Do You Compose for the Final Print Format?

I like to think I do. But mostly there is something I don't like at the sides that I want to crop out. Or worse something that I would like to see more of, like this one I would have liked the nose of the boat not cut off:

4666840403_42937e0d6d.jpg
 
My portfolio is laid out horizontally. And most of my prints tend to be 4x6 which matches the 35mm aspect ratio. So I guess I do tend to compose for the print.
 
I try to frame in-viewfinder. I use my two-feet zoom to do so. But sometimes, when I'm in a hurry, or just being careless, I will realize after scanning there was too much foreground, or too much air to one side or another. Then comes the cropper. Seldom do I get too much upper air.
 
I consciously ensure there is some extra room on the long sides for the common 8x10 prints.

A good book on this subject is Michale Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye" by Focal Press.
 
I like to print full frame on 5x7 paper. That brings my current problem. many times my pictures are misshapen, as if they weren't lying flat in my 23CII's negative carrier. When that happens, I crop to get rid of the problem. Drives me nuts!
Vic
 
I try to compose for the final print but I like to have a little room to do some rotation or distortion correction with PS if it's needed. I do crop sometime a bit from the 3:2 ratio but most prints are close to that.
 
Why in the world would anyone let the size or shape of the paper dictate the photograph? It's the image that is important, the paper is simply the media that shows the print! Crop, or don't crop, whatever your pleasure is, but it is the image that is important. If you don't use up every square inch of paper, who cares?
 
John Rountree said:
Why in the world would anyone let the size or shape of the paper dictate the photograph? It's the image that is important, the paper is simply the media that shows the print! Crop, or don't crop, whatever your pleasure is, but it is the image that is important. If you don't use up every square inch of paper, who cares?
Click to expand...

++

I'd add that there are plenty of very important aesthetic reasons for aspect ratios being what they are. You don't see too many triangular photographs, do you? Western classical art has conditioned us to expect a certain way of presenting an image. In general, those "rules" of composition work well. The Golden Section/Ratio is a fundamental principle of geometry whose discovery goes back over 2400 years. That principle even applies in nature and music. Those concepts of geometry informed how the Renaissance artists saw and depicted the world. And, finally, there is something to be said for art working within limits. See my Orson Welles quote.
 
I compose with the arbitrary frame the camera gives me, and leave it that way for the print.
Yes it's limiting. That's a good thing, I think.

Cheers,
Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom