In camera format options - why? (Page 2): If you know before pushing the shutter button the finished image will be square (or some other non-2x3) format, shooting in the square format...

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

DaveyDitzer wrote:

My Nikon D850 offers a number of format sizes in the menu. I tested a square format shot with a FF shot then cropped to the same size image. I could not see a difference in the results and the file sizes are almost the same: so why not just shoot FF and post crop to the desire format size? What am I missing?
Thanks in advance for your help.

If you know before pushing the shutter button the finished image will be square (or some other non-2x3) format, shooting in the square format could help in composing the image in-camera to possibly reduce cropping in post. There are some of us that used square medium format film cameras and have learned to like that format.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

DaveyDitzer wrote:

...why not just shoot FF and post crop to the desire format size?...

Bingo! We have a winner!

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

Ysarex wrote:

You're missing that someone might want a finished camera JPEG without having to post process.

I'm thinking that the person who spends the money for a D-850 and appropriate lenses will rarely be satisfied with an SOC Jpeg.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

jackm1943 wrote:

If you know before pushing the shutter button the finished image will be square (or some other non-2x3) format, shooting in the square format could help in composing the image in-camera to possibly reduce cropping in post. There are some of us that used square medium format film cameras and have learned to like that format.

I have shot lots of weddings with a Bronica 6x6 and always cropped them to 4x5 formats before presenting them to customers. Usually 4x5 for proofs, 8x10 for albums.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Alafoto wrote:

I have shot lots of weddings with a Bronica 6x6 and always cropped them to 4x5 formats before presenting them to customers. Usually 4x5 for proofs, 8x10 for albums.

I can fully understand that because square is not traditional for wedding type images. I have had three square format cameras over the years (just one now) and almost always tried to compose for the square and didn't crop in post or in the darkroom unless for a smaller square. I'm sure us square format lovers are in the minority tho.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

jackm1943 wrote:

I can fully understand that because square is not traditional for wedding type images. I have had three square format cameras over the years (just one now) and almost always tried to compose for the square and didn't crop in post or in the darkroom unless for a smaller square. I'm sure us square format lovers are in the minority tho.

Yeah, but there were some great cameras in that format. Notably the Hasselblad and the Rollei.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Why? For no good reason IMHO! Use the full frame aspect ratio and crop as needed after the fact.

User ID

Kozan wrote:

The only problem i see is that if you want to print 8 x 10 but your in-camera settings are for 3 x 2 format, you may not be able to crop to 8 x 10. Some camera clubs require 8 x 10 format. It is frustrating trying to print a 8 x 10 picture and being able to crop properly is just not there. I have since marked my 3x2 screen with the 8 x 10 lines so I know where to take the image so I can crop.

Just *cannot* see how such a problem could actually arise .....

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

jackm1943 wrote:

I can fully understand that because square is not traditional for wedding type images. I have had three square format cameras over the years (just one now) and almost always tried to compose for the square and didn't crop in post or in the darkroom unless for a smaller square. I'm sure us square format lovers are in the minority tho.

The photographer for my daughter’s wedding said the final format was instinctive and he didn’t have to rotate the camera. He also knew if someone’s eyes were closed. That was film era so he couldn’t chimp. He had a little practice. He was booked a year in advance.

User ID

rmalarz wrote:

Sort of like a digital Polaroid.
--Bob

And absolutely free, with no expiration date and no caustic litter to dispose of.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

DaveyDitzer wrote:

My Nikon D850 offers a number of format sizes in the menu. I tested a square format shot with a FF shot then cropped to the same size image. I could not see a difference in the results and the file sizes are almost the same: so why not just shoot FF and post crop to the desire format size? What am I missing?
Thanks in advance for your help.

One gets to see the image in the actual "frame". They can see if anything is sticking out of the frame. And they do not have to PP crop.

User ID

Alafoto wrote:

I'm thinking that the person who spends the money for a D-850 and appropriate lenses will rarely be satisfied with an SOC Jpeg.

You are ignoring the people who just throw money at a problem. They are hardly a rare breed.

Often the problem is they’re unhappy with their SOC JPGs from whatever camera they use. Soooo, throw more money at the problem. The result is another D850 sale, another confused hapless high end user, and maybe a brand new Hoglander ;-)

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

User ID wrote:

Just *cannot* see how such a problem could actually arise .....

Have it printed as an 8x12, use paper cutter to "crop" to 8x10 for submission. Of course you need to frame your shot loosely.

Kozan Loc: Trenton Tennessee

jackm1943 wrote:

If you know before pushing the shutter button the finished image will be square (or some other non-2x3) format, shooting in the square format could help in composing the image in-camera to possibly reduce cropping in post. There are some of us that used square medium format film cameras and have learned to like that format.

Have you ever tried filling the frame on a 2x3 format image. You can not crop to 4x5 format. You will wind up with a 10x6 image. Now the only solution is to shoot so loose that you have plenty of room to crop. But, that wastes pixels. Maybe that doesn't really matter. I'm sure for commercial photographers, it would matter.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Kozan wrote:

Have you ever tried filling the frame on a 2x3 format image. You can not crop to 4x5 format. You will wind up with a 10x6 image. Now the only solution is to shoot so loose that you have plenty of room to crop. But, that wastes pixels. Maybe that doesn't really matter. I'm sure for commercial photographers, it would matter.

This is why Olympus and Panasonic went 4/3rds. It is closer to the majority of the standard print sizes than 2X3 format. That means less cropping of pixels of the image and more "fill the frame" shooting with less worry of cut off. It is very rare for me to think about "shrinking" the image when I am shooting to make sure that I have the image. As long as everything is in my 4/3rds viewfinder, I shoot. Never have had to worry about whether I got the image such that it could be printed in any standard print sizes with the most pixels.