next thread »

[RobA]

I have a little web album from some photos I took on a trip last winter:
http://picasaweb.google.com/rob.antonishen/Israel?authkey=Gv1sRgCML8sYuj7uP_TQ&feat=directlink#

All of these were taken by my EOS and most have been retouched for colour balance, saturation, contrast and cropping.

I was told by a "semi-professional" that my choice to crop at other than standard aspect ratios is a poor one, both for print and screen display.

I am curious, as I often see comments in the forum about "better cropping" etc.

(plus any comments on specific images would be excellent, too.)

Thanks,

-Rob A>

[paynekj]

Personally I don't have a problem with "odd" shaped crops on screen, crop them to suit the subject. When printing I can see it causing problems, if only with getting someone else to print them without altering your crop.

As for the album, I think the human interest photos work best, but Picasa isn't doing you any favours. In normal viewing (not fullscreen) your pictures look a little too blurred. In know people complain that Flickr over-sharpens when it automatically makes the smaller versions, but Picasa seems too far the other way.

[Rolf]

The image rules, not the printer paper manufacturer. Put the "bad" image on a white background in printer paper proportions. Problem solved.

I looked at your gallery, liked the images and found the crops right.

[monoceros84]

Principally, I can second those opinions. The content rules over the dimensions - not the other way around. But then again I often find myself cropping with 2:3. It has many reasons:

1. Printing. You have mentioned it. One could cut away the white bars afterwards but it will need to be done.
2. Framing. Most frames you can buy are 2:3 or similar formats. If you crop in an odd format, you'll get bars in your framed image at the wall. This looks really ugly. The alternative would be to cut away some parts to fill the frame but this will loose content.
3. Composition. The image is composed in 2:3 through the viewfinder. If I have shot this way I often have some kind of composition in mind. It's hard to change this imaginary picture. Thus, cropping in my workflow is mostly just cutting away edges/ corners caused by rotating the image. Of cause there are frames that require other aspect ratios but they are rare.

[mramshaw]

I was told by a "semi-professional" that my choice to crop at other than standard aspect ratios is a poor one, both for print and screen display.

I think your 'friend' has a firm grasp on the nineteenth century. I think he is dead wrong on
both counts, although more possibly right on the print side. If you have a weird crop, printing
it can sometimes work out okay (a stretched version may be fine), but Monoceros makes good
points [as usual] about why this needs thinking about.

Here's a professional link that says what Kevin said (determined by the subject):

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/und-crop.shtml

I think it's one of those things like why the Rules of Thirds isn't the Law of Thirds. Unusual
focal points create interest, and break up the monotony of looking at lots of pictures. In the
case of your pictures, the unusual crops [which seem well-chosen, in my humble opinion] add
a nice offbeat to the stream of pictures. For myself, I don't take nearly enough verticals, but
you seem to have a nice mix. While I mostly agree with what Monoceros says about how he
composes pictures, in a lot of cases I take the best picture I can get, with the certain intent
of cropping it later. For a number of reasons, most cameras won't let you compose a square
crop, but the point of better technology is not introduce artificial limitations.

[monoceros84]

While I mostly agree with what Monoceros says about how he
composes pictures, in a lot of cases I take the best picture I can get, with the certain intent
of cropping it later. For a number of reasons, most cameras won't let you compose a square
crop, but the point of better technology is not introduce artificial limitations.

That's what I meant with my last sentence: "Of cause there are frames that require other aspect ratios but they are rare." I said that those occasions are rare because mostly I see a scene through the viewfinder that literally frames the image already. Then I compose it automatically to this 2:3 frame and it's hard to change my mind again. Only with really obvious compositions that just don't work with 2:3 I think about cropping in different aspect ratios.
I know, it's not the best way but it's hard to change however.

Monoceros makes good points [as usual]

Wow, thank you! 

Here's a professional link that says what Kevin said (determined by the subject):
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/und-crop.shtml

Thanks for this link! Really interesting how the impact of the image changes by cropping. Anyway, I really don't like his crop. I would have chosen a different one similar to his last attempt. Maybe it would have been different if you could see the man's and the donkey's heads. But in this image you just see their backs and a crop that only includes this cart is simply boring and senseless... But he has written correctly -- it's a matter of taste.

[littletank]

Is not the subject about cropping just another example of the professional versus the amateur? As amateurs we take pictures for several reasons such as to provide pleasure or a sense of achievement or some other emotion for ourselves and others and for record purposes but the professional is compelled to please the customer. We can press our shutters with gay abandon because we know we can crop to try to achieve that photograph, the professional does not have that freedom. If there were no such thing as accepted size and format why is there not a vast range of printing paper sizes on the market? It's because it's not commercially viable I hear you shout and what about frames into which you may want to put your pictures? I know you can get frames made to any size and shape, at a price.

On the matter of optimum shape, if there is such a thing, then surely the natural aspect ratio of the recording medium should be taken into account. Back in the very old days the standard was called full plate, then there was 1/2 plate and 1/4 plate. Along came roll film and the standard print size became 2 1/2 by 3 1/2 inches and then we had 35 mm film with an aspect ratio of about 25 to 35 mm or, if you like, the ideal shape for a print on 5 in by 7 in paper. Digital photography has provided yet another aspect ratio of about 4:3.

So, what is the answer? The amateur continues to do what she or he likes and the professional pleases the customer. If you think I am being contentious, well I am and if you want to prove what great photographers we amateurs all are then let's have a challenge to produce a small portfolio of say 5 images of anything we like but with the JPEG results direct from the camera.

[Rolf]

So, what is the answer? The amateur continues to do what she or he likes and the professional pleases the customer. If you think I am being contentious, well I am and if you want to prove what great photographers we amateurs all are then let's have a challenge to produce a small portfolio of say 5 images of anything we like but with the JPEG results direct from the camera.

This is a really good idea for an interesting challenge. No post processing, all done in the camera. let's think about it.

[monoceros84]

So, what is the answer? The amateur continues to do what she or he likes and the professional pleases the customer. If you think I am being contentious, well I am and if you want to prove what great photographers we amateurs all are then let's have a challenge to produce a small portfolio of say 5 images of anything we like but with the JPEG results direct from the camera.

This is a really good idea for an interesting challenge. No post processing, all done in the camera. let's think about it.

Not really related to a GIMP page but interesting and prob. lots of fun anyway

[RobA]

Thanks for the link, and I appreciate the comments.

As a rank amateur, I'll just keep happily cropping by "removing everything that isn't" a part of the image, according to my own eye and aesthetic preferences!  (Heck, I'll do anything I can to save a poor photo.)

And yes - The images were not sharpened when scaled for the web.  The Picasa album is more of a convenience than anything else, and not ideal.

For what it is worth, I am sure his comment is  based on many of the reasons provided here, but ultimately it comes down to a personal preference.  In case you are interested, his photos are here, which I personally like a great deal.

-Rob A>

[littletank]

OK, I see that it is not related to a GIMP forum so let's modify the challenge. How about the same basic idea of a small portfolio and you can make any changes you like, using GIMP, with the exception of cropping. What I am really getting at is the idea of composing within the limitations of the digital sensor.

[Rolf]

OK, I see that it is not related to a GIMP forum so let's modify the challenge. How about the same basic idea of a small portfolio and you can make any changes you like, using GIMP, with the exception of cropping. What I am really getting at is the idea of composing within the limitations of the digital sensor.

No, I think we should keep GIMP & Cie. out of it. It's a bit paradox, but I like it.

[Rolf]

As a rank amateur, I'll just keep happily cropping by "removing everything that isn't" a part of the image, according to my own eye and aesthetic preferences!  (Heck, I'll do anything I can to save a poor photo.)

Me too. But I like the "inside out crop". Select what has to be absolutely in there - and then add what's better in than out. 

[mramshaw]

For what it is worth, I am sure his comment is  based on many of the reasons provided here, but ultimately it comes down to a personal preference.

I would say your friend is very obviously biased towards print (all serious photographers
should be, according to some). I think his pictures are great and he composes his pictures
nicely, which shows some skill. With the kit he's got (all professional as far as I could see), the
first emphasis is on getting the picture - once that can be reliably done, then composition
comes into play (people don't buy fast lenses and ultra-zooms to compose better, they buy
them so they can get the shot in the first place). He has the same viewpoint as Monoceros,
that how he has composed should be the final result - perhaps because he is justifiably proud
of his skill.

But I think you could do him a solid by getting him to re-think this viewpoint. His water bottles,
for instance, would in my not so humble opinion look much better as a square crop. There is
filler in some of his other captures too.

As far as paper sizes go, that just means framing decisions - as alluded to by Monoceros. My
professional friend sold me a picture - when I took it to be framed, I got to make a number of
decisions about the frame - its colour & style - the backing - the matting. The standard sizes
are usually done to remove some of these decisions. And maybe go with a stock frame.

Ultimately I think it goes back to Pythagoras and number theory (where the Golden Mean comes
from). We are culturally conditioned - via the Greeks - to certain ratios. This is something else
to be considered when producing a collection. For myself, I like square crops. They have a
certain symmetry. If you wanted to 'jangle' people, you could try an off-ratio crop. Not for
most of us, but maybe something for the artistic crowd.

If you look at the Luminous Landscape guy, he considers his framing very carefully, and it is
done to strengthen the effect he is after. @Littletank, all producers are obliged to consider
their audience - in fact, this maxim is repeated endlessly to writers: know your audience.

@Rolf - too bad more software doesn't support the inside-out crop better. I do the same, but
the mechanics force me to jump through hoops to get there.

[mramshaw]

(plus any comments on specific images would be excellent, too.)

I liked them, as Littletank would say, most are record shots. In some you have - or started to -
made some choices. I had the following thoughts (means you are teaching me) after looking at
them. Your panoramas need more sky; I expect it was very dull which is why you excluded it,
but if it was, why not make this part of the record? This has a big psychological impact too.

The alley shots were nicely served by verticals. I would probably 'squeeze' these even more to
emphasize their narrowness. Except for the bazaar shots, where you really want the borders
and are better off with landscapes.

Although they were all obviously record shots, I thought some were very artistic. Or perhaps
the subjects were. There is probably a distinction to be made there (if so it's beyond me).