To Crop Or Not To Crop...

Are you here to sell fine art prints or duvet covers? Crop it to make a nice composition, not so it fits a product. When you get a higher res camera you won't have the problem anymore. In the meantime don't even give it a second thought.

All you can do is fit things the best you can until you can get a better camera.

Usually square fits most products everywhere. But, not as a poster, there is a size limit of like 48". I wouldn't worry so much about the stuff items, concentrate on the prints.


----Mike Savad

I'd say it's best to compose photos so they will not need to be cropped where possible, and shoot at the largest size you can. Wildlife (and a few other genres like sports) often require some cropping to get the best results, if it means not offering a couple of products so be it. As already mentioned, best to focus on what works for prints as you can add more markup for those. You can adjust / move most images to fit the products once you've uploaded them, and there is also an option that allows buyers to crop images if they want to. My DSLR produces images in a 3:2 format so most files I upload are in that format and it works well for most things. Buyers quite often crop them to a different format on the site. I got into the habit of shooting a variety of versions of a subject / location where possible (horizontal, vertical, wide angles and more zoomed in etc) when I used to upload a lot of images to stock agencies, which gives you more options

Thank you, Bradford, I really don’t care about the large items anyway. But I would like to offer prints that are larger, and want to avoid the embarrassment of finding out after someone has ordered a large print that my photo won’t support it. I appreciate the help!

Thanks, Mike...sounds like a good plan.

James, thank you for your thoughtful post and helpful suggestions. I will try these things with my new photos.

You can price the big ones but they won't list if they aren't big enough. Just make sure they are noise free up close so they can print at all.

I'd go for the best looking image composition, cropped or not. For wildlife in particular but other things as well, Topaz might be worth looking at. That can help tone down noise and sharpen things if you are shooting in challenging low light conditions and things get a little blurry or grainy. I just started playing with it and it helps with flying eagle shots when I have to crank up the ISO too high or I don't and they don't come out as sharp as would be ideal.

https://www.topazlabs.com/

4672 pixels is nearer to 4800 than 4000 pixels I would have thought FAA would allow printing up to 48 inches. Have you priced that size? As Mike says, they will restrict prints to the size they think will still print well so even if you add prices for larger sizes they won’t offer them.

If you go into edit on one of those images is there an empty box for 48 inches. If so you can price it. Press submit to save. Then add that to your default prices in settings for future uploads and press submit to save.

Mike and Gill,
I assumed that if I priced them they would be offered, until someone tried to order a print of that size. I actually have deleted the largest sizes of some of my prints, because I was afraid the resolution wasn't quite good enough...especially in the case of a 48" wide print. I guess I will go back and add them in, then.

Mike, when you say, "noise free up close", do you mean at 100%? And if so, will they not print at the smaller sizes if there is noise at 100%? I obviously have a lot to learn.

Thank you both for your input...I can use all the tips I can get. ^_^

Adam, I will look into that. Thank you!

Please read https://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=5251790

The site prints at 100dpi to one inch at the largest sizes. So the main image has to be clean and clear up close to print at the largest sizes.

So for example

little birdy here looks fine when smaller, but up close I can see a lot of rainbow noise. I think this is at the level that they will still print it, but it is noisy up close. I would see if you could blend it together a little better, make it look more like a finer bokeh, mostly I see rainbow noise mostly around its head area, shadows look OK. I would be on the line though if it were printed at the largest.

The problem with removing the larger sizes is, that if some of them can print larger, any time you do a bulk edit, the ones you removed will come back again. Its better if the image is very clean. My guess is the images are probably fine, i'm just sensitive to smoothing noise out.

They will print them smaller if its a bit noisy. Mostly they don't want the customer to see the noise, then return it. This mostly happens when its canvas.


----Mike Savad

I've sold some fairly large prints (30X20) that came from my iPhone, which is roughly 4K X 3K before editing and those stayed sold. Smaller stuff is less of an issue as well as mugs, etc. I did sell one shower curtain that came from an iPhone image and I am curious about how those look; again, it stayed sold.

In spite of my wish to never crop or straighten, I almost always do, but as long as the image is good and you still have enough pixels to support the size, it seems to be OK.

Abbie, I did read that link before posting, which is why I thought that it would be possible to have a customer buy a larger image and then learn that FAA would not print to that size. I want to avoid that happening. Others have indicated that FAA will not even offer a larger image for sale if it won't print with good quality. So I am a bit confused. Your link indicates that FAA doesn't vet the images until they are sold (understandable, as I'm sure there are many images which never sell, and it would be a waste of effort).

I want to make sure I am not offering something that is of inappropriate quality. Thanks for any clarification you can give on this.

Mike, thank you so much for taking the time to look at my image. I'm going to have to check it out with your comments in mind. I've been reviewing my images, and almost all of them seem to have some noise (or at least graininess), at least in the background, at 100%...even those that were not taken using high ISO's. Maybe I'm getting a little paranoid about this...but I do want to offer a good product. I should at least be able to offer the smaller sizes of my images, I would think.

Thank you so much for your help!

Thanks for the encouragement, Doug. Good to know that I could probably do a 20 x 30" print! ^_^

The quality is reviewed when it sells. If the image isn't large enough, it won't be displayed.

A 4700px image will give you a 48" print even you price it at 72" you will only see a 48" print. But if the image is sucky up close, a lot of noise, real blurred, clearly enlarged etc, they will reject it and make you fix it or you lose the sale.


Some cameras just have a bit of noise, which i think most would excuse. That said, I always go over the backgrounds of my images that have a soft look and clean them. Better safe than sorry. You can sell it as a 24 or probably 36 just fine. You could probably sell it at 48" as well, abbie is a checker, maybe she can double check it. Not sure what the criteria is now. I use a median blur and mask it out so I can control the softness.


----Mike Savad

Thank you, Mike, for your kind help. I have tweaked that hummingbird photo a bit, and will upload it. I am realizing that I probably need to do that with most of my photos. Maybe my camera just does have some noise...it is an older one that I inherited. I'm encouraged that you have to do that on some photos, too...if I know what do do to make them work, I can deal with it.

Some of my shots I have set to like 6400 to 10,000 iso, which has some noise in the luminance. Luckily my camera doesn't have the rainbow issues which is more of a pain to deal with. But I don't have the lens power to give me a nice smooth bokeh, so I tend to soften it by hand anyway. Plus I do a lot of colorizing, so i'm always flattening noise. I figure its better to be safe than sorry. Because if you get the dreaded note that it won't print, and you are on vacation, that's never a good combo.


----Mike Savad

I guess whatever camera I have, it will always have limitations. I really appreciate your help. I reloaded the hummingbird photo...hopefully it is a little better now. :)

If cropping is going to offer your audience the best looking image you can show/display, I say crop the image.

You could think about like I do, present each image publically in the best way possible. Everything else is secondary.

Yeah that looks better. You don't see the noise. That's all you really want.


----Mike Savad

"Thanks for the encouragement, Doug. Good to know that I could probably do a 20 x 30" print! ^_^"

Yeah, that can work with the right starting point.

My take on it is whether the image is intended to withstand a detailed scrutiny, be realistic, etc. I have some that do that, but I've also had about 50% of sales come from a group that have things like motion blur, sketchy colors, visible grain, etc. For the close, detailed ones, you get to where you need oodles of pixels, tripods, great light and careful composition. The other kind come from a group where I was waving the camera around willy-nilly, pushing the button, and out of a hundred, one looks kind of interesting and is worth editing the heck out of it.

For me, I do have a tripod, but it mainly sits on a shelf in the basement, waiting for the next posed portrait. If it's an interesting or appealing shot, sometimes the technical shortcomings become a feature rather than a flaw.

Thank you, Mike! I'm working on tweaking all my photos. You have been very helpful!

Thanks, Doug...I rarely use a tripod when photographing wildlife...it just seems like I would lose too many shots. Maybe I just need to get more comfortable with it, but when you see a bird fly by, there is rarely time to stop and set up the tripod. So mine mostly sits on a shelf, too. I'm glad to hear from other photographers that have similar obstacles but still sell photos!

About the only time I use a tripod is during low light on a slow or static subject and I’m at 800mm or I am panning during low light and slower shutter speed going for a bird in flight with wing blur artsy kind of shots.

I used to use a tripod. But every time I set it up there would be people behind me not sure if they can pass. Or I would trip over it. Or they would. Or there is vibration in the floor. I would be very limited... And its another thing to carry. I do everything freehand with a stable lens.

I think its better to have grain, then to have blur. You can always do something with the noise, even if you have to get software for it. But you can't fix blur (or not that well, programs have tried). Sometimes over exposing and making it a bit darker will give nice results, but that only works on still life.


I remember carrying a tripod and I tripped off the edge of a sidewalk, hurting both my ankle and knee. But when I made impact, the tripod leg hit first and made such a sound... Which I guess was lucky because the ambulance that happen to be sitting there (it was a street fair), was right there to help me. Which was good because I did not have band aids that size.

For a while I used a mopod, but also clumsy.


----Mike Savad

Oh, Mike, ouch! I too tend to have clumsy moments. I do sometimes use a monopod in low light, but have to be very careful not to trip myself.