Do you crop to "standard" ratios?

Disaster_Area

Disaster_Area

Gadget Monger
Local time
2:32 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
877
In the past I've always cropped to the standard ratios; 4X6, 5X7, 8X10 etc... mostly just to make it easier on myself for framing/printing. But lately I've been displaying my work more and more electronically and doing less actual printing so this doesn't make as much sense as it used to.

I'm finding many of my shots are improved significantly by cropping to non-standard ratios... is this common practice for the rest of you?
 
Can't answer the question because I don't crop at all. I'm not a crop hater. It's just my personal style and preferences. That said, if I were to crop, I'll crop to whatever ratio that I think look best. I just like my pictures with edge of film all around when I printed so I have no choice. ;)
 
I typically only crop to 8x10 when I am making a print for a friend or relative. That way they can just drop it a cheap store bought frame if they want to.
 
Last edited:
I don't crop either. Not because I'm a purist but because it's one less thing to worry about. I leave the film borders in. I don't have any clients to please and I like it that way.
In the rare occasions when I do crop, yes, standard ratios.
 
I crop to 8x10, frames and albums are cheaper that way. But everytime I do, it hurts.

As a European in the US, I miss A4.
 
Roland, that's very true about framing cost. Because I don't crop and don't really measure my projected image in darkroom, I have to custom mat every time I frame.

As a Japanese in the US, I miss A4, too. ;)
 
I guess I like making life difficult for myself. If the picture needs it, I crop. Lets face it, most of the time there's more information in the picture than it really needs, especially with a fixed lens rangefinder, to say nothing about medium format. That said, I find that I like the image ratio of 35mm. I use a 4 bladed Saunders easle and leave a large border around the paper because I like the look and it makes picture handling easier. My final long dimension is 8.5 inchs and short dimension is whatever works best, but I try to keep it around 6 inchs. It does mean custom cutting mattes, but if a picture is worth hanging, I think its worth matte cutting.
 
For printing, I crop always. But never to usual ratios: just to what the image needs by intuition... The exception for me is the square, sometimes I use that shape when I crop because I like it a lot.

Cheers,

Juan
 
I never crop. I just don't get it with regards to straight photography. What are the frames inside my camera for then? Part of the fun of using your camera is getting the shot inside the framelines.
 
I crop 99 percent of my images to 8x10 or square. Sure, they are easier to frame, but that isn't why. I just find those proportions aesthetically pleasing. Also, my father taught me to factor in that crop when I was a kid, so it is just automatic these days. The only time I will crop otherwise is if I am making a computer desktop wallpaper for myself or a friend. I have never really liked the normal 35mm rectangle, so I pretty much never use it.
 
Mostly I crop to 35mm ratio or square these days, apart from the odd wide landscape shot I find anything else just feels wrong.
 
Depends: No rules here but a guideline I use, often break it though ;)

If it's a photo that is for some sort of artistic expression I will crop to whatever it may need to enhance/support the point.
If it's a street photo that is more or less documenting a scene then I would probably not crop at all.
 
I only crop to 8x10 if I'm shooting headshots for actors or if I'm printing a photo for someone who's likely to frame it. Makes life a lot easier on them.

For anything of my own, I crop it however it feels right. Any photo bound for a frame will be matted first.
 
Gold is the Standard

Gold is the Standard

Golden Mean ratios have been the standard paper proportions for most printing (include photo prints) from the beginning. It was easily adapted to most lens exposure circles, and it wasn't until reflex viewers and motion picture film (35mm) that the square and wide rectangle came into vogue.
At one time it was daring to print 35mm full frame, after all that required matting as no commercial frames were of that proportion.

With DVD and HD all the rage today, proportions are no longer governed by the beauty of perfectly proportioned math and getting the greatest number of similarly proportioned sheets of paper with the least waste. Who needs paper?
 
I crop to 8x10, especially when it starts as 6x7 or 4x5 or 8x10. Sometimes I forget with 35mm.
 
Oh Two said:
Golden Mean ratios have been the standard paper proportions for most printing (include photo prints) from the beginning. It was easily adapted to most lens exposure circles, and it wasn't until reflex viewers and motion picture film (35mm) that the square and wide rectangle came into vogue.
At one time it was daring to print 35mm full frame, after all that required matting as no commercial frames were of that proportion.

With DVD and HD all the rage today, proportions are no longer governed by the beauty of perfectly proportioned math and getting the greatest number of similarly proportioned sheets of paper with the least waste. Who needs paper?
Click to expand...

the golden mean is 1:1.618, A size paper is 1:1.414 (√2)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom