[Kendra59]

The quick crop to 1:1 is one of my favorite K-1 features. I'm disappointed that it isn't offered on the K-3lll. It may be the reason I don't buy one. I find square composition much easier than 3:2. Something between 4:3 and 4:5 is my favorite. I think it's always better to select the aspect ratio in camera, where you still have the choice of changing your viewpoint to make a composition "click."

I will try that if my K-50 will do it…

[StiffLegged]

The reasons for the 3:2 are historical and there’s no reason why we must stick to it: it’s rare to find a composition that fits it exactly in my experience, so cropping is a regular choice in PP. However with panos excepted it’s more pleasing to stick to a limited selection of crop ratios; it lends a consistency to a body of work on display. I like the sound of your 1:1 project!

[Michail_P]

It’s only beneficial to do a printed art project. If you’ve decided where to print and have found your theme, then I would say the framing factor should be a separate part of the project. Since we’re talking art, different framing means different photographic approach to the theme. I usually go for 4/5, 5/7 or of course 3/2. It seems these have always worked for my themes. I’ve never cropped randomly. Square is very challenging, not to be taken lightly. You need a very strong focal point in your frame to really make it work. Works great for abstraction too.
You could definitely have decided on the frame first. Very interesting way of keeping composition important.
Personal preference: 5/7. In most cases it works perfectly between 3/2 and 4/5. And it works fine for vertical and horizontal set.

[vijaykishan]

Is it crazy to go with a 1:1 ratio, when I am using a K-50 16,3 MP camera?

IMHO, the sensor aspect ratio should not be dictating your creative output. Look at it this way, the image circle of the lens does not dictate the sensor shape either, else the sensor would be a circle ;-). it is a tool afterall. The creation need not mimic the tool used to create it; else all sculptures would look like a chisel :-P

Although 1:1 might right now (2021) getting a bad rep because of some very popular image sharing app, doesnt mean it is not suited for your creative project. Maybe 1:1 will channel you in being more creative with objects that traditionally do not fit that format. All the best.

[StiffLegged]

It’s only beneficial to do a printed art project.

Not necessarily, a web gallery of consistently proportioned images looks better than a bunch of apparently random crops.

[Lowell Goudge]

I find this discussion interesting, because I have several projects on the go, (I suffer a little from ADD I guess because none are finished) ranging from a collection of neon signs, to wall art (graffiti and murals), to birds and wild life (a collection of my life list of birds), and a collection of all things wild found at my in-law’s historical family farm (birds insects, flowers and wild animals)

In many cases, the question is, do I just format to a print size, to fit a photo portfolio? Or do I do it as a book, with different crops, and perhaps multiple images per page, and a much looser format and crop image by image.

While I can appreciate the OP is doing staged still life shots and as such has a much higher degree of control over his image to suit the framing, none of my subjects has the same consistent form factor, and in my opinion would look odd with any attempt to crop differently than they appear.

When I look at Kobayashi.K’s portfolio, I find some of the subjects are cut off, to force them into the square crop format and others have a wide field of background surrounding a long rectangular subject, and wonder whether the crop really does the subject justice?

In the end, I think it may be a personal choice, but as an observation, i don’t have any square books in my house, they all are rectangles, ranging from loosely between 4:5 to 2:3 and every ratio in between

[ProfessorBuzz]

While I prefer the 645 format, you may consider how you intend to print/crop. Nobody says you need to have symmetrical borders. A few photographers made a point of framing with more white border at the bottom of the print - for signatures, titles, or just blank space to lift the image up.

---

Last edited by ProfessorBuzz; 05-04-2021 at 05:19 AM. Reason: lift not life.

[Kobayashi.K]

I like the wry annotations. It's an interesting collection.

Thanks. I'm still experimenting what direction to go, but this found object thing is very interesting philosophically.

---------- Post added 05-04-21 at 11:36 PM ----------

For this project, I am going into antique shops and thrift stores to find something out of the norm, so I am "finding them" and bringing them home or to an interesting location to photograph. My finds in the last week were:
A General Electric PR-1 Exposure Meter with tan case in mint condition for $10 CAD *introduced in 1948)
An old metal canteen with patterned wool covering for $5 CAD.
A Canon TX film camera with 50 mm 1.8 lens for $20 CAD ...

I think the square format is an excellent choice for static scenes, in this case found objects that are displayed formally. I'm not convinced though getting items from shops and photograph them in a table-top environment is the right way to go (notably with the obvious items you selected), that would be product photography, which is a different realm.

You can make more original and natural photos by going out on the street and pick up items you come across by chance (they are found). They don't need to be big, use a macro lens, but even better photograph them on site.

[vonBaloney]

It seems part of the OP's concern was just losing all those pixels and therefore couldn't print as big. This is probably the biggest pet peeve of mine on photography forums -- this idea that given the MPs we have in the original, we can only make tiny prints and just mass confusion about DPI, etc. Please, people -- spend some time to really learn post-processing and print preparation/upsampling and get to know all the wonderful digital tools we have available (like Topaz Gigapixel) that allow you to go even bigger. Any of these cameras made in the last 15 years or so can make nice-looking prints that are way larger. Your square prints can easily be 40" x 40" or even larger. The bigger the print, the farther away the viewing distance after all. I've sold prints taken with a K-7 as large as 6 feet wide to fill a wall and it looks great!

[5ks]

Very interesting question.
- - -
I would recommend, take a bunch of your favorite photos and try cropping them in different ratios until something clicks in you, and just stick with it!

This here is a good suggestion. Trial and error ... finally success!


Various arguments may be found both for and against the frame form 1 : 1. Somehow it is "easy" because of its simplicity. At least no need to choose between portrait and landscape. But that may also be somewhat restrictive too, depending on the subject and its eventually important surroundings.


If I think myself as a viewer of 1 : 1 images only, there may be an increased risk of getting bored (!) just because of the square form. So I would perhaps use 4 : 5 myself as a compromise - but without seeing your actual photos, hard to say which is best. - So I apologize: cannot give a straightforward suggestion or preference.

[biz-engineer]

Is it crazy to go with a 1:1 ratio, when I am using a K-50 16,3 MP camera?

I would select the crop ratio based on subject, orientation and frame fitting.

1) Regarding the orientation: 3:2 in portrait mode isn't ideal (in my opinion). For vertically oriented prints I prefer 4:3, 5:4, 7:6. For landscape oriented prints I prefer 16:9, 3:2 and 4:3. If the display orientation is not known, 1:1 is also suitable.

2) Regarding the fit in frames, there are two cases:

> 2.1) An addition space is need between the frame and the print to write something about the print (e.g name, author , date, place etc..), one side of the mat board is larger than the other sides, in that case 1:1 and 5:4 prints would fit well into a standard 1:1 or 5:4 frames (depending on orientation), 4:3 prints would fit well into a standard 4:3 frame.

> 2.2) If the intention is to maintain mat board borders of equal space, with not inscription on the mat window bordel, then 3:2 prints would better fit into 4:3 frames, 4:3 prints would better fit into 5:4 frames, and 1:1 prints would fit into 1:1 frame. That is because when the frame and print ratio aren't 1:1, there is a change of ration between the print and the frame in order to maintain mat dimensions.

So, the choice of image ratio may depend on the wanted end results, orientation and frame ratios.

[Kendra59]

I would select the crop ratio based on subject, orientation and frame fitting.

1) Regarding the orientation: 3:2 in portrait mode isn't ideal (in my opinion). For vertically oriented prints I prefer 4:3, 5:4, 7:6. For landscape oriented prints I prefer 16:9, 3:2 and 4:3. If the display orientation is not known, 1:1 is also suitable.

2) Regarding the fit in frames, there are two cases:

> 2.1) An addition space is need between the frame and the print to write something about the print (e.g name, author , date, place etc..), one side of the mat board is larger than the other sides, in that case 1:1 and 5:4 prints would fit well into a standard 1:1 or 5:4 frames (depending on orientation), 4:3 prints would fit well into a standard 4:3 frame.

> 2.2) If the intention is to maintain mat board borders of equal space, with not inscription on the mat window bordel, then 3:2 prints would better fit into 4:3 frames, 4:3 prints would better fit into 5:4 frames, and 1:1 prints would fit into 1:1 frame. That is because when the frame and print ratio aren't 1:1, there is a change of ration between the print and the frame in order to maintain mat dimensions.

So, the choice of image ratio may depend on the wanted end results, orientation and frame ratios.

What I want to do is create a series of maybe 16 prints on 8 1/2" x 11" photo paper, add a bit of matting, and put them together into 11" x 14" frames. I would use the same frame style/size for all of them, the same matting, and the same brand/type of photo paper. I guess I could use a mix of crop factors, as long as the end result fits in the same frames. Most (if not all) found objects would be printed in B & W.

[Kendra59]

If you really want to focus on image composition, cropping to a 1:1 ratio will really help...

It is a good way to exercise your composition "muscles" in a new way. I learned a LOT about composition after I bought a medium format Mamiya 645 camera and used it exclusively for 4 months, while I camped out at various places along the Frazer River. Perhaps not so coincidentally, after a hiking with all that camera gear, I dropped 30 pounds, and was in really good shape!

[robgski]

I really like the look of a square print.

I agree. Working within a square offers a different challenge to composition (or cropping after the fact), which can unlock an aspect to the image that was not always immediately apparent when the object we in the larger environment.

Don't worry about discarding pixels when cropping, you have millions of them.

Over the past few years, I started using square crops, I put them in a Flickr album titled "Images for Unrecorded Music" since the square crop always invites a comparison to a vinyl album cover.

[Kendra59]

It seems part of the OP's concern was just losing all those pixels and therefore couldn't print as big. This is probably the biggest pet peeve of mine on photography forums -- this idea that given the MPs we have in the original, we can only make tiny prints and just mass confusion about DPI, etc. Please, people -- spend some time to really learn post-processing and print preparation/upsampling and get to know all the wonderful digital tools we have available (like Topaz Gigapixel) that allow you to go even bigger. Any of these cameras made in the last 15 years or so can make nice-looking prints that are way larger. Your square prints can easily be 40" x 40" or even larger. The bigger the print, the farther away the viewing distance after all. I've sold prints taken with a K-7 as large as 6 feet wide to fill a wall and it looks great!

As the original poster of this thread, I can tell you printing big prints with modest sized digital files was not my main concern. I was more concerned about a potential loss of detail when making an 8" or 12" square print. I am generally inclined to print on 8 1/2" x 11" photo paper, but sometimes go as large as 13" x 19". The costs go up quite a bit when printing larger images than that, because I can't do them at home on my Canon Pro-9000 printer.

I appreciate your input about being able to print larger prints with fairly modest digital image files. I have not had the chance to play with the latest digital tools, like Topaz Gigapixel. I am aware there are some good programs out there, but before I can run them, I need a more powerful computer (I have a mid-2011 iMac right now).

As I expect to focus on making prints this winter, that is when I will focus on print preparation/upsampling. For now, I will take comfort that even with a 1:1 crop, the digital sensor in my Pentax K-50 camera is sufficient for my needs.