There are pictorial examples given showing how and when it is acceptable to crop parts of an aircraft.
The general rule of thumb is that it should "look right" and cutting off parts of the a/c should not seem accidental - as the result of poor technique or poor editing. You will find that most people cut off parts at the extremities of the aircraft (or in the case of helicopters, crop the rotor blades out) so that the aircraft fills more of the frame. However, taking an inch out of a h-stab or just clipping a wingtip is bad form.
I can use some of my images to provide explanation (because I can explain my own intentions better than someone else's):
Cropped the outboard engines and altogether (4-engine a/c) and the top of the tailfin so the fuselage and inboard props provide the focus. including the whole a/c would have led to a LOT of dead space above and below the a/c.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12806 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3532 times:
Quoting powtaetow (Thread starter): But why are those ones accepted despite being cutoff? What's the criteria for letting it slide?
Let's be clear, nobody is letting anything 'slide'. As Angad said, the shot has to be well motivated. Cropping a shot to place emphasis on certain parts of the plane is fully acceptable. More than anything, the picture has to 'look right' - more often than not cropping out half an engine or landing gear will result in a rejection. A side-on with part of the tail chopped off (cropped when editing or simply being zoomed-in too tightly when taking the shot) will also likely be rejected. For example, if this were tighter on the right and part of the horizontal stabiliser had been cut off, the shot would certainly have been rejected because there's no good reason for not including all of it.
For a side-on shot, there's normally less reason to leave something out, however, from time to time there is justification. The SAS A340 is a good example - it's cropped where it is to emphasise the condensation over the wing. Had there been no condensation, the shot may not have been accepted. Here's a similar one of mine cropped tightly to emphasise the prop vortexes. If I'd included the whole plane, the vortexes wouldn't have looked as good:
acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3507 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting scbriml (Reply 2): Basically, there is a LOT of flexibility for you to crop shots how you please, but it has to look right as opposed to looking like you just framed it badly when you took the shot.
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
powtaetow From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3443 times:
Thanks for all the responses everyone, it's cleared it up very nicely for me! I agree Vik that my FedEx shouldn't have that little bit of h-stab cutoff. I guess for some reason I got the idea in my head that pictures had to be all the plane and then I started seeing some of the examples above I posted and started getting confused. Good to know about the flexibility with the head on shots, now I can focus on framing better instead of frantically zooming out to get the full aircraft.