To crop or not to crop....

[Aaron.*]

Ok, since we were talking about where we get digital printing done, I
thought I'd pose this question:

I, like many of you, shoot for display on a computer monitor. I frame
(most of) my shots in the aspect ratio of my camera (Nikon D70), which
is 3008x2000, or 3:2. I can print a 4x6 without having to crop, but
going to a larger size gets a little sketchy. I can print at 8x12 and
mat it, which generally mats at 12x16. Or I can crop it down to 8x10,
for a more "standard" matting size.

8x10 would be beneficial, as it's much easier (and generally cheaper)
to get frames for 8x10s (11x14 matted), but I'm losing 16% of my
original image in the process.

8x12 is nice, since I don't have to crop, but getting frames to fit
8x12 or 12x16 is going to be more difficult for the peeps buying the
stuff.

Any opinions?

A.*

[rruttger]

I shoot with a Canon 20D and so have the same problem. About all I can
say about the issue is that I never place my subjects or any part of
the scene that is important at the wide edge of the frame. You never
know when you press the shutter release what size you will want to
print. I always figure I am going to have to crop and that takes the
pressure off when I am taking the shot. Besides with 6 or 8 megapixels
you can crop a little without losing much detail in the print.

A friend took a snapshot of my wife and I with our Canon S500. It
turned out to be one of our favorite portrait shots. I cropped the 5
megapixel shot down to what must have been about 4.5 megapixels and
printed it on 13x19 paper. This may have been a once in a lifetime
shot, but you can't believe the amount of detail in that big print.

[Andy Cosgrove]

8x10 is hard since it almost looks square. Not much you can do but,
like Randy said, try to compose with a print in mind. Usually a photo
has some wiggle room to get a crop out of it, but occaisionally I run
into an issue where I just can't get a pleasing crop at 8x10.

I do like the ratio of 3:2 better most of the time than 3:4 (like point
and shoots), so if it's a print for myself I'll try to find something
cheap enough. Or, if you're selling quite a few prints, it may be
worthwhile to buy a matt cutter. It's quite common for prints to be
sold pre-matted.

[Justin Holmes]

I would go by what the picture needs rather than by what is easy to
frame (more on this in a minute). I too have a d70, and I feel that
different aspect ratios have different uses.

4x6 Is what I do mostly because I don't have tons of space, but like
having prints (I bought a bunch of rare earth magnets and have a little
"gallery" on a filing cab in my office). I also send these to family.

8x12- Also native resolution. I think these make great landscape shots
and are good for architecture.

8x10- I prefer these for portrait and portrait orientation shots, as
8x12 just looks too long (although 4x6 doesn't bother me, go figure).
While you are tossing pixels, the d70 has more than adequate resolution
to make 8x10s.

Square- I like these for pics of our cats sometimes. I am lame...

As for framing, the best resource I have found is www.framesbymail.com
. They seem to seel more or less the same frames as many of the framing
places, and they are cheap. Profile 5000 appears to be the same stuff
as the build your own frame stuff they have at micheals, but I think
they are less than half the price (the rails for an 8x12 are under 5
bucks I think). I haven't bought mattes from them, but plan to soon.
The only gripe I have is that they don't mail glass, only plexi. The
plexi doesn't look too bad, although real glass probably has more UV
protection (I bought my fiancee a cool picture of Ireland from Barry
Hendrickson (local photgrapher) and am planning to get a frame from
frames by mail, but buy some glass locally to keep this pic safe. The
stuff I print of my own, I figure I can always reprint if it were to
fade.

[Aaron.*]

Wow, no kidding about framesbymail being cheap! The frames are hella
cheap, and even the precut mats are reasonably priced (still more
expensive than the cut yourself stuff, but hey!)

I'll have to get an 8x12 or two printed up, matted and framed, just to
see how they look... I think the thing for me, is that it just seems
wasteful to have to crop down an image, not because of flaws, errors or
photographers mistakes, but because of wonky print standards. It'd be
like giving a canvas to a painter, and telling them they cannot paint
on the top two inches of the canvas.... JUST BECAUSE!

I know I've looked for the answer before, and I think I came up empty
handed, but does anyone know why the ratio for prints of one film type
(in this case, originally 35 mm, or 3:2) would have 8x10 as a standard
print size? Is it merely because portraits are/were more desirable at
8x10 than 8x12? Or was there another format shot at 4:5, which would
neccessitate 8x10 prints?

A.*

[Andy Cosgrove]

I'm not good with photography history, but I know that some of the
earlier cameras used an 8x10 ground glass plate as "film." And there
are the 4x5 negs. Maybe that's where the 8x10 standard came from?

But I know what you mean when you don't want to crop. When it comes
down to it, you shouldn't have to.

[Justin Holmes]

I think you are pretty much right, with the caveat that I don't know my
history really well either. The 8x10 does seem like it probably
originated with mf. THat and in the darkroom, people did crop and such.
I don't see it as a big deal to crop for some sizes personally, since
none of the common print sizes share an aspect ratio.

FWIW, some proponents of OLY digital slrs like them because the 4:3
aspect ratio is closer to 8x10, so there is less cropping there (but
more for 4x6).

[Justin Holmes]

I was pleasanlty surprised. i've only bought the frosted black metal,
but that is what I was using for most everything before too. Let me
know what you get and how it is.