Cropping

[Pete Eeles]

This may sound like a strange question but ... the out-of-camera images in my camera (a Canon 30D) have an aspect ratio of 3:2. When cropping, is it "best practice" to:

1. Retain the original aspect ratio (1.5).

2. Use an aspect ratio that is aligned with the aspect ratio of standard paper sizes (e.g. A4 etc. giving a ratio of 1.414) since this is easier to mount in a standard frame - at least in the UK!

3. Use whatever crop is best to showcase the subject.

I've always used the latter.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

I think the best ratio is 1 : (1 + √5)/2

Guy

[JKT]

4: Convert all pictures to aspect ratio 3:2 as that makes my pages look more tidy.

Seriously, I don't think there is a right answer for this. If you have a use in mind, then that dictates the choice. Lacking that, I tend to use original or conversion to 3:2 (from 16:9).

[Markulous]

Must admit that I always stick to, by preference, as is ex-camera @ 3:2 or cropped to 4:3 or 1:1. Rarely outside those but then ~I like to say I see the finished shot before I press the shutter release!

[Mikhail]

Pete

Definitely your option 3.

Misha

[Bill S]

I try to do 1. but if 3. looks better I wouldn't hesitate to go with it.

Bill

[Rogerdodge]

Guy is (as usual) correct.
The most "pleasing" rectangle has a proportion of 1.618 (or thereabouts) to 1.
It is known as the Golden Rectangle, and has been known about for centuries, and has been utilised by most great artists, and for proportions in classic architecture.
Roger

[eccles]

For me, it depends on what the final photo is going to be used for. For web display I crop for the best framing for the subject whatever the aspect ration comes out at. I only hold A4 photo paper so that's the format my photos due for prints are cropped to.

[FISHiEE]

I just crop to what looks best. I cut out all my own mounts from A1 mount board anyway and can print to A3+ so can accomodate whatever looks best for each image. I know you can buy standard mounts but I have seen where peoiple use these and often end up including a load of nothing to fill the mount up or will crop off too tightly to make it fit.

However buying standard mounts is a lot quicker than cutting them that's for sure!

[Oy]

If it LOOKS right - it IS right

Option 3 for me!

Unless it's going in a set mount or frame size of course.

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks - and welcome back Dave - must be butterfly season

Cheers,

- Pete

[Oy]

Thanks - and welcome back Dave - must be butterfly season

Cheers,

- Pete

Sure is Pete - I'm fresh out of me Chrysalis

[Henry.Kemm]

I think it is definitely "do what you think is best". You can have a butterfly on its own on an indistinct background, which might be 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, or the same vertically. When you put it on a flower, you may need the flower for completeness, so it widens the net (excuse the pun) even further. Put it with another butterfly having fun and a flower, and it can be even more variable. I would love the space to demonstrate all this but ...
Henry

[bugmadmark]

Guy is (as usual) correct.
The most "pleasing" rectangle has a proportion of 1.618 (or thereabouts) to 1.
It is known as the Golden Rectangle, and has been known about for centuries, and has been utilised by most great artists, and for proportions in classic architecture.
Roger

[bugmadmark]

Guy is (as usual) correct.
The most "pleasing" rectangle has a proportion of 1.618 (or thereabouts) to 1.
It is known as the Golden Rectangle, and has been known about for centuries, and has been utilised by most great artists, and for proportions in classic architecture.
Roger

Couldn't visualise what this is so drew in Photoshop.

I think I tend to just crop the photo in to whatever looks best and most suitable for the image - which then leaves one problem - you can't get a frame to fit it! Ive never understood crop ratios - so now's time to learn with everything else

In Photoshop - can you set the crop tool so it only crops to specific ratios?

[Markulous]

I think I tend to just crop the photo in to whatever looks best and most suitable for the image - which then leaves one problem - you can't get a frame to fit it! Ive never understood crop ratios - so now's time to learn with everything else

In Photoshop - can you set the crop tool so it only crops to specific ratios?

Trick is to compose the shot to a specific aspect ratio - can't claim to always succeed but 95% shots fit a 3:2, 4:3 or 1:1

In PS crop tool put 4 and 3 in width/height boxes (with no unit of measurement) and delete resolution (which is totally irrelevant to screen display or image size)

[Padfield]

We were only joking about the 1 : (1 + √5)/2, Bugmadmark! Nevertheless, I think it is true that a golden rectangle has very pleasing dimensions and a lot of my artistic cropping comes out close to this pretty much by chance. Of course we're not suggesting this is always or even usually the best crop for a particular picture.

Because your yellow rectangle with writing is not such an attractive subject (though you might consider submitting it for some modern art prize), here is a golden rectangle with a butterfly in it (taken yesterday):



Guy

[Padfield]

... and this is close to a golden crop on the same butterfly, vertically:



Guy

[bugmadmark]

Joking eh? Hmmm I guess I'm a little sad - but then I'm a Health and Safety person / biologist working in an academic world - so any formulae thrown at me like this and I automatically have to try and analyse it. Geek - I admit it! Still - I'm impressed at the low level shots you are getting - how are your knees?

[Padfield]

Joking eh? Hmmm I guess I'm a little sad - but then I'm a Health and Safety person / biologist working in an academic world - so any formulae thrown at me like this and I automatically have to try and analyse it. Geek - I admit it! Still - I'm impressed at the low level shots you are getting - how are your knees?

Good for you. And the formula's worth analysing anyway - it's one of the great numbers in maths and the arts (many composers used the ratio in the structure of their sonatas and symphonies). Known as phi, it's the ratio that divides a line into two parts so that larger part : smaller part is equal to whole : larger part. No H & S implications, so far as I know, but a very interesting number. I just don't think it's necessarily very useful in cropping butterfly pictures - but it might be!

My knees are yellow at the moment.

Guy