Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 77,744   Posts: 1,717,341   Online: 647
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 43 of 43
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    35mm RF
    The perennial question.

    Well, when I started out, I always printed full frame (eg 8x12 from 35 mm neg) because I didn't want to waste anything, I could never understand why people printed 8x10, 11x14, etc.

    Now I realise that cropping is an essential part of the output process, and that it's not a single-answer problem, ie the answer is not always "print full frame".

    Cropping serves many purposes, one of the most important is to support what you are trying to communicate with your picture. You crop elements which distract, which don't add to what you're trying to say, etc.

    For a square neg, we have another decision. A picture cropped and presented vertically can have a different feel from one horizontally. Unlike 35 mm photographers, we can leave that decision to the output stage.

    Hence my answer is-- I'll print full frame if that works, I'll crop if it works better. To me, printing full frame is not a sacred cow.

  2. #42
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Multi Format
    Case by case basis. Some images work in the square, others need to be cropped. While some 4x5 negs look really nice cropped into a square, or even a panoramic.
    Try not to think about it too much. Just look critically at each negative individually and try to figure out what works best for that particular print. I think it's limiting to lock yourself up in certain aspect ratios just because the negative is shaped a certain way.
    - Thomas
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Maryland, USA
    Medium Format
    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
    BTW, it isn't (but is). A rectangle, as defined in some places, has adjacent sides that are of unequal length.
    I haven't seen it defined this way. My favorite definition of a square:

    A square is a degenerate rectangle with adjacent sides a and b having equal length.

    A square is also a rhombus.

    I crop as needed. I'd hate to pass up a shot because I'm carrying a 6x6 instead of a 6x9.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin