Do you always keep aspect ratio when cropping?

I disregard original image ratio when cropping. When I crop I give more consideration to 5:4 and 1:1 but I don't use these exclusively. I prefer aspect ratios with small denominators in its simplest rational form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff F

If I think I am going print for a standard frame then it is 3 x 2 or 5 x 4 ratio. But I sometimes use odd size frames which work out around 4 x 3.2 ratio (20 x 16 ins). A4 is another 'odd size'.

---

I suppose you mean odd aspect ratio. It can be odd to you but it seems natural to me. See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html for details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbharle

3:2 (or 1.5:1) is the "golden mean" or the "golden ratio." My mother was an artist, and she always tried to compose in that ratio. I remember her saying that you can fit any composition into this ratio and it will be pleasing. According to her it also worked for room sizes. It is easier to arrange a room that is 1.5:1. I tend to agree with that rationale and usually crop at 8 x 12 (which is what I like to print at). But I also like the 1:2 ratio. Gives kind of a cinemascope look to some pictures.

---

As a fellow forum member has already pointed the golden ratio, golden mean, etc... as defined in mathematical writings is (1+√5)/2 and it's denoted by Φ (Greek letter phi). Φ is an irrational number, it's the limit of the ratio of successive terms in the Fibonacci sequence and has other interesting properties (As does 0, 1, π, e, etc...). Why to call the different number 1.5 the golden ratio againsting the established notation?. It's pointless in my opinion, it's analogue to referring to 6 as π (Greek letter pi), that just generates confusion.

I agree that 3:2 usually gives a pleasing composition, it's a good thumb rule, like the rule of thirds but art is not about following thumb rules. Some artists may like the 3:2 aspect ratios it so much that they use it exclusively or almost, like grayscale photography, infrared photography, sports photography, photographic portraits, landscape photography, baroque music, classical era music, romantic era music, jazz, etc... but anyhow that don't makes any of them special in its category (Photography or music in these examples) for the rest of us. I disagree that there is anything artistically special about the 3:2 aspect ratio or Φ:1 for that matter. That's my opinion.

On the technical side, aspect ratios which are ratios of small positive integers are nice in that they allow more granularity when choosing sizes when its dimension is quantized (For instance, sizes of images). In this regard, 3:2 (1.5) is preferred to 205:137 (1.496) even if artistically there is little difference. For instance, JPEG images with no chroma subsampling without internal padding are limited to sizes multiples of (24, 16) and (3280, 2192) respectively for 3:2 and 205:137 aspect ratios.

Wow, Mario...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thatguyfromvienna

Wow, Mario...

---

Some time back, I did a thing about watch dials along similar lines . . .

http://tcktek.blogspot.com/2009/11/r...oportions.html

2:3 gets the first mention but 3:5 also pops up later (the next step up in the Fibonacci series).

Ted

I keep the camera set on 3:2 because that is the rough size of the paper I print on. But then I get Scotch Whiskey and crop any how because I take pictures knowing I'll crop out stuff. More Whiskey and I'd rather crop out the dumpster, than lose the interesting wall and door. When cropping, I usually keep the aspect ratio but it depends on a lot. Then I get another one and really don't care. What works for you is best.

It's quite easy to calculate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#Aesthetics

Glenn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photon Hacker

I disregard original image ratio when cropping. When I crop I give more consideration to 5:4 and 1:1 but I don't use these exclusively. I prefer aspect ratios with small denominators in its simplest rational form.

---

Well said! I usually stick to 2x3 if it will work, thinking that I can easily crop to 5x7 or 8x10 if needed. This is with the intent of printing though, which I honestly haven't done much of in the last couple years!

For personal purpose I prefer to use the 3:2 ratio, but when taken images for real estate clients I crop to a factor 4:3, because the MLS upload system use the 4:3 method. My wordpress website is also set to the 4:3 ratio for photos.
Client is king.
Also I want to mentioned the paper size in Euro is different than here in the US. The A4 here is wider and has a smaller highed than in Euro. I wonder what most Euro's are using for cropping, in mm.

A4 paper is 11.75 x 8.25 inches, which is almost 3 x 2 ratio. So it just needs a little bit of careful cropping to achieve perfection.

Exactly how this is done depends on the software being used.

Very basically, I resize so the shortest edge is correct then crop the other side to fit. Either crop by ratio or exact dimensions. This can require a bit of thought when working in pixels; but nothing really difficult.

I frequently see images which have been spoilt by slavish maintenace of the camera proportions. My current practice is to crop as the image demands of me and then add black [ add canvas] to meet the proportions imposed upon me by the projector being used to show the image. I have rarely matted pictures, rather sticking them to a board for display. Expensive that so I prefer to project rather than print.

Shame that beautiful pussy cat has been replaced by my avatar :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcuknz

I frequently see images which have been spoilt by slavish maintenace of the camera proportions. My current practice is to crop as the image demands of me and then add black [ add canvas] to meet the proportions imposed upon me by the projector being used to show the image. I have rarely matted pictures, rather sticking them to a board for display. Expensive that so I prefer to project rather than print.

Shame that beautiful pussy cat has been replaced by my avatar :-)

---

I think that's a perfectly legitimate way to think. But an alternative is to think about what ratio the finished image is going at the time of composing it and before pressing the shutter. I've found that this adds a challenging, but exciting and informative dimension to picture-making by really forcing you to think hard about the composition and what is and is not within that chosen ratio in the viewfinder, at the time of capture. I think it's a useful additional discipline to impose upon yourself in terms of skill development.

If you get it right, then it makes the whole issue of croppng easy. Given that you know your final image is going to be, say 5:4, 7:5 etc and you composed for this, you can cut it to that as the first step in your pp workflow ... and then go from there.