Crop Tighter!

wadesworld

I realize there's no one answer for this, but I'm wondering how often folks will change aspect ratio in order to crop tighter.

With a lot of pictures, maintaing aspect ratio makes it impossible to get a crop that provides much benefit beyond the original photo. Sure, you may be able to cut out 25% of dead space, but with 75% still there, you're not buying a whole lot.

Changing to a non-constrained crop obviously lets you crop to exactly what you want, but you run the risk of running into issues when printing.

Thoughts?

silversx80

Just to be a smartass , who says you've gotta print in standard sizes? Who says you're going to print it?

wadesworld

silversx80 wrote:

Just to be a smartass , who says you've gotta print in standard sizes? Who says you're going to print it?

True, and you may not. But if you're posting images of say kid sports, I would think it would be reasonable to expect that at some point, a parent is going to print it. I certainly is true that you have no idea at what size they're going to print though.

Richard

If you are only planning on showing pics on the Web, I don't think it matters much. I will resort to a non-standard ratio once in a blue moon, but otherwise, I stick to the standards, one of which usually works.

pathfinder

Wasn't that one of the advantages of shooting larger formats - 2 1/4, 4x5, that you could still crop a portion of the image without significantly compromising image quality?

Many portraits seem to end up 4x5, 8x10, 16x20 even though most cameras shoot 2:3 or square.

I don't there is single consistent answer to your question, but that many shooters handle this issue differently.

I print many of my images as shot, but this means I have 10 x 15 in prints, or 12 x 18 in prints. Works ok for landscapes, but maybe not ideal for portraiture. 4x5 ratio just seems to work for portraits and people.

zoomer

I am sure people would be surprised to know how few pictures ever get printed these days.
The vast majority of photos are only ever viewed on a screen somewhere, the crop doesn't matter.

I never pay any attention to aspect ration, if my eye says it needs a crop I crop it.

For team sports of kids I would not crop them at all. If a parent asks for a crop later then do it....no way of telling what they will want.

Art Scott

I always crop shots to how I want them to print......normally the 4x5 aspect ratio..............I also try to shoot with this in mind.

chrisjohnson

Most camera sensors have an aspect ratio of 1:1.5 - convenient for the traditional print size of 4x6 (1:1.5) and no cropping required.

In the 1980s a lot of study was done on how people ideally prefer to see images (on TV). The change was made from 4x3 (1:1.33) to 16x9 (1:1.77) - it has taken thirty years for the industry to implement and consumers to adopt but nowadays the 16x9 is the standard aspect ratio for display screens.

Cameras are hanging in between - with a normal aspect ratio of 1:1.5. I suspect someone will come with a revision of sensor dimensions to 1:1.77 at some time, but considering the impact on lens families and everything else this might take another 30 years, if ever. Meantime we learn cropping.

I suspect most of us will want our photos to be viewed full-frame on a hd screen at some time and so a 1:1.77 crop will become a basic crop format.

The photos I publish are all for web-sites or pdfs and then I crop to fit the space - no problems. When you make portraits to hang on the wall, you have different requirements - maybe to fit a standard frame or the much loved 8x10. The crop format depends on your output requirements. Almost all your photos need to be cropped before publishing unless you want to use 4x6 prints.

pathfinder

Several Point and Shoot cameras shoot 16:9 ratios now - I know many Lumix P&Ss do.

Since I can watch my still images on my large screen TV, I do not feel disadvantaged, that they are not all cropped to 16:9 ratios though. Neither are the B&W movies from the 30s and 40s but they are still worth watching too( some of them anyway )

chrisjohnson

pathfinder wrote:

Several Point and Shoot cameras shoot 16:9 ratios now - I know many Lumix P&Ss do.

Since I can watch my still images on my large screen TV, I do not feel disadvantaged, that they are not all cropped to 16:9 ratios though. Neither are the B&W movies from the 30s and 40s but they are still worth watching too( some of them anyway )

I believe most point and shoot cameras offer 16:9 via an in-camera crop. I think they mostly use 1:1.33 sensors - to fit previous generation tvs and pc monitors, presumably.

Thanks for the pointer to Panasonic - it seems they did launch a new wider sensor last year and cleverly stretched their format. They claim 16:9 although it looks to me that their ratio is somewhere around 1:1.63 and not yet the 1:1.77 that they would need for a true native compatibility with 16:9. Marketing BS.

As you say Pathfinder, it probably does not matter that much - still full screen is always nice. It will be interesting to see whether the move to wider sensors happens - I expect it will.

As it is most images will need cropping so it DOES make sense to shoot with the most likely crop in mind. I guess some dslrs can put this in the viewfinder - mine does not which is a pity.