Cropping to standard aspect ratios.

rh1944

rh1944

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,971
Edit My Images
Yes
This may well be a topic you have debated before so please point me to the correct thread and I'll go read for myself.

I don't believe in the purist's adage that you should never crop as it's all in the composition. I have noticed that there are a lot of odd shapes on this forum. I looked at one set of 5 photos to find the dimensions (to a maximum of 800 pixels on one side) were 507, 536, 630, 634 and 640. Of these five, only the last is a standard aspect ratio - 10x8.

All pictures leave the camera in one standard ratio or another. I have some photos that are so bad I can't crop them to a standard ratio so I leave them in the original or bin them. Why do people feel the need to crop to non standard aspect ratios?
 
the only time I ever crop is when I need a wallpaper for someone, otherwise I leave pictures the way they are, or unless I took a picture that has a massive one sided empty space and then I try to maintain aspect ratios.
 
Guilty as charged :thumbs:
if I am going to print something I will crop to a standard ratio, if I am sharing
as in here, then I might well crop to an "unorthodox" aspect to get the best out of it and to remain within the forum rules
 
I'm really not bothered about standard aspect ratios tbh. If I feel a shot would benefit from a crop to tidy up the composition then I just crop it so that I'm happy with it.
 
Cobra said:
Guilty as charged :thumbs:
Click to expand...

There are so many wonderful photographs on this site that I infer that wonderful photographers took them. If this is the case, then why do these photographers have to change the dimensions of something that is excellent anyway?
 
Grendel said:
I'm really not bothered about standard aspect ratios tbh. If I feel a shot would benefit from a crop to tidy up the composition then I just crop it so that I'm happy with it.
Click to expand...

Then why did they invent the standard aspect ratios? And what would you print your shots onto?
 
I print all my shots at A4 and "shrink to fit them" to the longest edge. Works for me :shrug:

I wouldn't dream of binning a shot I was pleased with just because the crop didn't conform to a standard
 
when crop the shots, hold shift or use 'constrain proportions' and it won't affect or spoil the shots. :)
 
rh1944 said:
Then why did they invent the standard aspect ratios? And what would you print your shots onto?
Click to expand...


Because film has to have a shape. I tend to limit myself to 5x4, 3x2 or 1x1 but do occaisionally try something different.

Surely you aren't against a panoramic. You can print and leave white space and then trin the print. It's up to the artist to pick the best way to show their work...
 
grumpybadger said:
Because film has to have a shape. I tend to limit myself to 5x4, 3x2 or 1x1 but do occaisionally try something different.

Surely you aren't against a panoramic. You can print and leave white space and then trin the print. It's up to the artist to pick the best way to show their work...
Click to expand...

I'm all for panoramic shots when they work. I have just spent some time on a course with a bloke who does 360s - they look good for some places and don't work in others.

I agree with you that it's up to the artist to pick the best way to display their work. When it comes to writing English, George Orwell suggested six very prescriptive rules which allow anyone to write excellent English. Do photographers need more freedom for their work?
 
rh1944 said:
There are so many wonderful photographs on this site that I infer that wonderful photographers took them. If this is the case, then why do these photographers have to change the dimensions of something that is excellent anyway?
Click to expand...
I guess like any industry there have to be standards to work to
and the rules say that 3/2 ( or whatever) is a standard size to print.
Now we can't have people wanting random size prints now can we where ever would it lead to? (tic)
rh1944 said:
. Do photographers need more freedom for their work?
Click to expand...

If photography is an art form them yes, freedom to express themselves however they see fit.
Its a good job that picasso's Mum didn't say " you can't do that Pablo" :D
 
If a photo works better in a crop, it needs a crop, simple as. Changing the dimensions to fit a frame is missing the point of the photo. If you need it to fit into a specific frame that's when you can use a mount at a standard size and cut an aperture for the photo as needed.
 
To me the shots usually cry to be cropped in a certain way. Usually any crops I make have already been decided upon at the time of shooting.

I generally keep my crops to 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 and 3:2 though for handiness when printing and framing.
 
Grendel said:
I'm really not bothered about standard aspect ratios tbh. If I feel a shot would benefit from a crop to tidy up the composition then I just crop it so that I'm happy with it.
Click to expand...
I go along with that - the format is set, so sometimes when I take a shot, I know that I will crop it in PP, to get the result I require.
 
To be fair I am definately guilty of non standard heights, and its lazyness due to me not printing. If I had to print every shot, I know for a fact I would take more care compsing my shot, and getting it right in the box. All too often I will see a scene and deliberately "shoot larger" knowing I can crop in. Its better having too much than too little.

Perhaps I should set myself a challenge to stick to standard aspects...

Gary.
 
I often crop 4:3 (specifically, 300x225 pixels) as it suits many images per webpage quite well and the images are likely to have more impact than if left 3:2. I could save time if I didn't impose any constraint.

An argument against 645 (4:3) was that you could shoot 6x6 or 6x7 and crop 645 landscape or portrait without needing to rotate the camera.

However did 5x7 prints get foisted on most of us instead of 5x7.5? Why do those all in one camera and printer kits print 4x6 but are supplied with 4:3 cameras?

Thank gawd 16:9 isn't normal.
 
I used to crop to any ratio, but now i restrict myself to what the camera (D300) produces 3:2? I'll occasionally also crop to 1:1.
 
Personally I dont think we are tied by the constraints of yesteryear, I used to send off 99% of my shots for printing so was limited to the sizes of standard ratios to suit 6x4, 7x5, 8x6, 8x10 etc. but not now, now I can print, mount, frame just about any ratio possible so why limit myself to standard ratios.

I agree about the shot being in the composition, but occasionally as stated before life does not support standard ratios :)

And still if I am sending my shots away I always make sure that the image conforms to whatever size the media supports as there is nothing worse than a printing house chopping off the best bit of your image :'(

Scott.
 
Hmmmm, Interesting debate going on here,:clap:

In my opinion, photography is art......... An art gallery for painters doesn't have all the cavasses of the same ratio, the artist makes up his canvas and frame to what ever size he/she likes.

The difference is that, photographers are given their aspect ratio to start with (film/sensor) but, if it doesn't suit the composition then I have no problem cropping.

I dont see printing a problem, if you have to trim the paper to suit the image then in my eye's your just furthering your art by creating something from something else, especially if it is going on a wall.
:)
 
My feeling is that the majority have no problems cropping to any aspect ratio that enhances the shot. I need to do some catching up, as I can happily use standard cropping ratios and get the shot I want.

What criteria can you use to say, this crop is ridiculous? Or are all crops acceptable?
 
Personally, 99% of what I do is in 3x2, constrained to what comes out of the camera. I'll only alter this if the composition calls for it.
 
d_pipa said:
when crop the shots, hold shift or use 'constrain proportions' and it won't affect or spoil the shots. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip. It reads like the way I use my post prod software.

As I understand it, Ansell Adams used to crop the subject by using two L shaped cards which he would place in front of the camera in order to obscure stuff he didn't want in the shot. Thus he could have any aspect ratio that suited him in obscuring the details, but not in his camera.

Then when he got the negative, he had what he needed for his darkroom post prod.
 
rh1944 said:
My feeling is that the majority have no problems cropping to any aspect ratio that enhances the shot. I need to do some catching up, as I can happily use standard cropping ratios and get the shot I want.

What criteria can you use to say, this crop is ridiculous? Or are all crops acceptable?
Click to expand...


Personally I like to think I'm being creative and following my own rules , for, dare I say it, my arty photos. ... however I'm not sure if arty cropping fits for all categories, like portraiture perhaps... Do the standard aspect rations actually fit better and are ideal for those typical and classic photographs for instance? The human face being one of the original factors governing symmetry, photo rules and aspect ratios.

In fact I'm quite surprised this thread isn't full of anti cropping opinions, I'm kinda thinking it would have been a few years ago, keeping aspects accurate used to be a big thing if I remember right. I know people used to frown on my extravagant crops initally... perhaps all of us anything goes croppers have actually changed some opinions over the years...
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
In fact I'm quite surprised this thread isn't full of anti cropping opinions, I'm kinda thinking it would have been a few years ago, keeping aspects accurate used to be a big thing if I remember right. I know people used to frown on my extravagant crops initally... perhaps all of us anything goes croppers have actually changed some opinions over the years...
Click to expand...

I can think of a number of panos where the cropping has been over the top. What might have been a 3600 by 2700 has been cropped to a 3000 by 750 with almost three quarters of the photo thrown away. If people want only a quarter of what they shoot, why shoot it at all?
 
I didnt come into photography from a film base so I was never restricted to a particular ratio, so dont feel a need to make my images 'fit' anything. I feel my photos should display the balance that makes them pleasing to the (my) eye and if it needs it I happily crop away and dont even notice the 'unconformity' of mine or other folks pics!

I guess this is just one of those areas where we will never all agree and what a boring world if we did.

:lol:
 
Graphic-Addict said:
I guess this is just one of those areas where we will never all agree and what a boring world if we did.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Then is it time for the software jocks to give us post prod software that allows cropping with angles other than 90 degrees and the ability to generate asymmetrical shapes?
 
I normally view my photos on a 40" 1920x1080 HD TV, and I never ever print. So I like to crop my photos to a 16:9 ratio, for personal use, so long as I can do so without compromising the aesthetics of the image. I see absolutely no sense in being constrained to 3:2 or 4:3 ratio just because that's the shape of the camera sensor. You might equally argue that I should not feel constrained to use 16:9 just because that is the shape of my TV, but my images do look fabulous when filling the screen to the corners and that suits me just fine.

For forum use I'll probably just resize the original uncropped photograph, or create a 100% crop of any old size that illustrates whatever point I am making.

For stock uploads I'll do whatever is most aesthetically pleasing. Ideally that will mean no cropping at all, but sometimes the sensor shape does not allow me to get the composition I would wish.
 
rh1944 said:
Then is it time for the software jocks to give us post prod software that allows cropping with angles other than 90 degrees and the ability to generate asymmetrical shapes?
Click to expand...

You know I was just thinking that as I scrolled to your post. Why is it that we all stick to squares and rectangles anyway? :shrug:


rh1944 said:
as I can happily use standard cropping ratios and get the shot I want.
Click to expand...

But this has to be the main point that you've made. You're happy. Surely that's got to be the most important bit, whatever fulfills your creative needs as an artist is the right thing to be doing.
 
I crop to whatever I think looks best, not big on rules for a hobby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top