How to Crop - The "right way"...

[taygull]

Now there have been numerous discussions on do you crop "in camera" or in Photoshop. I've been in a thread for a couple of days where it is my opinion most photographers don't understand how to shoot where you can get maximum "saleability" and minimal work out of your print.

What I'll show is an example of why you should shoot "lose" and not "crop" in camera or frame to fill the frame.

As most of you know today's DSLR's shoot a 2:3 aspect ratio (same ratio as a 4x6). What I will show you is why you don't want to fill your subject to take up the entire frame and you should shoot so you can crop to a 4:5 ratio (same as an 8x10.)

Example 1 is of the image I shot and framed lose so I could crop to 4:5. This is the cropped version.

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x298/pawless/8x10.jpg

The reason for doing this is what if the parents of this student want to buy a 4x6 for grandma, a 5x7 for dad's office, an 8x10 for the bookshelf and then maybe a 24x30 canvas or 20x30 print to hang in the hall way.

Here is an example of the loosely shot image with various crop marks. With this method I can upload this to an on-line gallery, the client can order any size they want and all I had to do was crop to a 4:5 ratio and I will never have to re-crop again.

Notice the lines on the bottom show where the image would crop for a 4x6, 5x7 or 8x10. There is minimal lose and no lose to the important part of the image.

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x298/pawless/potnexample.jpg

Now if I framed this to fill up the view finder it would look like this. Still a great shot but what if mom wants to order a 5x7 or 8x10...we are now in trouble. We can get a 5x7 but the frame might cover part of the head.

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x298/pawless/2_3.jpg

Here is an example if they wanted a 5x7 from the 2:3 out of camera image.

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x298/pawless/2_3to5x7.jpg


Now comes big trouble...what if they want an 8x10..or worse...what if they want a 24x30 gallery wrap and you could charge them $1200 bucks!

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x298/pawless/2_3_4_5.jpg


I hope this makes sense on why you should shoot so you can crop to a 4:5.

I've shot events that had over 1,000 images of people at a dance. I've used this method and hundreds of clients went on-line and bought everything from 4x6's to 8x10's to wall prints and I only had to crop once. The lab did the cropping and I didn't get a single client complain because they lost a head or foot due to the crop.

[DwightMcCann]

Absolutely ... and this is why we often want those "extra" pixels that some keep saying we don't need! I have a 1DsMIII on pre-order just because of this!

[sfaust]

And this doesn't even taken into consideration shooting for publication, where more unusual crops are used all the time for layout purposes. I wish it was as easy to add masks or crop lines to 35mm viewfinders like it was with medium format cameras.

[deadpass]

great point to make and it's something that any photographer that want to cater to the client should take into account. However, since I mostly shoot "artistic" as opposed to "archival" shots I sell a photo the way I saw it and the way I want others to see it. While it's true that I have less sales, I know the sales I make will look just like I want them to look.

[taygull]

And this doesn't even taken into consideration shooting for publication, where more unusual crops are used all the time for layout purposes. I wish it was as easy to add masks or crop lines to 35mm viewfinders like it was with medium format cameras.

My full-time gig is shooting for publication.

I'm thinking of etching my bodies with 4:5 crop lines. I know a few top shooters that do this.

[Curtis N]

Good thread, Chris.

I believe there are companies that sell focusing screens with 5:4 ratio crop marks on them.

Now that you have the cropping thing figured out, you can concentrate on learning to keep the camera straight. ;)

[sfaust]

My full-time gig is shooting for publication.

I'm thinking of etching my bodies with 4:5 crop lines. I know a few top shooters that do this.

I used to do that with my Nikon F5 since it had replaceable viewfinders and was easily done. Not quite as easy with the new digital cameras.

Maybe another reason to get a medium format back I've be so good about talking myself out of :)

[taygull]

I used to do that with my Nikon F5 since it had replaceable viewfinders and was easily done. Not quite as easy with the new digital cameras.

Maybe another reason to get a medium format back I've be so good about talking myself out of :)

I'm not sure what is etched but I know it runs about $150 bucks.

[mcmadkat]

I don't sell 5:4 ratio prints. No problem. :)

3:2 or nothing baby!

[notapro]

I don't sell 5:4 ratio prints. No problem. :)

3:2 or nothing baby!


I WANT to be with you. If I wasn't desperate to sell prints, I would be. I think everyone should switch. I've priced all my 2:3 prints at the same price as their 'traditional' counterparts. A couple people price theirs significantly lower.

The big disadvantage is that if you sell digital files, most cheapo labs don't do them for less than an arm and a leg, so your customer still needs the traditional ratios.

[notapro]

Oh, and sorry - good tutorial for those who didn't understand about ratios and the ease of cropping when framed this way. Given that the whole world hasn't switched yet, and the volume of photos you do, it definitely make sense to be able to let the lab do the cropping.

[cdifoto]

This is one reason I'm glad I moved on from the 4 MegaPickle 1D. Great camera but just not enough leeway in resolution. Sadly though, it got me into a tight in-camera framing mindset that I'm having trouble breaking.

[Curtis N]

I don't sell 5:4 ratio prints. No problem. :)
3:2 or nothing baby!I'm sure that's not a problem. If you're not interested in meeting your clients' needs, I'm sure they can find a photographer who is.

The 4:5 ratio really does fit better for the traditional head & shoulders portrait. There's a reason why the 8x10 size is so popular, and 8x10 frames are in abundance.

[notapro]

I'm sure that's not a problem. If you're not interested in meeting your clients' needs, I'm sure they can find a photographer who is.

The 4:5 ratio really does fit better for the traditional head & shoulders portrait. There's a reason why the 8x10 size is so popular, and 8x10 frames are in abundance.

8x10s are yicky and so are traditional head and shoulders portraits. But people still want them. I just don't know why.

[Curtis N]

8x10s are yicky...Please define that word. Dictionary.com has no entry for it.

[cdifoto]

8x10s are yicky and so are traditional head and shoulders portraits. But people still want them. I just don't know why.

Because 8x10 frames are cheap yet 8x12 frames are next to impossible to find. Here in the United States anyway.

Not sure I agree with the yicky part.

[babyduckmonger]

Please define that word. Dictionary.com has no entry for it.


I'm fairly sure it falls somewhere between icky and yucky.

[notapro]

Because 8x10 frames are cheap yet 8x12 frames are next to impossible to find. Here in the United States anyway.

Not sure I agree with the yicky part.

I've never seen an 8x12 frame. I'm just being difficult.


Please define that word. Dictionary.com has no entry for it.

I get most of my vocabulary from unwords.com:
http://www.unwords.com/unword/yicky.html

[spcalan]

Thats why I use a 5D.. Full Frame baby

[taygull]

Thats why I use a 5D.. Full Frame baby

Full Frame does not solve your cropping issue. It still shoots a 2:3, it does give you more pixels so when you do crop to a 4:5 it is not as big a deal.

[steve75]

I'm sure this should be made a sticky, maybe here and in the Raw, PP & printing forum.... It's exactly the sort problem i ran into shooting my 1st event a couple of months back, wish you'd posted it then!:p good post.......

[Curtis N]

This has been a great thread and Chris has presented the issue well.
But I'm going to throw a curve at you.

In the original sample image, the 4:5 ratio works best because the longer dimension of the portrait is the limiting factor. You can crop to narrower ratios and not remove part of the subject.

But what if the shorter dimension is the limiting factor? What if cropping the sides of a 4:5 image to make a 2:3 ratio would cut off important parts?

Here's a 4:5 image.

http://performancephoto.smugmug.com/photos/201937261-O.jpg

If you crop this image to make a 4x6, you'll be shaving heads and cutting off feet.

http://performancephoto.smugmug.com/photos/204306846-O.jpg

In this case, it would make more sense to upload a 3:2 file, leaving more room on the ends. Then if a client orders an 8x10, the ends would be cut off and no harm will be done.

It's never simple. :D

[Tixeon]

Curtis; That's exactly what I do. Leave a little extra room on the ends & most everyone is happy. Most photos need a little breathing room anyway. I used Mamiya RB/RZ cameras for years & had to leave a little extra space on the sides for the same reason. I actually miss that big 7x7cm view screen.

On the subject of frames, 8x12 size can be found on the internet. Now 13x19 is another story.

[notapro]

The original 4:5 must have been cropped from a 2:3 to begin with, so the original should have had extra room even to crop a tighter 4x6 quite easily. I think the point was that if you frame it right, you only have to upload one image because most labs will crop evenly to the middle of the frame, and you can rest easily knowing that they will be chopping off dead space if you've framed the original that way. I think. I don't want to step on anyone's toes.

Also, if this gets stuck, can someone remove my assinine remarks of earlier posts?

[Curtis N]

The original 4:5 must have been cropped from a 2:3 to begin with, so the original should have had extra room even to crop a tighter 4x6 quite easily.True. But I would need to go back to the original to do that, not just let the print vendor crop from the 4:5.I think the point was that if you frame it right, you only have to upload one image because most labs will crop evenly to the middle of the frame, and you can rest easily knowing that they will be chopping off dead space if you've framed the original that way.Right. The point I'm trying to make is, the best ratio to upload depends on the image.

[taygull]

Or you cropped the 4:5 to tight......

[Croasdail]

Instead of etching you camera, why don't you just use the Canon Focusing Screen EC-1D with Crop Lines. It does exactly what your talking about. They also have the same thing but with masking to block out the correct final ratio as well. They work with any of the bodies that take interchangeable focus screens. This is been around for a dang long time and they aren't that expensive. Mine came in a two pack with both 5x7 and 8x10 ratios marked.

On the subject of frames, 8x12 size can be found on the internet. Now 13x19 is another stor

actually 13x19 aren't that hard either... just do a yahoo search and literally tons of sites come up. Granted, it is not a size your average Michael's carries, but that's life in the small city.

[spcalan]

Let me ask a question.

Lets say I do a wedding.
I manually crop 100 photos for a proof album.

Then proof the same "file" for the 8x10 albums.

So I can crop to a 4x5 setting, and would only have to do one "crop" and that file can be printed at 4x6/5x7/8x10?

This would save time and money.
I basically have to crop each file for its certian size.

[BillsBayou]

I had a discussion with a friend of mine last night over this very issue.

"Bill, why is it when I go to print, I lose so much of my photo?" Was the gist of the question. It took me a while to explain it to him and I'm not sure if I got through or not. At the end he was still making statements like "But it looks perfect in the camera and on the computer."

I told him, "If you shoot it to look good on the camera or on the computer, that'll be the only way you can share the photos. You have to shoot with the media in mind." It was exhausting.

[notapro]

I had a discussion with a friend of mine last night over this very issue.

"Bill, why is it when I go to print, I lose so much of my photo?" Was the gist of the question. It took me a while to explain it to him and I'm not sure if I got through or not. At the end he was still making statements like "But it looks perfect in the camera and on the computer."

I told him, "If you shoot it to look good on the camera or on the computer, that'll be the only way you can share the photos. You have to shoot with the media in mind." It was exhausting.


It floors me the number of people who don't understand aspect ratios and wonder why they can't make a 4x6 and 8x10 without losing some of the photo. Is it not fairly basic geometry? No offense to anyone who doesn't get it, but all it takes is a common-sense look at what you're doing.

[Curtis N]

Is it not fairly basic geometry?It is. But some people just don't have a "math brain".

Sometimes you need to actually put it in front of them. Show them a 4x6 and an 8x12 of the same image. Explain that the larger one is twice as high and twice as wide as the smaller one. Then hand them an 8x10 matte and ask them to make it fit.

[BillsBayou]

I think I lost my friend when I used the word "scalar". "It's an issue of scalar ratios." :)

[spcalan]

So. If I crop all my photos to 8x10.. will I still need to "crop" the file to a 4x6 size for that size? I do not like having to crop every file for 2-3 different sizes.

[taygull]

Yes for sure on images with a portrait orientation, as long you as leave enough room when you shoot that the little bit you lose on the sides does not have an impact on the image.

I'm looking at shooting tighter in camera right now on horizontals and uploading those as 2:3 ratio because I'm sure I can shoot tighter and not lose much on the sides when cropping to a 4:5.

[notapro]

It is. But some people just don't have a "math brain".

Sometimes you need to actually put it in front of them. Show them a 4x6 and an 8x12 of the same image. Explain that the larger one is twice as high and twice as wide as the smaller one. Then hand them an 8x10 matte and ask them to make it fit.

that's a great way to make it clear. someone should do a youtube video of that.




So. If I crop all my photos to 8x10.. will I still need to "crop" the file to a 4x6 size for that size? I do not like having to crop every file for 2-3 different sizes.

No, if you crop to 8x10, taking that result and re-cropping to 4x6 will result in losing more of the image.

You started with a 4x6 (for ease of explanation). If you FRAME that photo, in camera, correctly, so that there is enough space on the LONG side so that an 8x10 is "in the middle" with extra bits on either side, then when the lab CROPS the photo to 8x10, taking off the extra bits, you will have a proper 8x10. Or, if your customer chooses to order a 4x6, they still have a good 4x6 (or 5x7 or what have you). Could your 4x6 have been cropped better? Maybe, but then you have to crop everything for the client.

I believe this thread is aimed at those who do a high volume (e.g. sporting events) and don't want to have to crop for their clients for every possibility.

If I'm wrong about any of this, please stick the dunce cap on me and I'll go sit in the corner.

[notapro]

Yes for sure on images with a portrait orientation, as long you as leave enough room when you shoot that the little bit you lose on the sides does not have an impact on the image.


What difference would the orientation make?

[BillsBayou]

What difference would the orientation make?

Must be a mental thing.

[Kadath]

If you guys think this is a tough subject, try explaining pan n scan and why widescreen movies are a good thing to people who 'hate those stupid black bars that waste my tv screen' or 'why do I still have black bars on my HDTV, it already IS widescreen'. Those threads are legion on AVS and HTF.

[Kadath]

Oh, and if it helps, do that geeky DP thing where you make a square with your thumb and forefingers on each hand and show how shifting the distance between your hands can make square and rectangular ratios and explain that the camera is taking a chunk out of a CIRCLE of light. That usually blows peoples minds.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/home/wsfaq.html
(I'm a writer for HTF)

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/
http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen.shtml
http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/WidescreenPrimer/WidescreenPrimer1.html
http://digg.com/tech_news/The_Reason_Why_Widescreen_is_Better
http://www.widescreenadvocate.org/widescreenprimer.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

[taygull]

What difference would the orientation make?

You brought up common sense....not me.:rolleyes:

But if you do shoot the horizontal loose enough you can still crop to a 5:4 and get a 3:2.

[notapro]

You brought up common sense....not me.:rolleyes:

But if you do shoot the horizontal loose enough you can still crop to a 5:4 and get a 3:2.

but you can't do that with landscape orientation?

Sure, if you shoot loose enough, you could do that ten times over, crop to 4:5, crop to 2:3, crop to 4:5, crop to 2:3, and so on... but why would you want to when you had a 2:3 to begin with?

[taygull]

My point is you actually can get more use of the image when you do upload a 3:2 in landscape mode and the loss is less (or is at least on the sides) when you crop to a 4:5. If you shoot in landscape, crop to a 5:4 you will lose info off the sides. When you do this and upload to a service where someone buys prints and they want a 3:2 from that 5:4 image they will now lose more info but it will be off the top. Thus you have lost info off the top and sides. This is what Curtis was pointing out.

So I should edit my first post and show an image shot in landscape and the impact of different ratios.

The goal is to upload one image and it not multiple images so that the client can get whatever size they want when they purchase.

[notapro]

I understand the concept and application. I don't understand why you say it makes a difference whether you are using a photo shot in landscape or portrait mode. It works the same for both.

EDIT: I don't mean mode... I mean landscape or portrait orientation.

[taygull]

I understand the concept and application. I don't understand why you say it makes a difference whether you are using a photo shot in landscape or portrait mode. It works the same for both.

EDIT: I don't mean mode... I mean landscape or portrait orientation.


I explained it....You can shoot tighter in landscape and post a 2:3 and still get 4:5's with out much loss on the sides and no loss of the top. You can't do that in portrait.

[Curtis N]

I understand the concept and application. I don't understand why you say it makes a difference whether you are using a photo shot in landscape or portrait mode. It works the same for both.I really think you need to evaluate images individually to figure out what works best.

For example:
A) A full-length portrait of one person is going to hit the top & bottom of a 2:3 rectangle with plenty of room on the sides. So you upload a 4:5 and let the print vendor crop the sides when a 2:3 print is ordered.
B)A full-length portrait of two people might bump into the sides of a 2:3 rectangle while there's still room on the top & bottom. So you upload a 2:3 image and let the vendor crop the top & bottom when a 4:5 print is ordered.

Perhaps Chris is suggesting that scenario B happens more often with horizontal shots?

[picturecrazy]

I think shooting for 4:5 on a 2:3 camera is lame. I know it's just a reality that people want to buy 8x10 but I still think it's lame.

For head/shoulders shots, yeah 8x10 is good. For group family shots, yeah, 8x10 is fine, and I shoot for that format for those shots.

But nothing else. ALL my other shots use 2:3, and use the whole frame. I'm not gonna shoot a substandard composition just in case someone buys an 8x10.

I also charge a SIGNIFICANT amount more for 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20. I educate my clients that 8x12, 11x17, and 16x24 are excellent matches for the new digital cameras. Once I tell them it is the best match, they say, "oh, I didn't know that! I'll get the 8x12!!" I tell them they'll likely need custom frames, or you can use a matted 8x10 frame and hide the part of the photo they want to. When they try that, THEN they suddenly understand the whole reason I hate 4:5.

I'm just taking the approach to educate my clients... and it's working well and they are quite responsive to it. There are no 2:3 frames because WE ARE NOT CREATING A DEMAND FOR THEM. If we can get enough people to demand them, it'll come. But if everyone is still shooting for 4:5, it'll never happen.

[Curtis N]

Good thing Lloyd isn't shooting medium format. He'd have a heluva time educating his clients that all pictures really should be square.

[picturecrazy]

What are you talking about? I see square frames all over the place... from cheapo stores to boutique framing outfits

[notapro]

I explained it....You can shoot tighter in landscape and post a 2:3 and still get 4:5's with out much loss on the sides and no loss of the top. You can't do that in portrait.

No, you can't, but you can do a 3:2 and still get a 5:4 without any loss on the sides and just some on the top and bottom. So 6 of one.... 6 of the other.


I think shooting for 4:5 on a 2:3 camera is lame. I know it's just a reality that people want to buy 8x10 but I still think it's lame.

For head/shoulders shots, yeah 8x10 is good. For group family shots, yeah, 8x10 is fine, and I shoot for that format for those shots.

But nothing else. ALL my other shots use 2:3, and use the whole frame. I'm not gonna shoot a substandard composition just in case someone buys an 8x10.

I also charge a SIGNIFICANT amount more for 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20. I educate my clients that 8x12, 11x17, and 16x24 are excellent matches for the new digital cameras. Once I tell them it is the best match, they say, "oh, I didn't know that! I'll get the 8x12!!" I tell them they'll likely need custom frames, or you can use a matted 8x10 frame and hide the part of the photo they want to. When they try that, THEN they suddenly understand the whole reason I hate 4:5.

I'm just taking the approach to educate my clients... and it's working well and they are quite responsive to it. There are no 2:3 frames because WE ARE NOT CREATING A DEMAND FOR THEM. If we can get enough people to demand them, it'll come. But if everyone is still shooting for 4:5, it'll never happen.

I agree. This thread, I think, orginated from another discussion where the point was actually about having 1000+ images from a sports tournament available for online ordering and wanting to offer 8x10s, so I see where the concept makes sense.

[picturecrazy]

I still don't know why many people are scared of 2:3 print formats and making a statement that it's a great format. It's like people think it's poison or something. Sports, architecture, landscapes, or weddings, all can look nice in 2:3.

[nutsnbolts]

Wow, I'm so lost it's not even funny!

[taygull]

I still don't know why many people are scared of 2:3 print formats and making a statement that it's a great format. It's like people think it's poison or something. Sports, architecture, landscapes, or weddings, all can look nice in 2:3.

Try finding an 8x12 frame for grandma......

[taygull]

No, you can't, but you can do a 3:2 and still get a 5:4 without any loss on the sides and just some on the top and bottom. So 6 of one.... 6 of the other.

typo...should have said 3:2....

[nutsnbolts]

I'm still lost! lol.

[notapro]

I still don't know why many people are scared of 2:3 print formats and making a statement that it's a great format. It's like people think it's poison or something. Sports, architecture, landscapes, or weddings, all can look nice in 2:3.

I'm with you. On my print price list, I call 5x7, 8x10, etc. Traditional Sizes and the 2:3 "equivalents" True Digital Sizes. Same price for them even though they cost me more.

[taygull]

You guys still don't get it...it is not about being scared of anything.

If you want shoot to and sell in a 2:3 or 3:2 format and shot tight then go ahead. In the real world where publishers, brides, moms and grandmas want to buy prints they don't want to have to pay $100 to get a 8x12 custom framed when they could put an 8x10 in a favorite frame they have.

As a photographer I don't want to have to custom crop every single image someone wants to buy. After I shoot a wedding and I upload 500 images to an online gallery I want to know my client can order any size image and not worry about any missing heads.

[JMHPhotography]

With the 40D/30D/20D cameras, I think making sure everything fits from the outside edge of the outermost AF points will get you a nice 4x5 ratio. This is how I do it and it works fine for me. The 5D you have to extend it out a little more, but I've gotten used to knowing where to put the subjects in my viewfinder. I was gonna get a focus screen with etched 4x5 marks... but now I don't need it.

[Jon, The Elder]

It is. But some people just don't have a "math brain".

That would be me.

I frequently have customers that order different sized prints of the same image. Most do not know or care about aspect ratio, they just want their prints to look right.

Because of the basic nature of my subjects and the situation, I only have a 'one shot' opportunity to get the capture.

This has resulted in a defensive framing style that will allow me the most flexibility in printing. Far from the 'get it right in camera' school of purists, but certainly practical from a business point.

Learning how to crop and the various aspect ratios involved, is worthwhile if you are doing prints for money.

[Kadath]

I really think you need to evaluate images individually to figure out what works best.

This is precisely what I was saying as well. Sure it would be 'nice' to have a system you can use where you crop MOST of your images the same way, but the reality is that for most people they are going to have different:

Needs
Wants
Styles
Moods
Time committments

From one frame to the next.

Locking yourself to any one format/ratio over another throws away one of the big 'wins' of digital imaging. It's a compromise tho, if you like to play fast and loose with your crops and ratios there IS a cost in both processing time and amount you have to pay attention to each shot. In effect, on a film the DP sets the ratio once and they live with that choice for the whole length of the movie. On a DSLR you can change that ratio with every click but to maximize results you have to invest time into thinking about what will work for each shot or fooling around with your editor to see what you like best.

I choose to not put roadblocks up in front but the OP does have a point about why HE chooses to do so and the benefits that he gains from it, but this is NOT a universal benefit. My choices about such things will differ varyingly from any other shooter, and yours will too.

[taygull]

I disagree, if you are going to be a professional shooter where your clients have wants or needs to purchase prints.

How would you handle a situation where you took a portrait and framed in camera and the client then wanted an 8x10. All the while you know if they order the 4:5 ratio they are going to have part of the head and feet cutoff because you framed it tight?

And remember you can't say...they can just buy an 8x12.

[notapro]

I disagree, if you are going to be a professional shooter where your clients have wants or needs to purchase prints.

How would you handle a situation where you took a portrait and framed in camera and the client then wanted an 8x10. All the while you know if they order the 4:5 ratio they are going to have part of the head and feet cutoff because you framed it tight?

And remember you can't say...they can just buy an 8x12.


why can't you? is this hypothetical? is this like if you were on an island and you could only have 1 print size, what would it be?

For years, photographers offered people 3.5x5, 5x7, and 8x10. They told them that was all they could have. nobody complained then. companies saw that people wanted to put them in something, and they started producing frames. If you want to, you can. It wouldn't be what everyone wants to do, but you can.

If you choose to offer 8x10s and shoot to make that possible, then that's your prerogative, I'm sure your customers appreciate it, and bully for you. But I'm pretty sure everyone is welcome to follow their own business model and offer whichever products they choose. Your easy might not be everyone else's easy.

[taygull]

Don't get defensive, just answer my question.

How would you sell an 8x10, 16x20, 24x30 to someone when you framed tight? There are more photographers out there who "areapro" or "wanabeapro" that do want to be able to provide a client or heck even their own grandmother options.

I don't make the rules, much less the frames. What I want to do is provide a service to a client so they are happy. I don't want to force them into a box.

If others whose day job, like mine, is shooting for a publication and we had the attitude of "make'm fit the print size the way I want it" we would be out of a job.

I'd sure like to see a successful business model were clients can't buy an 8x10.

[notapro]

I wasn't being defensive. Actually I think I remember saying somewhere a while back that I thought this thread was really useful for people who want to be able to offer traditional sizes without having to crop it themselves. I still think that your original point is valid and useful.

My point was that no one makes the rules. Not you or anyone else. I thought you were being pretty defensive at the suggestion that this isn't the one and only right way to frame. It's great to be able to offer someone's grandmother an 8x10 to fit in her 30-year-old frame, but wouldn't it be nice to get some demand going for more production of 2:3 frames so that photographers don't have to continue to think in 3 steps like this forever? I would think someone like you, who has taken the time to consider the best way to maximize efficiency in cropping would be grateful for those really talented photographers (like Lloyd) who can create demand with their art and try to influence the print market for all those "wannabeapros" who need to cater to the wants of the masses to sell prints to get by. Widespread availability of 2:3 frames will only come as demand rises, and then your work would be even simpler.

But, to answer your question, an excerpt from my price list:
Traditional Sizes
These sizes are easy to frame, but the resulting image will be
different from your proof as cropping is required.

....

True Sizes
These sizes will not be cropped, and the resulting image will be
the same as your proof.

I guess that's how I would handle it.

[ItsMike]

WOW... I just read all 5 pages... My head hurts... I usually shoot leaving room to crop if needed. I am not getting the whole 3:2 and 2:3 etc... I usually never have issues cropping for different sizes.. I would say about 90% of my shots I crop for print..

[Kadath]

And what are you going to do in 5 years when everyone is so enamored of HDTV that your customers start demanding that you crop in 16x9 (1.78 or 1.85:1) ratios? =) Seriously the best you can hope to do is EDUCATE your clients about their choices and help them make an informed decision.

There is no true one way to shoot for all crops. If you are conscientious abou it you can 'Shoot for coverage and crop to taste'. Or you can shout in your system which neatly locks in for two and only two ratios. Or you may have other priorities in how you shoot and how you crop. Even working pros will have wildly different priorities as far as their cropping needs go. As notapro suggests, perhaps it is you who is being defensive about your "Right way" to crop.

[Curtis N]

Geez, people.

Chris went to the effort of explaining this concept with sample images. He explained that the idea was to upload one image that can be cropped by the print vendor for any standard frame. He explained that the whole idea is to allow customers to order what they wanted without extra processing time on our part.

Some of you don't seem to understand that when you sell pictures for a living, time is money. He's trying to help us save time while still giving customers what they want, and some of you are jumping on him for it. He deserves better.

Go back and read the first post again.

[notapro]

Since I assume I'm one of the people seen to be "jumping on him" I just want to say AGAIN that I think the beginning of this thread was rather useful. The only part of his/your/somebody's explanation that I took issue with was that this technique wouldn't work for both landscape and portrait orientation. I think that Taygull's method works equally well for both orientations. I believe the only other point regarding this technique that I made was to someone else that I think it makes more sense to upload the 2:3 than a cropped 4:5. Saves even more time, and would work perfectly with either of the images posted as examples IMO.

Aside from that, I think the only jumpiness I displayed was over the idea that people shouldn't bother to try to influence the market toward 2:3 enlargements, and I certainly never meant to be personally offensive. Just my point of view.

[picturecrazy]

I hear ya curtis...

And I think what the other side is trying to say is...

selling 4:5 is fine.

But some pictures look stupid when shot for 4:5, or just don't work in a 4:5 format. Some commercial architecture I've done do need the full 2:3 format or you lose vital architectural details. inside a building, sometimes you just can't back up any more because of walls and other structures.

Same thing for portraits. Sometimes you just cannot back up enough to frame loosely, or you totally lose the perspective you want between your subjects and background by backing up at all. I would rather fill the frame than shoot a lesser composition.

So I believe what we're trying to say is... hey, 4:5 does not work ALL THE TIME for some of us. So if that's the case, DON'T BE AFRAID to encourage or educate clients that our cameras are 2:3 so 2:3 print formats might be a better choice.

I see nothing wrong, nor incorrect about that.

[Curtis N]

I hear ya Lloyd...

And I would hope that normally with a commercial client one would start with a serious discussion of the intended use, such that we can produce specifically what they want. If they want a shot for their annual report cover, it would be nice to know what size the annual report will be printed. Sometimes you're dealing with art departments that have their own visions and constraints.

And I also believe that educating clients is a good thing. The ideal aspect ratio of any image really is an individual thing, and clients benefit from understanding that. It's great when they're willing to pop for custom mattes and frames.

But when Grandma has a matching set of four 8x10 frames so she can hang portraits of each of her four grandchildren in the hallway, we benefit financially by being able to accomodate her needs efficiently.

[picturecrazy]

This order JUST came in...

A little bit of education goes a long ways...

So it just shows that it can really work both ways, whichever way you decide to go. I don't think there is a right or wrong way... really.

[Curtis N]

Dang, Lloyd. I need to raise my prices!

Just curious how you'll get an 11x14 out of that fifth image. As far as I can tell, you'll either need to crop the bride's arms off, or go back to the original and bring in more pixels on the sides if you have them.

But for 90 bucks I reckon it's worth the effort.

[picturecrazy]

haha, yeah... I definitely shot that one for 2:3. But I guess she REALLY wants a 11x14, because I have 11x17 as an option too, and cheaper. But yeah, for $90, I'll crop the arm out and if she doesn't like it, I'll send her an 11x17 so she can crop it anywhere she likes. :)

I price the 4:5ish sizes high enough to make it worth my time to crop. But honestly, not too many people buy them at this point.

[taygull]

I hear ya Lloyd...

And I would hope that normally with a commercial client one would start with a serious discussion of the intended use, such that we can produce specifically what they want. If they want a shot for their annual report cover, it would be nice to know what size the annual report will be printed. Sometimes you're dealing with art departments that have their own visions and constraints.

And I also believe that educating clients is a good thing. The ideal aspect ratio of any image really is an individual thing, and clients benefit from understanding that. It's great when they're willing to pop for custom mattes and frames.

But when Grandma has a matching set of four 8x10 frames so she can hang portraits of each of her four grandchildren in the hallway, we benefit financially by being able to accomodate her needs efficiently.

Dead on,

As a full time PJ sometimes you have no idea what the end resulf of the image is going to be. Is it a cover shot, is a small insert, you just don't know. Most of the tim the edior does not even know what the end result will be, the art director makes that call.

Same thing on weddings, what if your client decides on an album and you need 4:5's adn 2:3's.

The point is if you learn to shoot to allow a 4:5 crop then you can get ANY size image you want out of that shot with minimal lose do to shooting lose.

If you shoot to a 2:3 crop then you are more limited or you must do extra work or ad more to the image. I know this because I've done it.

[Karl C]

Interesting thread. So I went looking for Crop Lines Focusing Screens and found this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/402217-REG/Canon_0056T098_Ee_Crop_Lines_Focusing.html). Question is, will it also work on a 20D/30D?

[taygull]

Interesting thread. So I went looking for Crop Lines Focusing Screens and found this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/402217-REG/Canon_0056T098_Ee_Crop_Lines_Focusing.html). Question is, will it also work on a 20D/30D?

I'd say no not that exact part number, there is probably one available though.

[Karl C]

I'd say no not that exact part number, there is probably one available though.

I'll have to do more digging. This screen and the ones for Mark-series were the only ones I could find. I didn't find a Canon version for the 20D.

Thanks

[taygull]

I'll have to do more digging. This screen and the ones for Mark-series were the only ones I could find. I didn't find a Canon version for the 20D.

Thanks

The other option is just to send the camera to someone who will etch them for you. I know several big time pro's who have done this.

[Aaagogo]

so i think, i think the whole idea is that it's better to shoot a little looser so that 1 "final" crop can yield multiple print sizes with the photog having to do minimal or no work after the 1st crop.

[sfaust]

so i think, i think the whole idea is that it's better to shoot a little looser so that 1 "final" crop can yield multiple print sizes with the photog having to do minimal or no work after the 1st crop.

Bingo. IMO, the only way to crop is not to crop until in post! Why limit your options.

With that said, I shoot loose to give editors options on cropping, but I also crop in camera on many shots as well. In stark contrast, when shooting products, I pretty much crop in camera since the final layout is already nailed down.

[H20boy]

Great thread! Thanks to the OP for his time to start it, and believe it or not, I learned alot. I've done the separate 8x10 crop for a bride, and it can be exhausting. Good to know there are upfront choices that can be made during the shoot to help this.

[Aaagogo]

so meaning take 2 shots of everything?

1 shoot loose enough for a 4x6 and the other tight enough for a 8x12?

[notapro]

so meaning take 2 shots of everything?

1 shoot loose enough for a 4x6 and the other tight enough for a 8x12?

I have been doing essentially this, too, assuming you meant 8x10. Well, yesterday I got an order for an 8x10 of my tight shot. I have to email her today and explain that I can either do an 8x12 for her or print an 8x10 of a looser crop. I have a feeling that if I email her examples, she will be okay with it. It was probably just the closer crop that she liked, but I'm not sure how to handle it if she is unhappy about it. Throw in a free 8x12 frame?? I think I'm kidding... maybe :confused:

[cdifoto]

I've got the ultimate solution for y'all with framing issues.



Wait for it....



Wait for it....



Wait for it....



Wait for it....



Shoot everything with the Sigma 4.5mm.

[bieber]

I have been doing essentially this, too, assuming you meant 8x10. Well, yesterday I got an order for an 8x10 of my tight shot. I have to email her today and explain that I can either do an 8x12 for her or print an 8x10 of a looser crop. I have a feeling that if I email her examples, she will be okay with it. It was probably just the closer crop that she liked, but I'm not sure how to handle it if she is unhappy about it. Throw in a free 8x12 frame?? I think I'm kidding... maybe :confused:

Is it a horizontal or vertical image? If it's horizontal, just squish in those extra two inches, and it'll make the person skinnier to boot ;) If it's a vertical, well, not so much...

[notapro]

Is it a horizontal or vertical image? If it's horizontal, just squish in those extra two inches, and it'll make the person skinnier to boot ;) If it's a vertical, well, not so much...

Unfortunately it's vertical, but thanks for the idea. i don't know if I'd squish a whole two inches, but it could work if you just needed to squish a little.

[Strnge]

Sorry to those who don't like reviveing old threads, but I was wondering if I could get another question answered.


[quote=taygull;4059494]

Example 1 is of the image I shot and framed lose so I could crop to 4:5. This is the cropped version.

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x298/pawless/8x10.jpg

quote]


I would like to see the original shot before any cropping so I have an idea of what I need to leave around the subject. Please post the orginal side bye side with this cropped one.

Mike

[slimninj4]

Thanks strnge. I was just gonna ask this. We can see the end result. What was the original crop to know what to look for to get this "right way".

[taygull]

I don't have it handy and may not have saved it. Just envision about a 1/2" above and below the image.

[Strnge]

So I want to leave an 1/2 an inch on the left and right if shot in landscape and a 1/2 inch if shot in portrait? This will leave me enough space to crop for 3X5, 4X6, 5X7, and 8X10 and nothing will be cut off?

[taygull]

So I want to leave an 1/2 an inch on the left and right if shot in landscape and a 1/2 inch if shot in portrait? This will leave me enough space to crop for 3X5, 4X6, 5X7, and 8X10 and nothing will be cut off?

The simple thing to do is open some images in photoshop and select your crop tool to the specific ratio's and see what it does.

That is the best advice I can give as it would be hard to layout exactly how much in inches, that was just a guesstimate.