I was in the habit of cropping to fit a standard paper size thus making printing easy.
Is it better to crop for best look and then try and fit it on paper? How do other people do it?
Just some thoughts. Thanks for any input
Printable View
I was in the habit of cropping to fit a standard paper size thus making printing easy.
Is it better to crop for best look and then try and fit it on paper? How do other people do it?
Just some thoughts. Thanks for any input
Hi JP,
When I'm in the field, I really don't think about cropping. I do work my way IN from wider angles to full frame heads (if I can). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't photograph my subjects thinking what I can and can't do in photoshop. With that said, you always want to have a little room for cropping if possible.
Agree with you Maxis, better to give more room to more in the field for flexibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxis Gamez
Robert
Hi JP!Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Bruce
Good to see you here!
Well I think it all depends on the final destination of your prints. I think the best way is crop for the very best look and trim the print afterwards. I really dislike the common standard size ratios anyway. I prefer the wide sizes, 8x12, 11x16 etc or better yet roll paper and custom.
Robert
Hey JP,
Since my dark room days, I've always tried to compose in the viewfinder and then print to the composition. If that meant using the entire 2:3 ratio of the 35mm format (and now my 20D), thats how I printed (8x10 was just plain stupid for 35mm. It made sense if you used 4x5 though) Now when printing on my home printer I'm forced to use the stupid 8.5 x 11 size of the paper. **** stupid! I just resize the long dimension to 11 inches and let the other dimension fall to the natural 7.333 inches. I'll trim or matt out the rest. If the image works better in a non-native crop, such as 4:5 or 1:1, I print the size I want and then trim off the unused portion.
Disregard the cropping altogether Just compose for best composition
The prints I do (not many) are displayed by flush mounting on foam board (1/2 inch) and that is it No frame glass or mat Just under 13x17 go for about $20 dollars Don't worry much about protecting The do last and if anything happens will print again
Hi JP,
To answer the question you asked,
Once you capture the subject, you have the opportunity to present the subject in the way that you think is the most pleasing. I sometimes create many different crops of a shot so I can see them different ways: Std (2x3), 4x5/8x10, square, or custom, depending on the shape of the subject and how much of the environment I want to include. I think each image demands its own evaluation.
I usually try to crop to one of the above formats because frames are readily available for those sizes without having to build a custom size frame, although I have a number of images that will require a custom frame because of my choice of cropped size.
As Al mentioned above, when flush mounting, you have complete freedom, and I think he makes an excellent point.
I sometimes take a group of shots that lend themselves to smaller squares and hang them as a group, framed.
Some shots lend themselves better to 8x10 format than 12x18 in my eye.
Of course, if it is an isolated subject with totally blurred background, you will have to decide on the format, 2x3, 4x5, square, custom, etc to show an appropriate amount of background.
In lightroom, I save a number of "Snapshots" (differently cropped and/or processed) versions of the same original image, without having to create multiple copies. Very convenient. Plus, some images can be appealing cropped more than one way, and each can be exported individually to CS3 for final processing, printing and framing.
The wonderful thing about photography for me, is that each of us gets to present our images the way we think is the most pleasing. Then we get to see how others present their images.
However you present your images at a given time, your style shows through, and we are all interested in seeing the results of your artistic talent.
Take care and have fun.
JP,
In camera, I generally try to get the subject (wildlife) in a position in the image that allows me to make a pleasing crop later. Landscapes I will be more diligent, moving more and changing lenses, etc. to get closer to what I want.
In PS I always optimize the full image. I do not crop. Then later I will crop to suit the output. If I am doing a JPG for posting, I will crop to what I call my creative crop. If I am doing postcards I crop to maximize that output. If I am going to make a bunch of matted prints for a bin, I will crop to a standard size to save money. Fro me it depends upon the output. If I am going to hang it in my home, or is I am making an unmatted print for one of my galleries, I always do that as my creative crop.
The requirements are apparently very different for wildlife and birders than landscapers and fine art printmakers (me). However, I was shocked to see Alfred say "Disregard the cropping altogether. Just compose for best composition".
Is the difference that great?
Cropping is your most powerful compositional tool. When used properly and effectively, the results can be astounding. I've studied photographic craft for many years which included classes in tonal and image management. Our biggest joke was 'I crop in the camera'. Don't disregard cropping. Fortunately, it can be done non-destructively on the monitor or, using two large 'L' shaped mat board pieces, right on the table.
"Cropping is your most powerful compositional tool"
The eye and mind is the most powerful compositional tool surely. :)
Danny.
