DX cameras produce images with an aspect ratio of 1.5:1., which is not consistent with common print sizes such as 8x10 and 11x14. As a result, when I go to print an image in such a size, I am forced to crop the sides. If I actually got the composition right in the camera, this is a problem. Also, it is common when reading critiques to read suggestions like "crop a little off the top", etc. That "little" would result in an image that might be an odd size.
I am curious about how most photographers deal with this. Do you compose for print size? Do you crop images into any size that looks good, regardless of the "standard sizes" that are out there?
Posted by David Bostedo on November 4, 2008 at 9:00 AM
I crop completely without thinking about "standard" print sizes. Most of my prints get put in portfolios or albums anyway, and the few I've framed get custom framing if necessary. Since I don't sell prints, I'm not worried about any kind of volume production. In any case, I'd like the image to have it's best possible crop/comp.
One thing that's odd though is that the standard print sizes are all slightly different aspect ratios themselves, although they're close. So you can't quite shoot for all of them without cropping at least a little, right?
Posted by Steve Foss on November 4, 2008 at 9:01 AM
I compose using the whole frame as needed to get what I want. I crop it however it looks best to me. If it works out for the squarish standard print sizes, then that's cool. Most of the time it happens that way unless it's a landscape, but not always.
When the composition doesn't evolve into the normal print size we'll simply cut a custom mat and put a sticker on the plastic wrap around the mat/print that it requires custom framing, or in some cases the comp looks nice inside a custom cut mat with the cutout being custom but the outer dimensions remaining standard for ease of framing. For example, I've got a square image of a chickadee on a deer antler in sweet light. For that, we'll cut a 8.5x8x5 hole toward the top of an 11x14 mat (with the mat positioned vertically). The top and sides of the mat are equidistant, with much more mat left on the bottom. Fits perfectly into a vertical 11x14 frame, and the presentation makes it a bit different, which may be a selling point for some customers.
Also, if you sell it either as a print or a matted print requiring custom framing, that can also appeal to a certain type of client who wants art that looks more unique than the run of standard-sized prints on the wall. I've got a few pano compositions that involved capturing multiple overlapping images and stitching them together in post processing, and people are willing to buy them. I'll be doing a lot more of them this winter.
So I say, let the artist interpret the art as he/she sees fit. If the work really inspires the print buyer/collector, they'll purchase it no matter what dimensions it has.
Posted by Robert Fisher on November 4, 2008 at 9:15 AM
It's not just the DX sensor that has the 3:2 aspect ratio. 35mm film has the same aspect ratio. Full size digital sensors have the same aspect ratio.
Get as close as you can in camera then crop as/if/when needed in editing. If it needs a custom matte and/or frame, so be it.
Posted by John Mumaw on November 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Common print sizes now include 8 x 12, 10 x 15 and 12 x 18, which is all I print now because I don't need to lose any image data with those sizes.
Why crop your images to conform to an outdated 'standard'?
It depends too, on your intended fate for the image. If it's to be used editorially with hopes of a cover, you'll want to compose versions with extra space for drop-in text or graphics. Same applies if it is likely to be an art print in standard 8x10 dimensions. There's a real difference between images intended for art prints and those for graphic or editorial use. Among the editors I know, the quickest way to eliminate your images from consideration for covers or ads is to "use all the space" in composing while not leaving space for text.
Both are valid ways of composing, and I ALWAYS try to shoot two different comps of my vertical shots-- One with extra space for graphics (or cropping to 8x10 perspective), and another for use full size. Conceiving the two comps is a fun and practical exercize, plus it can put extra jingle in your bank account.
Posted by Richard Ditch on November 4, 2008 at 11:16 AM
As everyone else says: compose for the camera format and the subject; crop for the subject; cut the mat for the image (inside) and frame (outside). That's what mats are for.
Great thread and good info. I agree and have done my printing and framing as suggested so succinctly by Richard. Thanks, esp. to Hank for tips on shooting compostions for various markets. To some of you who have so much more experience in selling your work, I am sure it sounds like "stating the obvious." But it sure is helpful to me and others newer to the business side of photography to have such "obvious" things pointed out. Hat's off to you, Hank!
And let's not forget that unless you are using a camera body that has a 100% viewfinder, then your resulting image is going to have more than what you saw in your viewfinder when you pressed the shutter button. Also, we try to get our cameras perfectly level, but that does not always work out perfectly...so, we rotate the image a hair. And then some shots that we thought were great when we took them wind up having a much better image inside the image we shot. SO, besides the print sizes and matte window sizes, there are many more reasons for cropping our images. If I know there is a reason in advance that I may have to crop for the reasons above, I will shoot a "wider" image so the main intent of the "final" image will still exist after cropping!
Discussion
9 repliesI am curious about how most photographers deal with this. Do you compose for print size? Do you crop images into any size that looks good, regardless of the "standard sizes" that are out there?
One thing that's odd though is that the standard print sizes are all slightly different aspect ratios themselves, although they're close. So you can't quite shoot for all of them without cropping at least a little, right?
When the composition doesn't evolve into the normal print size we'll simply cut a custom mat and put a sticker on the plastic wrap around the mat/print that it requires custom framing, or in some cases the comp looks nice inside a custom cut mat with the cutout being custom but the outer dimensions remaining standard for ease of framing. For example, I've got a square image of a chickadee on a deer antler in sweet light. For that, we'll cut a 8.5x8x5 hole toward the top of an 11x14 mat (with the mat positioned vertically). The top and sides of the mat are equidistant, with much more mat left on the bottom. Fits perfectly into a vertical 11x14 frame, and the presentation makes it a bit different, which may be a selling point for some customers.
Also, if you sell it either as a print or a matted print requiring custom framing, that can also appeal to a certain type of client who wants art that looks more unique than the run of standard-sized prints on the wall. I've got a few pano compositions that involved capturing multiple overlapping images and stitching them together in post processing, and people are willing to buy them. I'll be doing a lot more of them this winter.
So I say, let the artist interpret the art as he/she sees fit. If the work really inspires the print buyer/collector, they'll purchase it no matter what dimensions it has.
Get as close as you can in camera then crop as/if/when needed in editing. If it needs a custom matte and/or frame, so be it.
Why crop your images to conform to an outdated 'standard'?
Both are valid ways of composing, and I ALWAYS try to shoot two different comps of my vertical shots-- One with extra space for graphics (or cropping to 8x10 perspective), and another for use full size. Conceiving the two comps is a fun and practical exercize, plus it can put extra jingle in your bank account.
Troup