cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

Actually, neither.

RightOnPhotography Loc: Quebec,QC

I don't crop to fit the frame, I crop to fit the composition.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Weak or mindless?
Setting arbitrary boundaries to creativity.
I call that weak and fearful of being different from the same old.
I use ovals, other different shapes.
Even a toilet seat.
Other than the rigid square or rectangle.
Of course on the internet none of that really matters, again bowing down to the corporate demand to be the same.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

For reference, yearbook photos are usually 320x400 pixels (underclass K-11) or 640x800 pixels (seniors). That’s a 4:5 aspect ratio.

loubikes

I let the image dictate the frame size. I also enjoy cutting my own mats on a mat cutter I got at a big box hobby store. The store also sells aluminum frame components that come in pairs. That makes it easy to buy the sizes needed to construct a custom frame. Of course, it's necessary to either cut glass to fit or have the hobby store cut it.

loubikes

I let the image dictate the frame size. I also enjoy cutting my own mats on a mat cutter I got at a big box hobby store. The store also sells aluminum frame components that come in pairs. That makes it easy to buy the sizes needed to construct a custom frame. Of course, it's necessary to either cut glass to fit or have the hobby store cut it.

fhayes Loc: Madison, Tennessee

BRAVO!!!!

no12mo

I crop to composition also

MJPerini

What I fail to understand is why you worry about other people's cropping? (and imply that they are somehow uninformed)
We are all free to shoot and crop in any way we choose.
Most of the so called "standard aspect ratios" came from long traditions of shooting film
4x5,8x10,16x20, and 5x7 & 11x14 Then Roll films which mostly settled on square and 6x7 (8x10).
And finally Oscar Barnack's 2:3 ratio. With 35mm the format was so small that there was a price to cropping so printing Full Frame (often with a pen line around the image became popular) Also, part of the skill of some great photographers is composing within the constraints of the frame (HCB for example)
So MOST photographs fell into relatively few aspect ratios which was reinforced by Paper and frame companies.

But having said that, people have Always cropped for effect. It is just easier with digital and wide format printers.
You should crop your pictures any way you think is appropriate.

As for "What makes photographers believe that they must live in arbitrarily determined sets of dimensions?"
I don't think I have ever met a photographer who believes that......Although I have met plenty who are happy with some of those 'Standards" as a matter of tradition, cost and convenience.
'The Golden Ratio' (1: 1.618) is another historical standard based on Mathematics 1: 1+(Sq Rt5/2)

Klickitatdave Loc: Seattle Washington

Personally I do not crop to according to some arbitrary standard of reference. Rather I crop according to what enhances or supports the basic nature of the subject or story that I am attempting to convey. In other words, for me composition takes priority and more importantly what looks right when it comes to cropping.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I crop simply to what I like.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

I crop until it pleases my eye. Matting helps fit the result into a frame of which there are many sizes and shapes.

druthven

I crop a photo to the dimensions that look right and best to me, with no regard to standard sizes or ratios.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Rules need to be understood, then you break them.
Or you can stay stuck mindlessly following the rules and never rise above them.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The game of life has losers and winners. If you won't obey the rules, on which list will you land?