Page 1 of 1
Cropping
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:02 pm
by 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
Re: Cropping
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:08 pm
by Padfield
I think the best ratio is 1 : (1 + √5)/2
Guy
Re: Cropping
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:30 pm
by 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).
Re: Cropping
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:46 am
by 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!
Re: Cropping
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:15 am
by Mikhail
Pete
Definitely your option 3.
Misha
Re: Cropping
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:22 am
by Bill S
I try to do 1. but if 3. looks better I wouldn't hesitate to go with it.
Bill
Re: Cropping
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:06 pm
by 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
Re: Cropping
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:00 pm
by 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.
Re: Cropping
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:57 pm
by 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!
Re: Cropping
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:46 pm
by 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.
Re: Cropping
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:03 pm
by Pete Eeles
Thanks - and welcome back Dave - must be butterfly season
Cheers,
- Pete
Re: Cropping
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:18 pm
by Oy
Pete Eeles wrote:Thanks - and welcome back Dave - must be butterfly season
Cheers,
- Pete
Sure is Pete - I'm fresh out of me Chrysalis
Re: Cropping
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:12 pm
by 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
Re: Cropping
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:54 pm
by bugmadmark
Rogerdodge wrote: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
Re: Cropping
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 12:16 am
by bugmadmark
Rogerdodge wrote: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?
Re: Cropping
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:26 am
by Markulous
bugmadmark wrote: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)
Re: Cropping
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:47 am
by 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
Re: Cropping
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 11:35 am
by Padfield
... and this is close to a golden crop on the same butterfly, vertically:
Guy
Re: Cropping
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:24 pm
by 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?
Re: Cropping
Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:48 pm
by Padfield
bugmadmark wrote: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