Rongnongno Loc: FL

Once again I see misinformation about 'filling the frame'.

For some 'filling the frame' means user the sensor to its fullest in order to use every pixel.

It does not work that way. Regardless of what your end purpose it every capture needs some tweaking (sorry SOCC guys and gals). Tweaking maybe minor (rotating slightly) if you just post on the WEB. This rotation creates a crop so you lose some of your 'precious' pixels.

More often than not you need to crop to a set size that will force cropping. If you have 'filled the sensor' that will to cropping part of your image ans basically destroy it.

Whenever you shoot anything think of the end result you want, not filling your damned sensor. This means your composition must respect the end result and take into account the cropping (and rotating) you will need.

We had a case recently where printing involved such cropping and destroyed the capture. The op has likely learned something.

PP solution.... Post processing is not about correcting such mistake (or any other for that matter) PP is made to enhance a capture, nothing else unless you enter 'interpretative photography processing' that includes compositing and the like.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Rongn..., I don't fill the frame completely, but almost works well. That's just enough around the edges to allow for minor adjustments. You mentioned SOOC folks. Those are snapshot artists. Photography requires both the initial capture and then the processing. Oh, and those who prefer to replace elements of the image, such as sky, are graphic artists.
--Bob

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Learned that around 1955

tomcat

Agree totally, I always "back off" when adjusting the composition in the viewfinder. I usually compose for the 2x3 ratio. It also allows for a 4x5 ratio to be cropped out of it.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I wind up cropping most of my pics thus I seldom "fill the frame"

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Perception is reality for the perceiver... the image is the first of 3 steps; appropriate matting and then framing is very important to the final product. Proper use of matting in both size and color combined with pleasing complementary framing can really do a lot to enhance any viewing experience... Just my personal thoughts...

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

You are so correct. I often change ratios from the camera's 2:3. Perhaps from being from the film days I have always allowed unneeded space or information around my main subject. I can often even change from landscape to portrait with no trouble. Going from portrait to landscape is expectantly difficult. I often straighten horizons and vertical lines and so loose edge pixels. And there have been times when I so misjudged placement and size of my image that I had to reshoot to get what I had intended.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Lower your expectations to fit your results ...

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

I’d like to see photo finishers and frame manufacturers get together and start producing products that actually match the full frame format. The only standard size that does is 4x6. 8x12, 16x24 etc are virtually non existent at frame stores. If they were, photographers could fill the frame and compose precisely as it shows in camera. Another thing I’d like to see is in-camera masking. This would allow you to set an exact formatted crop to fit the media you’re shooting for. A similar use would be a head size crop so portraits shown side by side in publications appear consistent.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

When I am shooting a basketball game and my iso is 6400-8000 there is no room for any cropping. Each and every time you crop your hurting the quality of the print. I am talking about very high iso in a crop sensor camera. The Nikon D500 does not handle high iso very good. This is for inside sports work. Look at each shot at 100% and you will see how much the pixels are doing. Just my opinion..

Kozan Loc: Trenton Tennessee

I'm with you Ron.

I tend to shoot really tight. So tight I can't print a true 8 x 10 shot. So I took enough time and experimented to find exactly how I should frame the shot in order to be able to crop in post to a 8 x 10 print. It turns out to be a very simple solution. Since I am shooting in 3 x 2 format, and my screen is exactly 3 inches wide, I just mentally take off 1/12 of each side which is 0.25". The height from top to bottom corresponds to the 8" side of my print. As long as I stay within that border I can crop to 8" x 10".
I may even put a very thin strip of red tape over the screen to make sure I stay within that boundary.

Thanks for the post.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

A couple of things...

Good, practices technique can minimize the need for some later processing, as can using the capabilities provided by our cameras, like virtual horizon functions. And...several of my cameras offer the option to shoot in 5:4 format. In the case of the D850, the viewfinder provides a "hard" mask that makes it very easy to do.

All that said, 5x7 prints require removing only about 7 or 8% of the ends of the print, and I have no trouble having 8x12 or 16x24 prints made at my printer.

So there are options that allow filling the frame pretty fully, if that is the way you prefer to shoot.

srt101fan

A 100% crop works well on some of my pictures.....

User ID

The 2:3 format was never intended
to be useful without cropping.

Acoarst the 2:3 is not unique in that
aspect ... 1:1 as the most obvious.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Like almost everything in photography no one thing does it all -- But years ago when I was a kid with my 1st camera Filling the Frame was an excellent 1st step quickly followed by backing off a bit & then & then quite a few other things -- And now sometimes I even get it almost right