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.