Regarding aspect ratio, I would agree that 4:3 may often be preferable to 3:2.
On the other hand, doing serious work, I would always crop my images to subject.
I would think that cropping to subject is a part of the photographic workflow.
Who's recommending this stuff? I have hundreds of photobooks and don't recall seeing a single photographer working like this. I was taught to do that work with the camera unless there's a compelling reason not to, and I've no idea what that compelling reason could be.
I have no idea what this means. Surely every enthusiast photographer crops their images? I know there are a few people out there who have this obsession with using exactly the whole frame, but that is what sounds weird to me. You shoot the shot, then later you optimise the shot to look as good as it can be, including cropping if that improves the composition.
This is mad - it's not an obsession, it's normal practice. No serious photographer I've encountered does what you suggest, except for a very few exceptions. Art Sinsabaugh springs to mind but his crops are intrinsic to the work. Unless there's a compelling reason then you're really just demonstrating the carelessness of your creative process.
I'm confident that I could flick through every one of my photobooks and struggle to find a single frame that deviates from the aspect ratio of the format the photographer is working in. Maybe Larry Towell - I recall some shots over two pages. Perhaps it's more common if you're only creating singular images.
Edit: damn that was an ugly typo, sorry Larry.
I understood that there was a vogue once for demonstrating that you were faithful to the in camera frame by actually printing the negative frame edges as proof. No offence intended but that practice (if it existed) sounds completely anal to me.
I have recently started using a full frame camera again after a gap of some years. I find that there are a few subjects and compositions that suit the 3:2 aspect ratio, but in the majority of cases I find it personally to be too skinny for my tastes. So I crop almost every shot I take with full frame. I don't consider that an example of incompetence or laziness or some failure of the creative process, rather an example of a camera manufacturer who got it wrong.
or maybe You got it wrong fro buying a camera which does not fit your needs
In general, I find that when I'm out shooting, I want a different aspect ratio for almost every shot.
well if you ever going to print a book , it is going to be a huge challenge
Harold, It's not a huge challenge. It's not a challenge at all. It's not even a small issue.
I have printed many books.
That is, I have actually
printed many books.
As in - edited and proofed the customer's copy, created the book's design and typography in Quark XPress or InDesign, drum scanned the original images, output the printing plates and supervised my pressmen and bindery personnel as the book(s) proceeded through to the finished product.
I assure you that the size, shape, aspect ratio or any other characteristic of the artwork and photography in such an effort is anything but an impediment to the printing industry.
Those factors are the defining characteristics of the work and are of paramount importance. The only comment we make to a photographer who wants a particular image printed with an unusual greenish hue and as an askew isosceles triangle with one corner bleeding off the page is whether we got the measurements of the triangle and hue correct and the placement of the image correctly on the page grid.
I've had the pleasure of processing the images of a large number of professional photographers for the printed page in all kinds of publications. I am firmly in the camp of those who use the camera as a means of doing whatever it takes to capture the image, and the print (however that is done - silver gelatin, printing press, ink jet) as the means of accommodating whatever the size and shape needs to be to present the important image elements.
Cropping is the final part of the creative process.
No camera manufacturer ever considered artistic needs in designing the film gate of any camera - except Hasselblad. Cameras were designed to satisfy engineering requirements and film manufacturing processes, not the vision of any photographer. Until Victor Hasselblad reasoned that a square format would allow the photographer to be free to create
any aspect ratio at all, within a "landscape" to "portrait" orientation, all without even turning the camera. What a concept. Just position the image in the viewfinder as needed and crop as necessary.
I mean no disrespect to anyone, but as a graphic designer, I see the blank page as a free-form canvas on which to place any image in any size ratio I want. Why some photographers limit themselves to the constraints of any camera film gate has always perplexed me.
Rich
And by the way, I consider myself to be a pretty serious (amateur) photographer. You may think that being constrained to whatever engineering decision your camera vendor decided was the correct aspect ratio is proof of your serious artistic credentials.
You have it backwards ;-)
I am not constrained by ANY of my cameras . if a camera does not have the ratio(s) which set me free from such constraints , I have a trick : I don t buy them
try it , it works :-D
Personally, I consider my having no concern whatsoever what someone else thinks of my creative choices to be proof of my artistic credentials
I have no interest in what any famous photographer thinks. They are free to do it their way without censure from me, and I'm free to pursue whatever I think works for me.
nobody says you are not free to do whatever .
Harold
