I'm curious - when printing, do you crop your final image? I'm not really interested in what format you shoot, but rather in the final product.
Personally, I do crop my images (both 6x6 and 4x5) when necessary. Cropping is your last shot at removing any distractions that may detract from the photograph. Additionally, if you're shooting XxY what do you do when you see something that doesn't convieniently fit into a XxY negative? I say crop it, to make the image you saw when you made the negative.
When printing the full negative, I never show negative borders. Why? I think negative borders look messy, and are incredibly distracting.
Of course, these are my opinions. Yours?
Most of the time I print full frame, but if necessary I do crop.
Sometimes I previsualise an image that I am shooting in a square format, I shoot 6x4,5 medium format. Those images always end up printed square.
I have posted an image in the Standard gallery to illustrate what I mean.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I even print with negative borders, but that's when I need every last fragment of the negative to get the image I want. It looks better with dark borders than dark flare from the borders...
so I vote "yes" - I have nothing against cropping and prefer that to running out of negative.
Given my methods and subject matter (mostly candid portraits of kids) cropping is essential. I try to compose in-camera and quite often can print full-frame, but with moving targets, you have to be willing to adjust after the fact.
That said, in my fine art work (also children but they tend to be slightly older and less flighty) I almost always print full frame.
Unlike Cheryl, don't shoot moving targets. Therefore I generally have the time to compose fully on the ground glass and I do this every time I release the shutter. Like Francisco said in the other thread about this, when I shoot 8x10 they are contacts and this leaves very little wiggle room for cropping and still having an 8x10 contact print. Some may say they do it for a "purity of vision". I know guys that full frame every format. 35mm to 7x17. It is a good excersise for people to learn to see in their chosen format.
I try to shoot full frame, but sometimes the world just doesn't arrange itself in a 4:5 or 1:1 or 2:3 aspect ratio.
I would say that now I shoot 99% of my images with LF cameras and contact print. So, I also do the composition on the ground glass no matter what my subject matter. Even my figure work is shot with LF and contact printed. Now, I don't include the negative borders.
yes, full frame is the best of course and there can be given a very strong arguments for that. i do love very much the 2/3 ratio. (i have past the love to 1/1 and even the 1/2 panoramic). but it is true that it is not always the best way just to put things in thios format. what i do is that im cropping in simetrical way to avoid the problems of pespective and point of view when u crop. when i make image especially on the 23view camera i take it into my concidirations. (for example i can ignore on the gg of the 1cm from each side to make it like 67 format.).
on the small camera it is much more problematic ecpecially on the rangefinder. but i suggest that instead of getting to be used to cropp, it is better to analyze why u want to cropp in order to avoid this cases. the main reasons can be or too short lense or too long distance, so each time it is better to try to match what u realy want.
in the forum of "ethics and philosophy" i wrote in one of the discussions i think "zen..." about the visualization and lenses. with this approach that i work i usually avoid the problems of cropping etc.
by the way...
the problems that come with cropping is especially unaccaptable with photos taken with short lenses (wide). the wider the lense the more problematic it is.
i'm with everyone else here - try not to have to crop, but can see no "bad" in doing it when necessary.