Cropping, ratios and orientation

J

JennyGW

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,269
Name
Jenny
Edit My Images
No
I'd really like to hear peoples ideas about cropping, ratios and orientation. This is for portraits/headshots.

Many thanks,
Jenny
 
i do a tight crop to get the persona in the frame, top to chin and an ear or two is the max with some 'air' for the eyes to relax in!!
this does away with clothes and props...but requires a bit of sensibilty regarding skin tones and problems which we all have
i clone out warts and dodgy bits on my face as i dont really think they help the viewer with eye and facial study
warts and all arent for the fair sex either...
you are into the world of hair and facial cosmetics
clothe inclusive can lead to all sorts of skin tone clashes if one isnt careful..
ratios are for me taken on the day...cropping several times and then saving as 1,2,3 etc and viewing tiled
orientation usually portrait but tending to square as the situation allows...hair length and perhaps a nice scarl would pull the format down to the 3:4 ratio...but no more
landscape is an area of format that is unusual but sufficiently useful if a part of the background is helpful...and is miles out of focus
cheers
geof
 

Interesting stuff.

I'm thinking about specific requirements. For example, in the USA actor headshots have been colour for a long time and a standard 8x10 size. In the UK I gather that the format was once black and white, though I'm not aware of any standard print size.

Personally, I don't like portrait format portraits. IMHO they make the subject look cramped. 8x10 isn't so bad, 2:3 ratio is my favourite.
 
Hi

I'm currently going through a phase of portraits in the landscape orientation. In the 16:9 ratio! Used to be really picky about cropping the tops of people's heads off, but more relaxed about it now (if the eyes are ok).

Not saying it's right, but it's what I like at the min.

S
 
JennyGW said:
Interesting stuff.

I'm thinking about specific requirements. For example, in the USA actor headshots have been colour for a long time and a standard 8x10 size. In the UK I gather that the format was once black and white, though I'm not aware of any standard print size.

Personally, I don't like portrait format portraits. IMHO they make the subject look cramped. 8x10 isn't so bad, 2:3 ratio is my favourite.
Click to expand...

black to white seems more appropriate...colour will show those veins and bumps
as for size...?...let the punishment fit the crime!!
 
mrtoad said:
black to white seems more appropriate...colour will show those veins and bumps
as for size...?...let the punishment fit the crime!!
Click to expand...

I love black and white, as I said. It may hide veins and bumps, but I think it reveals a lot more.
 
Sir SR said:
Hi

I'm currently going through a phase of portraits in the landscape orientation. In the 16:9 ratio! Used to be really picky about cropping the tops of people's heads off, but more relaxed about it now (if the eyes are ok).

Not saying it's right, but it's what I like at the min.

S
Click to expand...

Do you have clients asking for specific crops/ratios?
 
Ha!

I don't have "clients", just parents of kids who are generally happy with the quality of work regardless of crop! I just try to ensure its in a "frame" ratio!

For myself I crop to whatever feels/looks right and get the print accordingly.

S
 
mrtoad said:
i do a tight crop to get the persona in the frame, top to chin and an ear or two is the max with some 'air' for the eyes to relax in!!
this does away with clothes and props...but requires a bit of sensibilty regarding skin tones and problems which we all have
i clone out warts and dodgy bits on my face as i dont really think they help the viewer with eye and facial study
warts and all arent for the fair sex either...
you are into the world of hair and facial cosmetics
clothe inclusive can lead to all sorts of skin tone clashes if one isnt careful..
ratios are for me taken on the day...cropping several times and then saving as 1,2,3 etc and viewing tiled
orientation usually portrait but tending to square as the situation allows...hair length and perhaps a nice scarl would pull the format down to the 3:4 ratio...but no more
landscape is an area of format that is unusual but sufficiently useful if a part of the background is helpful...and is miles out of focus
cheers
geof
Click to expand...
So Geof,
You mean you're not as pretty as you post?
 
Clients will ask for prints based on the frames they have at home. I have no preference of landscape over portrait - They are just different compositions. I do try to stick to the standard ratios like 1:1, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4.

Some images suit different ratios but I don't do that too often unless for a specific reason
 
I like 5x4 for traditional format portraits. It just feels like a much more pleasing aspect ratio than 3x2, which whilst absolutely fine in landscape orientation, seems a little tall when up on its side.
 
Lyope said:
I like 5x4 for traditional format portraits. It just feels like a much more pleasing aspect ratio than 3x2, which whilst absolutely fine in landscape orientation, seems a little tall when up on its side.
Click to expand...

I like both, actually. I especially like 5:4 for close headshots. 3:2 can give the subject a little space, which I sometimes like, too.
 
If you're talking actors' headshots for specific casting agencies, then surely you need to talk to those agencies / read their guidelines. 8x10, black and white, that meets XYZ criteria was the format for some of the larger ones, particularly in the US as you say. No point submitting anything else as they wouldn't accept it, and you're just costing your client work.

If it's for personal stuff, selling to individuals to use at home, then who cares - whatever looks good for the shot.
 
Jayst84 said:
If you're talking actors' headshots for specific casting agencies, then surely you need to talk to those agencies / read their guidelines. 8x10, black and white, that meets XYZ criteria was the format for some of the larger ones, particularly in the US as you say. No point submitting anything else as they wouldn't accept it, and you're just costing your client work.

If it's for personal stuff, selling to individuals to use at home, then who cares - whatever looks good for the shot.
Click to expand...

I had an UK agency confirm today, it's 10x8 :)
 
3000 x 2400 pixels will give a 10x8 at 300ppi
 
Jayst84 said:
If it's for personal stuff, selling to individuals to use at home, then who cares - whatever looks good for the shot.
Click to expand...


^This. If it works.. it works.
 
JennyGW said:
No need to count the pixels, just set the ratio ... ?
Click to expand...

Sorry Jenny that's wrong.

The ratio sets just that. The ratio.

It does not set the print size. Setting the ppi value will provide the correct print size (as that is what ppi does for any given resolution).
 
JennyGW said:
Interesting stuff.

I'm thinking about specific requirements. For example, in the USA actor headshots have been colour for a long time and a standard 8x10 size. In the UK I gather that the format was once black and white, though I'm not aware of any standard print size.

Personally, I don't like portrait format portraits. IMHO they make the subject look cramped. 8x10 isn't so bad, 2:3 ratio is my favourite.
Click to expand...

i agree...i tend to start at square and then add the necessary to fill out the interest...and include main body parts...usually head only!!
format wise for printing 10x12 may suit...long side up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top