Cropping Orthodixy
Jan 6, 2012 23:25:53 #
When I was working with film I remember using an adjustable paper holder that allowed me to print images that did not conform to standard print sizes ie 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 etc. I usually did this because the altered format was more consistent with the composition I had in mind a particular image. Often with landscape images, a panaroma-like format (far greater width to height ratio) seemed most pleasing to my eye. I am new to digital photography and a complete novice at post processing, but I have discovered that almost all imagemanaging/editing software makes cropping extremley easy. I would greatly value the thoughts of folks regarding the aesthetic and technical implication and consequences of custom cropping.
Thank you, Phil
Thank you, Phil
Jan 6, 2012 23:33:12 #
You got it! Crop to fit the image/composition. One can always get a standard size frame, but then mat the custom crop.
Jan 6, 2012 23:39:50 #
I messed up. Meant to post this as the third image. Here are a couple more.
Jan 6, 2012 23:56:34 #
Jan 7, 2012 00:13:01 #
I enjoy cropping images to their best format. But for sales, 4x6 and 8x10 are still the accepted standard.
Jan 7, 2012 00:19:07 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
I enjoy cropping images to their best format. But for sales, 4x6 and 8x10 are still the accepted standard.
I believe 16x20 is a better standard for sales. :-)
But yes, from an aesthetic perspective, crop for effect and not to some standard frame size. Same for competition images - crop for impact!
Jan 7, 2012 00:26:37 #
I don't have any issues with a custom crop if an image can be best displayed in that format.. A 2:1 crop can usually fit the bill.
However, I am not a fan of indiscriminately cropping to "fit the image" which has become popular with web postings.. I almost always crop to a standard, like 3:2, or in verticals 4:5 (8x10) in my master files.. there are, of course, some exceptions
Once you crop and finish, that part of the image is lost.. If you maintain maximum frame in your "master", you can always crop to the 2:1 (or whatever) to print
However, I am not a fan of indiscriminately cropping to "fit the image" which has become popular with web postings.. I almost always crop to a standard, like 3:2, or in verticals 4:5 (8x10) in my master files.. there are, of course, some exceptions
Once you crop and finish, that part of the image is lost.. If you maintain maximum frame in your "master", you can always crop to the 2:1 (or whatever) to print
Jan 7, 2012 00:30:28 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
rockdog wrote:
When I was working with film I remember using an a... (show quote)
Phil, there was a time I'd agree with all the other posts here and on one level I still do, but looking at your work it came to me that I think you allow the subject to tell you how it wants to be cropped. It's a vision thing - a way of seeing - a way that appears to best express your perceptions and the need of the subject.....probably makes no sense as there is no formulae other that what tugs the heart strings...
Jan 7, 2012 01:52:34 #
Thank you Nikonian72, CaptainC, and LarryD, I appreciate the fact that there are standards in the market place. I have always kind of wondered why. I know some print sizes corresponded to negative size (4x6=35mm) I think.
But then did the market place just get used to certain format sizes therefor making them standards? Thank you for your thoughts.
But then did the market place just get used to certain format sizes therefor making them standards? Thank you for your thoughts.
Jan 7, 2012 01:58:12 #
docrob wrote:
quote=rockdog When I was working with film I reme... (show quote)
I like the way you said it docrob. I'm ok with allowing the subject tell me how it wants to be cropped. I'm ok with paying attention to what tugs on my heart strings too. Thanks for your thoughts.
Jan 7, 2012 02:03:51 #
CaptainC wrote:
I believe 16x20 is a better standard for sales.
For every one of my mounted & glassed 16x20s sold, I also sell at least twenty (20) each mounted & glassed 4x5s, and about four (4) each 8x10s. The mark-up percentage is the same. You do the math.
Jan 7, 2012 09:41:11 #
CaptainC wrote:
I believe 16x20 is a better standard for sales. :-)
But yes, from an aesthetic perspective, crop for effect and not to some standard frame size. Same for competition images - crop for impact!
Nikonian72 wrote:
I enjoy cropping images to their best format. But for sales, 4x6 and 8x10 are still the accepted standard.
I believe 16x20 is a better standard for sales. :-)
But yes, from an aesthetic perspective, crop for effect and not to some standard frame size. Same for competition images - crop for impact!
CaptainC, I agree 16x20 should be the standard. I have many photos printed & custom framed that are purchased by local motels for their rooms because they show different events that go on in the Wildwoods. The 16x20 indicate the quality better.
I crop at least 85% of my photos. Most of the times I go larger because I know I can crop, for 16x20 (8x10), 4x6, etc.
Jan 7, 2012 11:00:01 #
rockdog wrote:
When I was working with film I remember using an a... (show quote)
Rock, Costco prints a 12x36 inch "poster" size, I bet others do as well. I've had this done and it works quite nice. There are also pre-made frames and matting for this size as well. If you could manage to crop your photos to standard sizes you can save yourself a lotta headaches later on. Check out printing and framing sites to see all the combinations.
Jan 7, 2012 13:30:03 #
rockdog wrote:
When I was working with film I remember using an a... (show quote)
I've always enjoyed wide panoramic views like those you posted. If you can get it printed as wide as it needs to be, go for it! Don't worry about frames and mattes because one of your panoramas can fit into a normal frame with a custom matte to fit your custom cropping size.
By the way, some of the new cameras (like my Sony Alpha 55) can do wide format shots and save them as such without having to crop as much as you do with standard "rectangular" format.
Another process you might want to look into, since you are into panoramic, is software that will blend, adjust vertical components to be straight up, and stitch several shots together into an incredibly wide panorama that can be almost 180 degrees wide without fish-eye effect and it doesn't need any cropping at all.
Nice work, by the way...
Jan 7, 2012 14:41:00 #
marcomarks wrote:
quote=rockdog When I was working with film I reme... (show quote)
Thank you for your thoughts marcomarks. I am aware of stitch-together software, but I have so many basic PP processes to try to get a handle on before I even consider processes on that level of sophistication. I appreciate your comments.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.