Does filling the frame actually get you a sharper image?
I spent a long time believing that if I could just get closer or crop tighter, I'd end up with a better photograph. More subject, more detail, more impact. It took me an embarrassing number of shoots in Shenandoah to realize that wasn't always true.
I had this one morning last fall where I was photographing a red tailed hawk perched maybe 40 yards out. I cropped the image way in, filled the frame with the bird, and the result looked soft and flat. Then I looked at the wider version where the hawk was just a small element against this ridgeline fog, and honestly that was the stronger photo by a mile. The detail wasn't better up close. I was just stretching what the lens actually captured.
It changed how I think about composition. Sometimes the subject being smaller in the frame, with context around it, tells more of the story than a tight crop ever could. The urge to fill the frame is real though, and I still catch myself doing it.
Has anyone else run into this? Moments where pulling back or leaving more space actually gave you a stronger result than going tight?
i've had similar issues throughout my career in photography. When I am shooting somehing professionally, there is always the potential for a crop by the client. I will shoot a range of imagery that is both tight and looser. I basically make more work for myself. I never usually get any feedback about my shots. I just know when I get hired repeatedly that I did something right!
When I shoot landscapes (like you do) I tend to frame in camera these days. It took a long time to learn how to leave negative space in the image, when I felt like I needed to get CLOSER! Always looking to get closer. Always. Just a preference, I guess.
I feel like I need to deliberately think about the crop before I shoot, or I will just do whatever I can to create a "completeled" composition within the 4x3 format I use each time I shoot.
There have been times where I've purposely shot for a panaromic orientation, and i've used 2-5 frames accomplish the capture of the image I've imagined when I'm shooting.
My big problem is that I LOVE taking the shot. I HATE doing the post. I've paid retouchers to complete the stitching of the multiple frames in post production. Usually it's a quick and rough composite, to show me the results of what I've shot. It's hit or miss when lining up the shot in the field. I've learned which technique works better for zooms, and what works better for wide shots.
Even then, there can be crop issues. It's just a matter of KNOWING what the final print size will be when I print. I tend to go by feel. If I begin using formulas and in-camera measurements, it usually derails the moment, and feels very scientific. That defeats the entire purpose for me.
Honestly, I think it's time for me to consider using the equivalent of a medium format digital camera. Something like the FujiGX100s, which produces a huge RAW file, and shoot a bit looser.
Then I can zoom in during post production without losing much in the way of image quality.
If it's a large print, I'll actually unsharpen a bit, if it's mean to be viewed from a distance. It will appear to look soft when it's close. (like a billboard would look if you stood close to it).
The cost involved keeps me from printing larger images. I'll need to go back to "school" if I'm going to start working with larger print sizes.
I hope this helps somewhat. Variety of shots (of the same scene) is very helpful. It allows you to make the crop decision in-camera, and allows for an easier start in post. That has been my experience. It creates more time at the computer, and it takes up more space on your drives. But, it allows for decisions post-shoot.