Using a single strobe (NOT hotshoe flash)- creative examples - mark II

i don't, but i saw how pham shoots and crops over on the senior thread, and it got me wanting to shoot wider, the prints i printed depend on the in camera crop i selected, rather it be the other way around and allow me to crop how i like after to fit most images to any size print i want

izthistaken wrote in post #12875947
Do you all usually shoot very wide for cropping purposes?

Depends on the situation. I do usually have an idea in mind of a crop that I want and then shoot wider than that, but depending on what I'm trying to capture, shooting too wide might cause distortion that I don't want.... in that case, I try to back up a bit rather than zooming out.

Whenever you're capturing people... always try to get all of the hands/feet/etc that is close to the frame, just in case. Shooting in the center and cropping for the rule-of-thirds is usually a good idea too, since typically the center of any lens is sharper than the edges.

izthistaken wrote in post #12875947
Do you all usually shoot very wide for cropping purposes?

"Fill the frame". Shoot the image in your head and don't waste pixels.

Dann.Landau wrote in post #12878141
"Fill the frame". Shoot the image in your head and don't waste pixels.

Seems you got everything all figured out. But that doesn't always work - in fact, it only works when the print image ratio is exactly the same as the image ratio that your camera captures. Usually, the problems come when someone wants an 8x10 (inches) print from an image they see from your camera. If you filled the frame, when you try to crop for an 8x10 you lose some of the image with which you filled the frame.

Additionally, you don't see the whole frame in the viewfinder. So if you fill the frame based on what you see, you will still have "wasted pixels" (as you call it). On my body, that is 15% of the image, distributed around the edges.

With the pixel size of most cameras today, we can all stand to waste some pixels to crop the image to satisfy the needs we have for a print. If you are going to make printouts that are billboard size, maybe you shouldn't waste pixels - but then maybe you should shoot medium format anyway.

kfyount wrote in post #12878239
If you filled the frame, when you try to crop for an 8x10 you lose some of the image with which you filled the frame.

"Fill the frame" is not "Fill the viewfinder". Shoot the image in your head and don't waste pixels means know what you're going for before you shoot, not push the subject up against every edge of the sensor. Shooting really wide because you don't know what you're trying to shoot is not going to give good photos anyway.

Dann.Landau wrote in post #12878341
"Fill the frame" is not "Fill the viewfinder". Shoot the image in your head and don't waste pixels means know what you're going for before you shoot, not push the subject up against every edge of the sensor. Shooting really wide because you don't know what you're trying to shoot is not going to give good photos anyway.

Glad you got it all figured out. It is useless to try and explain any more.

But (I can't help but add...) Nobody is talking about shooting "really" wide - we're talking about shooting so that whatever image ratio you might need is covered in the composition. But like I said, it seems useless - you have it all figured out.

in the business of doing seniors, the experience i have gained is shoot wider than you want, not really wide, but wider..

this gives you croppablity and with seniors print sizes come in all ratios.. 5x7, 8x10 (most popular), and the 11x14.

of course your original is the 4x6 or one might say 2x3 ratio, but the point is this, you shoot wide so you can have options..

but i understand some of Dann.Landau's point too.. if you have one image in mind, then by all means go with that framing..

i was talking specifically to seniors and Zach's shot.. his image may look good cropped the way he has it, but in popular print sizes, you need the wider version of that same shot.. (so that the client can order what ever they want and not have to have filler Black bars in the picture frame of their choice)

example

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by TINYPIC

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/-phamster-/5788814180/

izthistaken wrote in post #12875947
Do you all usually shoot very wide for cropping purposes?

he asked a question

Dann.Landau wrote in post #12878141
"Fill the frame". Shoot the image in your head and don't waste pixels.

he answered

kfyount wrote in post #12878239
Seems you got everything all figured out. But that doesn't always work -.............

You are coming off a little rude. It might be a language barrier but I honestly doubt that. He said what he does and how he shoots. No need to jump on him for that. If it works for him, it works for him. You do not know that it does not.

You do not need a medium format to shoot billboards. They are printed at a very low DPI.

I shoot a bit loose so I can make sure my horizons or what ever are level in post.

phamster wrote in post #12878420
in the business of doing seniors, the experience i have gained is shoot wider than you want, not really wide, but wider..

this gives you croppablity and with seniors print sizes come in all ratios.. 5x7, 8x10 (most popular), and the 11x14.

of course your original is the 4x6 or one might say 2x3 ratio, but the point is this, you shoot wide so you can have options..

but i understand some of Dann.Landau's point too.. if you have one image in mind, then by all means go with that framing..

i was talking specifically to seniors and Zach's shot.. his image may look good cropped the way he has it, but in popular print sizes, you need the wider version of that same shot.. (so that the client can order what ever they want and not have to have filler Black bars in the picture frame of their choice)

I agree with this.

thanks for the post here pham! this is the one i was referring to , there has been a few personal prints that had a "not as pretty" crop because i tend to fill the frame for 2x3

phamster wrote in post #12878420
but i understand some of Dann.Landau's point too.. if you have one image in mind, then by all means go with that framing..

This is exactly correct. I suppose I possibly misuderstood what was meant by "fill the frame" - if you know that you might need a 8x10 or an 11x14, then yes, you should "fill the frame" for that image ratio while keeping in mind that you might want to also crop to some of the other popular ratios (5x7, 4x6, and lately 16x9 seems to be popular).

But the problem (for me, at least) is that I can't visualize all of those ratios as I shoot. And even though I don't shoot for pay, my family and friends often ask for prints in ratios other than what I might have had in mind when I filled the frame. So the practical approach is to shoot wider than you would otherwise to give yourself room to crop. As I understand it, that is what Pham does and so the answer to the first question is "yes, I shoot wider to give myself room to crop". By all means, yes, if you are shooting an image that is only to fulfill your vision - fill the frame that you see. If you aren't sure what ratio you will need to print the image, you have to do something - that something translates into shooting wide enough to accomodate whatever ratio you might need. It is quite similar to dealing with the differnce between US letter size paper and A4 paper.

The fill the frame comment didn't seem to acknowledge that it doesn't always work that way.

Sigma, it was not a language issue on my part - English is my mother tongue. Didn't know that about the billboards, thanks. But I think we can all agree that we do have some pixels to waste without image quality suffering as long as this wasting is not too drastic.

kfyount wrote in post #12878547
This is exactly correct. I suppose I possibly misuderstood what was meant by "fill the frame" - if you know that you might need a 8x10 or an 11x14, then yes, you should "fill the frame" for that image ratio while keeping in mind that you might want to also crop to some of the other popular ratios (5x7, 4x6, and lately 16x9 seems to be popular).

But the problem (for me, at least) is that I can't visualize all of those ratios as I shoot. And even though I don't shoot for pay, my family and friends often ask for prints in ratios other than what I might have had in mind when I filled the frame. So the practical approach is to shoot wider than you would otherwise to give yourself room to crop. As I understand it, that is what Pham does and so the answer to the first question is "yes, I shoot wider to give myself room to crop". By all means, yes, if you are shooting an image that is only to fulfill your vision - fill the frame that you see. If you aren't sure what ratio you will need to print the image, you have to do something - that something translates into shooting wide enough to accomodate whatever ratio you might need. It is quite similar to dealing with the differnce between US letter size paper and A4 paper.

The fill the frame comment didn't seem to acknowledge that it doesn't always work that way.

Sigma, it was not a language issue on my part - English is my mother tongue. Didn't know that about the billboards, thanks. But I think we can all agree that we do have some pixels to waste without image quality suffering as long as this wasting is not too drastic.

AHHH ok this I agree with we are cool
Billboards are seen from far away so you can get away with as low as 18 DPI, high end is 30 DPI. if you see them up close they are crap

bedojo wrote in post #12878493
thanks for the post here pham! this is the one i was referring to , there has been a few personal prints that had a "not as pretty" crop because i tend to fill the frame for 2x3

Unfortunately, camera manufacturers, printers and frame makes have not been good about co ordinating aspect ratios.

Long long ago, 4x5 was the default because that's the size the press photographer's speedgraphic held.

If you are shooting a job for a client it only makes sense to leave some cropping room around the key elements in the image. If you are shooting for yourself filling the frame and getting the composition you want there is a fun creative challenge. But what happens when you have an image that everyone loves and then asks about getting an 8x10 for their very own.

Only option is to print it smaller than 8x10 with borders or

Not suggesting either approach is a rule, but do agree that leaving cropping options available for a client is a reasonable approach.

I hate 8x10s... I wish everyone would just start selling frames in 8x12 but still label them 8x10. Then johnny idiot public would never notice and we could just fill the frame how we wanted the composition to be and not worry about silly cropping

JakAHearts wrote in post #12878586
I hate 8x10s... I wish everyone would just start selling frames in 8x12 but still label them 8x10. Then johnny idiot public would never notice and we could just fill the frame how we wanted the composition to be and not worry about silly cropping

+1

I shoot 8x12 .... you get 8x12, use your scissors if you want a 8x10 JK JK