging or reducing the image size.

In the old days (in the chemical darkroom) 100% would have been a contact sheet, and looked at through a loupe.

 

[xroxer]

Actually I understand it perfectly now. The link posted later makes total sense to me (other than the poor explanation of 50%). Much better than your explanation.

The term is still very ambiguous IMO which still makes it poor. %crop where the % is the portion out of a full image is what a newbie like me instantly reads. %crop where the % is the size of the original image that is then cropped is just stupid.

 

[xroxer]

I understand this now but it really is a poor choice of words. It comes across as percent cropped which is not what it is.

 

[LynniePad]

Actually I understand it perfectly now. The link posted later makes total sense to me.

Some of the other posts have told you exactly the same thing and posted very similar examples. Does a "Link" make it more believable?

 

[cookedraw]

Just semantics and not very important but I was wondering the following:

The term 100%crop initially confused the heck out of me. I read some old dpreview threads on it and found that while I understood the definition it still seemed a very poor choice of terminology.

IIUC from previous threads on this topic, 100% crop means that 1 pixel of your display represents 1 pixel of the photo. Why even consider the display which is variable?

Why not just use %crop wherein the % refers to the amount of pixels left from the original photo?

100% = 100% image

200% = 2 times magnification

why not simple ?

100% crop should not be a crop at all.

200% crop should be half the picture.

PPI should have nothing to do with it.

 

[xroxer]

The link actually explained it properly and clearly. Even so, it is still a poor term that is ambiguous. At least I know what it means now.

 

[xroxer]

The problem is that a newbie reads 100%crop as being the full image itself. 50%crop as being a 50% portion of the original image. 20%crop as being 20% a portion of the original image........etc

Trying to explain that 100%crop means a crop of any size FROM the 100% full image is just stupid. Poor choice IMO.

 

[cookedraw]

The problem is that a newbie reads 100%crop as being the full image itself. 50%crop as being a 50% portion of the original image. 20%crop as being 20% a portion of the original image........etc

Trying to explain that 100%crop means a crop of any size FROM the 100% full image is just stupid. Poor choice IMO.

Totally agree that the term is a failure.

It is pixel per pixel , not a crop of any certain amount.

 

[LynniePad]

Just semantics and not very important but I was wondering the following:

The term 100%crop initially confused the heck out of me. I read some old dpreview threads on it and found that while I understood the definition it still seemed a very poor choice of terminology.

IIUC from previous threads on this topic, 100% crop means that 1 pixel of your display represents 1 pixel of the photo. Why even consider the display which is variable?

Why not just use %crop wherein the % refers to the amount of pixels left from the original photo?

100% = 100% image

200% = 2 times magnification

why not simple ?

100% crop should not be a crop at all.

200% crop should be half the picture.

PPI should have nothing to do with it.

You are getting confused between the cropping of the original and the technology for displaying the crop.

As I mentioned before, I could display a small crop of my original as either an almost microscopic rectangle less than 1mm on a side, or have it painted on a warehouse 50 metres long; it would still be a 100% crop. There's no such thing as a 200% crop, if there were, it wouldn't be half the picture; you could do a crop and then enlarge it for viewing, but the second part isn;t anything to do with cropping.

-Just wait till you get to discussing crop sensors and lens characteristics. You'll have a lot of fun with ratios and better/worse larger/smaller semantics.

 

[cookedraw]

Just semantics and not very important but I was wondering the following:

The term 100%crop initially confused the heck out of me. I read some old dpreview threads on it and found that while I understood the definition it still seemed a very poor choice of terminology.

IIUC from previous threads on this topic, 100% crop means that 1 pixel of your display represents 1 pixel of the photo. Why even consider the display which is variable?

Why not just use %crop wherein the % refers to the amount of pixels left from the original photo?

100% = 100% image

200% = 2 times magnification

why not simple ?

100% crop should not be a crop at all.

200% crop should be half the picture.

PPI should have nothing to do with it.

You are getting confused between the cropping of the original and the technology for displaying the crop.

As I mentioned before, I could display a small crop of my original as either an almost microscopic rectangle less than 1mm on a side, or have it painted on a warehouse 50 metres long; it would still be a 100% crop. There's no such thing as a 200% crop, if there were, it wouldn't be half the picture; you could do a crop and then enlarge it for viewing, but the second part isn;t anything to do with cropping.

-Just wait till you get to discussing crop sensors and lens characteristics. You'll have a lot of fun with ratios and better/worse larger/smaller semantics.

I know what the term "mean" but I do not agree it is a proper term.

A crop is a cutout. So it makes no sense at all to have a 100% crop, it just means 1:1 crop, like wtf is a 1:1 crop ?!

Then how it should be called is another thing, but since this is digital I think 200%=half picture is ok, but I can also be fine with that 50%crop is half the picture, as long as we have a common term.

But to call it 1:1 crop relative to an unknown amount of pixels per inch makes zero sense.

Things like these makes photography boring and newbies gets confused and rather use the phone because then no one cares. Make photography simple and fun !

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

 

[LynniePad]

I know what the term "means" but I do not agree it is a proper term.

But to call it 1:1 crop relative to an unknown amount of pixels per inch makes zero sense.

I can agree with your frustrations to some extent, but one thing you should do to make your photographic life easier is abandon any notion of pixels/dots per inch when you are talking about the original image.

If you are preparing an image for display on a screen, a web page or for printing at various sizes, you can make some rough calculations based on the output capability of the device.

I won't get into specifics, but you soon learn the appropriate resolutions, and the flexibility of the output devices. For example, many printers have a nominal output capability of 300 dpi, but you don't have to submit an image at exactly that detail.

Another example is submitting small portraits for departmental web-sites etc.. Unless the subject happens to look like George Clooney, it's inappropriate to post a full-resolution image that might be copied and misused.

For example, this random image is only 200x133.



All specialties have there own jargon, and you just have to get used to it.

You would probably be familiar with the medical procedure known as ECG. It's often referred to as a "12-Lead ECG". You would be interested to learn that this has nothing to do with the number of wires that are attached to the patient.

 

[cookedraw]

100% crop of this image will look like needle in a haystack if seen on a 4k monitor, sooner or later we will have a 24k monitor.. we should use correct terms independent of screen resolution.

PIXEL PER PIXEL .

we should learn and teach certain things because they are good, not because we are used to.

 

[LynniePad]

100% crop of this image will look like needle in a haystack if seen on a 4k monitor, sooner or later we will have a 24k monitor.. we should use correct terms independent of screen resolution.

PIXEL PER PIXEL .

We should learn and teach certain things because they are good...

You don't seem to understand what this thread has been about, and the image that I posted was in regard to a side-issue about dpi etc.

That image had been cropped and also down-sized for a web page. It scales well enough for its intended purposed when the web page is shown on any particular monitor.

PIXEL PER PIXEL means what?

If you mean that a small crop should only be shown 1:1 on a large monitor, it will tend to become insignificant. Once a section has been cropped from an image, you are at liberty to display it as you wish. It's still a representation of the original crop.

Some things can be "good", but not necessarily "correct". (Santa Claus is "good".)

 

[xroxer]

I think he understands more about this thread than you do. Pixel per pixel or 1:1 means that for each pixel in your original photo the display uses one pixel (no scaling). This is the fundamentally what 100%crop is suggesting.

If you take a 100%crop of a photo that is only 5 pixels x 5 pixels and display it at 1:1 on your monitor it will look like a white dot. But it is still a 100%crop according to the ridiculous definition of the term.