Irregular Crop Ratios

[2WK]

I see them quite often in peoples portfolios etc. It kind of has the same effect on me as nails on a chalkboard. I know it is a personal preference, but I really prefer (if at all) to crop at 3:2, 6:7 or 1:1. I guess a wide panorama has it's place as well. Maybe I just need to loosen up. How do you guys feel about them?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

There is no reason to be confined to what the camera manufacturer imposes on you. Its about the image, not the gear. Regarding panoramics, there are a number of cameras that produce that as a native format, like the Hasselblad xpan and the Widelux.

 

[msbarnes]

I prefer consistency and so I mostly shoot square.

 

[2WK]

I guess I just like my images a certain shape. Yes I am aware of such panoramic cameras.

 

[DougFord]

I'm the same way. I prefer not to crop at all, but when I do (10%) I always try to stick to the 3:2 aspect ratio.

 

[RichW]

Why should I stick to the camera's sensor ratio? If I was painting a picture I would choose the canvas height and width to best suit the image I had in mind, having said that when I do crop I tend to choose one of these fixed ratios - 1:1, 7:6, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2, 2:1, and 16:9 🙂

R

 

[GaryLH]

Why.. Crop to what is correct for your interpretation why be stuck?

Gary

 

[2WK]

I guess I don't really feel stuck with so many composition options. I have my 3:2, a 1:1, and my mamiya 6x7 has really grown on me.

 

[Mark T]

I agree with the original post. Choose a camera that uses the format you require, and use it to maximum effect. Irregular cropping suggests to me, that the photographer was not skilled enough to make a strong composition with what they have. I can't think of many masters who regularly cropped to irregular ratios? I realise that digital makes it easy to put a box around anything and crop, but I think we should aspire to more don't you?

 

[msbarnes]

I agree with the original post. Choose a camera that uses the format you require, and use it to maximum effect. Irregular cropping suggests to me, that the photographer was not skilled enough to make a strong composition with what they have. I can't think of many masters who regularly cropped to irregular ratios? I realise that digital makes it easy to put a box around anything and crop, but I think we should aspire to more don't you?

Maybe not "irregular" ratios but it is common practice to crop....

Many fashion photographers that shoot (or had shot) 6x6 crop. I think many of them are masters...

 

[bobbyrab]

It largely depends on the ratio to me, I really hate an image that's been cropped to really odd ratio to cut something out of the composition, especially mixed ratios in a set.
With regards fashion photographers cropping from 6x6, I used to know a few photographers that had their Hasselblads ground glass marked off for the ratio they where shooting for, depending on the magazine.

 

[Godfrey]

For me, any individual photo can be whatever format proportion works for the image.

However, when I'm laying out a book or exhibition, I consider the visual language of the sequence of photos. Size, shape, color and tone, spacing, etc all take part as I work to make the overall piece express what I want.

Sometimes uniformity is a good thing. Other times, I need more variety to achieve the goals in mind.

G

 

[froyd]

I also dislike odd ratios. I have a negative reaction to most of the images I see cropped in thin strips or almost squares --but not quite. That is, unless the crop really adds something to the image, but that's extremely rare. Most often, what I see are weird crops that appear to be made with the sole purpose of removing a tree branch or a stray foot that would have ruined the composition.

Also, while I cut my own mats, I buy pre-made frames, so I prefer to have pictures that sit well within the frame.


Funny enough, however, the crop I dislike the most is the relatively standard 6:7 followed closely by the uber popular 8:10.

Long live pure square and the golden ratio rectangles!

 

[jsrockit]

This is a personal preference thing just like film vs. digital, darkroom vs. software, rangefinder vs. slr, etc. Great work has been made with crops, and great work has been without crops. I like the 2:3 aspect ratio, so if I crop, I keep it.

 

[GaryLH]

Forgot to mention my main crops are 3:2, 4:3, 1:1 and Pano. I actually don't like 6x7 so I end up cropping square and compose square...but as I said before, I don't c any reason to limit yourself.

Gary

 

[Dwig]

...

Funny enough, however, the crop I dislike the most is the relatively standard 6:7 followed closely by the uber popular 8:10.

Long live pure square and the golden ratio rectangles!

Personally, I rather dislike square, but otherwise agree.

I generally like rectangles around the golden ratio (~1.6:1 or ~13:8), with 3:2 the most "square" and 1:sqrt(3), ~1:1.7, or 16:9 (~1.77:1) pretty much the "widest". I don't force images into any particular shape; the subject dictates.

 

[lynnb]

If I "see" something it is with my eye, which doesn't come with a standard aspect ratio - although the camera vf aspect ratio does influence how I compose a shot.

I tend to stick to standard aspect ratios to give a uniform look to my photos - and generally, I tend to compose in whatever native aspect the camera has, and then crop if the way I "saw" the scene was different - or if I think another aspect ratio will result in a better image.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

As long as picture framing is appropriate it doesn't matter.
Which crop is this?

 

[GaryLH]

Looks like round from "tiny planets" to me 😛

Gary

 

[Richard G]

I like to keep the ratio of the camera. There is a shadow to the left in one of my recent gallery pictures which might have been cropped out, but I would have had to change the 3:2 ratio to keep the contents I did not want to diminish. The crop would have been minimal, and it think would have made for a better picture. With the Rolleiflex there is a lot more time composing and I don't think I have cropped anything from a Rolleiflex shot yet. Probably haven't taken many more than 60 so far however.