[DGRx]

In post processing, do you ever use non-standard/custom crops (for instance other than the standard 4:3, 5:7, etc.)? What has been your experience?

I try to get as close as I can to a standard, but sometimes unusual/freehand crops can yield interesting compositions. I can imagine it makes printing more difficult and/or expensive than standard sizes, factoring in custom size frames, canvas, etc. (Note, I do compose photos within the frame initially and avoid cropping, but it's also fun to play around in post!)

[microlight]

Interesting question, thanks. If we were able to take what the lens projected then the ultimate standard would I think be circular(!).

The size and shape of the sensor, film frame or final image are probably more to do with practicality than aesthetics; for example the usage of 35mm movie film that drove the development of the SLRs of the 50s, where the 3:2 ratio made for a reasonable-size mirror box (and therefore camera) as well as a pleasingly-sized image. Nowadays we commonly see for example the 3:2 and 4:3 formats as well as 645.

I rarely stick to the original ratio - many of my photos end up as part of my PC’s rolling desktop background and are therefore cropped to 16:9, with an eye on that at the taking stage. That’s also the reason why the bulk of my photos are landscape format, and therefore why I don’t use a grip!

[kiwi_jono]

Quite a bit of the time I use the aspect ratio as it comes out of camera (as the goal for me most of the time is to compose the subject to fit the frame.

That said I will often crop the photo to what ever "looks right" to me. I don't shoot for a specific aspect ratio generally. Even if print it out, it does not matter that much if the aspect ratio is different as the paper can be cut to size.

[mikeSF]

aside from wanting to keep as many pixels as come out of camera, I see no need to conform to any conventional aspect ratios when composing a shot. I will generally try to remember my intended framing, and crop accordingly. When someone wants to order that print, things may get tricky, but I dont mind whipping up another processed image from the raw to meet an aspect reqt when necessary.

[Simen1]

For screen viewing I may use frames to cover up the parts of the screen I dont want to be visible. For instance with a square crop shown on a 16:9 screen.

For prints, you just print the next size up and crop manually (siccors/knife) and make a custom frame. If you dont print them yourself you probably get better prices when you choose a size that can be printed with as little canvas as possoble. For example, if they have a 1 meter roll and you want a 1,05 meter print, they will have to print it at the length of the roll in stead of the width. Choose 1,0 m and you will save some canvas. Or print several prints at once so you make use of the full width of the roll.

[savoche]

I don't usually crop much, and when I do I almost always stick the standard crops (mostly 3x2, 5x7, 4x5, square, or the odd 16x9). I guess the idea is that it will make it easier should I ever get around to printing anything...

For panoramas I like to use the "XPan" crop of 65x24 - for no practical reason. I just like it.

[iheiramo]

Whatever works best for the shot. I rarely print and when I do I adjust shot for lighter exposure anyway, so no restrictions there. For monitor use there are plenty of pixels to crop before it affects quality, if you have a good file to start from. I routinely rotate to straighten and crop for best composition in pp. I mainly use ratio of even numbers, but use free crop if they don't provide what I want.

[UncleVanya]

I crop to what makes me happy. I start with standard ratios but I'm not a slave to them.

[normhead]

In post processing, do you ever use non-standard/custom crops (for instance other than the standard 4:3, 5:7, etc.)? What has been your experience?

I try to get as close as I can to a standard, but sometimes unusual/freehand crops can yield interesting compositions. I can imagine it makes printing more difficult and/or expensive than standard sizes, factoring in custom size frames, canvas, etc. (Note, I do compose photos within the frame initially and avoid cropping, but it's also fun to play around in post!)

We used to do custom mats, I still have the mat cutter etc. so I cropped the way the image looked best. These days I am a lot lazier and just crop to the size I can get a frame and mat for.

My current project is libraries of images to put on my new 4k TV, so everything is 16:9. I'm actually impressed at how some of my files look better at 16:9 than my original crop, some, it really makes no difference. Very few absolutely can't look good at 16:9, and they are images where i cropped really tight. With a K-1 or K-3 there's no excuse for that. Both have ample room leave space for cropping. With 6 MP you have to shoot tight. Since the K-20D, I've had room to crop. Old habits die hard.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/360788-everyth...ml#post4233370

[MikeStnly]

Crop the way you want. If you use something like lightroom and need to print you can use the fine art option. It will centre the photo from left and right and leave more space at the bottom than at the top. You can print it on whatever paper you like, say 8x10, and then you can put it in that size frame. It looks like a mat in the frame.

[Roadboat24]

In my case, Crop size depends entirely on how the image is to be displayed. In creating the image, that is always part of the composition process. And many times, a compromise between ratios. I usually leave a little wiggle room for adjustments in post.

[ffking]

I must say that for some reason that I don't entirely understand I try to stick to the set LR crops which are by and large the traditional shapes. I do sometimes zoom the crop in, so to speak, but I seldom change its ratio. This probably has something to do with envisaging the final image as far as possible in camera, and the need for custom crops is something that you can usually avoid by moving the camera, so I suppose I regard them as something of a failure - except when they are unavoidable. I suppose I don't want to give myself too much PP freedom - a hangover from shooting transparencies, perhaps.

[DGRx]

Thanks everyone! Very good insights. Gold: "I start with standard ratios but I'm not a slave to them." Just the feedback I was looking for.

"For monitor use there are plenty of pixels to crop before it affects quality" So true!

For the longest time, I wanted the biggest JPG possible for quality, but now see that a 1mb or even 500 kb jpg can look just fine on a monitor. I'm now going through my dropbox and replacing my 6-7mb jpgs with smaller ones for web viewing, etc.

Cheers!

[leekil]

I generally just do the native 3x2 ratio, with the idea that I only have to use the same frames and matting. (Though the confusingly "somewhat unusual size" of the DSLR frame does make them less common than the 5x7, 8x10 frames sizes.) I occasionally do crop, usually something kind of square, or 5x7 if I want to give someone a slightly larger photo that's not as big as 8x10 or so.

Though I also do panoramas, and those are all over the map.

[DeadJohn]

My best print is a 3:1 stitched landscape. I used Nations Photo Lab to print on metallic paper and mount on gatorboard. I later framed with wood moulding, no glass needed with metallic paper, no back needed with gatorboard.

I don't print much so I'm mostly unconstrained by framing needs when cropping. 2:1 crops work well for landscapes that have an uninteresting sky. 1:1 crops work for street photography of crowded scenes, cutting distractions away to feature a central subject. Those crops do cause wasted screen space, but I'd rather have black bars instead of ugly content.

3:1 wide landscape crops, or any vertical portrait crops are okay for printing, but not so good for computer monitors and TV displays because too much wasted space. Tablets do a good job for vertical portraits because they are so easy to rotate.