Cropping images free vs based on a fixed ratio

I almost always crop my images and usually crop free form, meaning that if the original picture was 2:3 my resulting cropped picture no longer has the original nor any specific round number ratio. In other people's photographs, I always see a good photograph inside their pictures. I am always thinking, gosh if you would crop in and crop out this and that then the result would really be a good picture. Part of me feels that the world is a messy place and I want to crop out all that messy stuff without being bound to any rules. Another part of me thinks about posting pictures together in a gallery where they would look better together if they had the same ratio. And then there may be the day I am someone's second shooter or take engagement photographs where there is the need to take pictures so that they can be printed at standard ratios.

So. How important is cropping to a standard ratio? Do you always post process to some standard ratio and long size pixel dimension and why? If you have a full frame, a crop, and a m43, do you post process all to the same ratio and long size pixel dimension to standardize them?

Or. In an internet and smart phone world if you are wandering through a city or an industrial site or abandoned building, do you throw all rules out the window and crop the final picture to the edges that the picture tells you to use?

I do shoot to an aspect ratio but that is because, for me, the fun of photography is capturing an image despite all the limitations of the equipment/format/aspec​t ratio. The day they invent the perfect camera is the day I give up photography.

Having said that there are a handful of shots I have cropped to non-standard aspect ratios for compositional/artistic reasons.

Your pictures, your creativity, your rules. Regardless of what anyone else thinks or feels.

While there are conventions to crop ratios for the purpose of using ready-made frames and mats, in today's digital age where such constraints are not needed for screen display, ratios don't really matter. Go with what works. If you really want a non-standard crop printed and hanging on your wall there's nothing stopping you from creating a custom frame to fit and/or using a standard frame with a custom mat.

As for established conventions, the end result typically will justify the format. Portrait photographers usually crop to standard sizes out of convenience for their customers. Fine artists do the same. Editorial photographers have more room to play and ratios are column inches according to the publication in question. Fashion and commercial photographers work closely with art directors to determine how each photograph will be used which deterines the final aspect. If none of the above apply to you, all the better as it gives you free reign to express your art.

i used to crop to get just the subject i wanted. in my film days, it was always "fill the frame" but now i find i need to leave a bit more "space" so i can crop to several different ratios or go "free for all"...

i generally leave the images as is now unless i want something specific for like a banner that might be 2(h) x 8(w) (or whatever it works out to)...

If I was doing a portrait for someone, I'd try to stay within a 'normal' ratio. Sometimes I'll have to use a mat to hide part of the image. If they wanted to post on something that required a square image, I'd fill in the extra space with black.
When I shoot for other purposes, I'll crop for what I (or the AD) think is best.

Also, something to consider: a dark mat & frame will help isolate the image from the usual white walls that they're hung on, & can make a big difference in how it looks, just like when you click on the forum's eyeglasses & they show on a gray background.
The usual white mat tends to make a dark image look even darker. Take a look at POST #30 near the bottom of page #2: The gray bar at the center is the same density all the way across.
A few Car Lighting Tips

I used to crop everything free form to get the framing that I wanted. Now that we've got a new house and have started printing out a lot of our favorites to decorate the walls, I've realized what a pain in the rear it is now! I have to go back and re-crop my images to something standard, or deal with custom prints and custom framing costs.

Framing your photos gets expensive really quick, especially if you're printing in larger sizes. I've now started trying to crop to traditional ratios when possible (there are obviously some exceptions) since it makes printing and framing the photos so much easier to use off-the-shelf frames.

(PS - Michaels craft stores are 70% custom framing this week thru black Friday, we've been taking advantage of that sale quite a bit this week!)

As has been noted, there are frequently reasons external to the art that call for standard ratios.

Over the last half century that I've used various formats--frequently simultaneously--my eye has often adapted to the format I was using. When I was using a TLR, I kept seeing all these great square compositions! But then when I picked up a 35mm, I started seeing long rectangular compositions. OTOH, shooting 6x7 or 4x5 never did really cause me to see much in that format.

But has also been noted, there are frequently display considerations that also come into play. It's definitely a less expensive proposition to hang large prints of standard proportions.

What I do these days is to format and crop to fit the composition, but I then place them on "self-mats" in Photoshop. The overall image format may be 2x3 or 4x5, but the image within might be any other format. The surrounding material in my case is usually black with a hairline frame around the image of a dropper-selected lighter color. (The hairline isn't visible in this image.)

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …345125753/in/ph​otostream/

Johari_20x24

RDKirk wrote in post #18193777
...

What I do these days is to format and crop to fit the composition, but I then place them on "self-mats" in Photoshop. The overall image format may be 2x3 or 4x5, but the image within might be any other format. The surrounding material in my case is usually black with a hairline frame around the image of a dropper-selected lighter color. (The hairline isn't visible in this image.)

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …345125753/in/ph​otostream/
Johari_20x24 by RDKirk on Flickr

i like this idea....

i used to know how to make these "self-mats" but i forgot...

Ltdave wrote in post #18193843
i used to know how to make these "self-mats" but i forgot...

Would increasing the Canvas size give you a clue? ; )

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18193884
Would increasing the Canvas size give you a clue? ; )

nope....

Ltdave wrote in post #18193917
nope....

It might be under the "Image" menu.
In PS, you can use it to extend the boundaries of the image. If you pick a color first, it will make the extra canvas that color.

My habits have varied over the years. In the "early days" I made fewer prints and tended to print my film scans and other artwork a bit "smallish" and then would frame them using mattes to frame them and compliment the color together with a larger frame.

But as my digital workflow moved forward, I decided on a simple "framework" for printing, framing and hanging my work. I had two "standard" frame sizes that I could pick up inexpensively at a crafts/variety store nearby, the 12x16 frames and the 12x18 frames, which would firt the two common digital aspect ratios of 2:3 for DSLRs and 4:3 for my "compact"/P&S cameras and that provided nice sizes for hanging work!

So, I've gone with those two sizes over the years. Sometimes I've cropped the DSLR photos to "meet" the smaller aspect ratio, but at any rate, well, I have kept a stock of the two frame sizes, and it works!

I never got into smaller print framing, such as printing/framing 8x10 portraits and such, so that hasn't factored into my workflow! And, I've never veered into "alternatives", such as cropping/printing/fram​ing a square image! Those may be fine for posting/sharing on the Web or whatever, but I haven't wanted to go into the expense/work of doing a print/framing presentation!

Ok, this thread has caught my attention and imagination (both dangerous). I really like the focus and isolation that the "self-mat" imparts to images.

Rank, brain-dead newb here so be gentle. I'm using humble CS2 and trying to learn things. I've figured out the "Stroke", so that's cool. And, I've figured out how to get a mat around the edge of the image, so that's...kinda cool.

I'm trying to do what Kirk mentioned about using images cropped for composition and of non-standard formatted sizes.

I'm having a problem, though, getting the final image to be of a standard sized format for printing...8x10, 11x14, etc.,.

Using a non-standard image that I have, if I increase the canvas 1.5" or 2" it gives a nice mat effect. But when I resize the image and enter in the correct dimension for one side, for example 14" for an 11x14 print then the other dimension changes to 9.636". In my mind this would result in a white strip on probably two of the four sides of the print. Should I increase the canvas size a greater amount and then crop down to a fixed/standard sized format? Seems like I might be missing something here and that the over-sizing of the canvas and subsequent cropping isn't necessary. But,....????

I hope what I'm trying to say isn't to jumbled up and confusing!!!

Thanks for any pointers!!!
Ed

Intheswamp wrote in post #18194243
Should I increase the canvas size a greater amount and then crop down to a fixed/standard sized format? Seems like I might be missing something here and that the over-sizing of the canvas and subsequent cropping isn't necessary. But,....????

That's the way I usually do it. It saves time doing the math. ; )

Math? Seems I recall reading about that somewhere...

Ok, I like the KISS principle. I'll go with that!

Thanks for the confirmation, Frank.

Ed