How do you mix MF (4:3) and 35mm (3:2) aspect ratios?

[samogitian]

More and more of my photos are on my GFX100S, but I still take a lot of photos with my Leica Q2s and other "full-(35mm) frame" sensor cameras.

How do those of you who do both manage your aspect ratios for exhibition and printing? I have a couple of friends who shoot with Hasselblad Superwide SWCs, getting 1:1 square format prints. That's distinctive enough from the 35mm aspect ratio, but 3:2 and 4:3 are so darn close, but look weird next to each other. In my own functionalist ethic, I dislike the idea of cropping.

[Alan Klein]

Can you select 3:2 format in the GFX? (or vice versa) so that both cameras shoot the same format?

[samogitian]

I can certainly do this and I would prefer it to cropping, but am wondering about other options.

[BobShaw]

I don't think that i have ever printed a photo in the same aspect ratio as the capture.
Even back in the film days the paper was a different ratio to the negative.

There was a time when you had to show the edge of a negative in the print or it was considered heresy and not allowed in a competition.
Thank goodness in the digital age you can just add a border.

Surely in the 21st century your creativity is not limited to what some technician thought was a good ratio for a sensor?

[samogitian]

I don't think that i have ever printed a photo in the same aspect ratio as the capture.
Even back in the film days the paper was a different ratio to the negative.

There was a time when you had to show the edge of a negative in the print or it was considered heresy and not allowed in a competition.
Thank goodness in the digital age you can just add a border.

Surely in the 21st century your creativity is not limited to what some technician thought was a good ratio for a sensor?

I rarely crop my images, preferring what I see in the viewfinder for composition. It’s always easier and better for me to do it in camera than after. My photos are almost never one offs but rather serial so I prefer to use similar lens lengths for a set of photos. I can’t imagine every photo having a unique aspect ratio, but that’s in my work.

[TechTalk]

I rarely crop my images, preferring what I see in the viewfinder for composition. It’s always easier and better for me to do it in camera than after. My photos are almost never one offs but rather serial so I prefer to use similar lens lengths for a set of photos. I can’t imagine every photo having a unique aspect ratio, but that’s in my work.

I don't have a desire for every photo to have a unique aspect ratio nor for every photo to have a single aspect ratio. The purpose and/or individual nature of the image would dictate that for me. It's a personal choice, however, so to each their own.

[langier]

My solution was to standardize on a handful of aspect ratios with the idea that I can easily swap-out prints in frames and matts  so I don't grow a collection of mat boards and frames gathering dust in the garage or in a closet.

My standard suite of mats all fit in my collection of 16x20 frames and covers several formats I've shot in the past twenty years. It started with my film aspect ratios, 35mm, 6x6, 4x5 and has evolved into fitting the digital papers and sheet sizes I use today.

My preset mats include full-frame 35mm, 4:3 for images from my M43 cameras, 16:9 for wider images and frame-grabs from motion and square which is a format that I continue to use since the early 1970s when I first got into medium format shooting a Rollieflex. The 4:3 and squares have easily fulfilled my needs when shooting with my iPhone. Even the 4:3 still gets fulfills an occasional image from a 4x5 scan from film or transparency with just a little bit of tweaking.

Years ago a museum curator told me his observations after years of hanging shows and his advice was to make things as sink as possible when it comes to preparing one's work for a show. I've taken that to heart to standardize on a few aspect ratios so that I'm not spending hours cutting custom mats for every image.

For me, it's easy for me to properly compose in any of several aspect ratios at the start of the process so it becomes easy to fit things together during my printing workflow.

I've worked with several clients over the years who have cropped each image slightly differently for their shows which makes matting and framing a nightmare as each mat has to be custom-cut, usually by hand. At least all the frames are uniform or it would be a real hodgepodge when it comes to hanging their work.

[Alan Klein]

I'm currently in the process of putting together a coffee-table photo book.  Around 50 pictures. It's for personal use only.    Any recommendations to consider with the book such as leaving borders or not around the pictures of going full bleed to the edges, cropping so they're all the same size and shape, or not to worry if they're different, etc?

[bcooter]

I haven't responded to this site for for a few years, maybe more, but this thread caught my eye.

I've done large coffee table books, always in a horizontal format, `though the photographs are of mixed sizes.

Now what I am suggesting is my and the participants preference, so don't think i'm posting this as the holy grail.

To me a book that is based on imagery should be like editing a movie.  If the images are compelling, placed in an order that makes each viewer turn the page and be surprised, I believe any crop or sizing is important, as long as it makes the viewer study at each image.   I also believe the use of white space is important and some are with a an image and a brief explanation of what, where the photograph was shot, or what motivated the artist.

This personalizes each spread.

I did this book for a group of very good photographers that are friends and great photographers I respect.  The image below is a comp with just my work, because I don't have the rights or copyrights to show other photographers work.  I am only showing it to illustrate what different cropped images look like in a book format



I don't believe there is any rules except keeping some white space around the image unless it can cover a double truck and needs the size to be understood.

Best of luck Alan and the only thing I would suggest is make the book large and do some trial printing yourself on maybe 5 spreads to see if you like the results.

BC

I'm currently in the process of putting together a coffee-table photo book.  Around 50 pictures. It's for personal use only.    Any recommendations to consider with the book such as leaving borders or not around the pictures of going full bleed to the edges, cropping so they're all the same size and shape, or not to worry if they're different, etc?

[Alan Klein]

Thanks for the ideas.  I can't see the photo.  Is there a way you can correct that?  If not, maybe you can email it to me?  I'll send you a private note with my email address.

[leuallen]

I right clicked on the blank image and selected Open image in new Tab. I saw the image. Give it a try. Chrome.

[Alan Klein]

It's not working.  Maybe my Kaspersky anti-virus software is blocking opening the picture?

[bcooter]

It's not working.  Maybe my Kaspersky anti-virus software is blocking opening the picture?

try this, just click on link.

http://www.russellrutherford.com/coffee_table_book_comp2.jpg

usually firefox works with everything.

bc

[Alan Klein]

Ok got it. I see what you mean.  Thanks.

[Chris Kern]

This guy had some interesting thoughts a while back regarding the current subject:

My feeling is that cropping isn’t something that we do to an image. It does it itself – demanding to be constrained in certain ways. Sometimes there’s more than one way, but it eventually becomes obvious what the photograph itself wants. This isn’t metaphor. The best photographs demand to be a certain shape. The rest make no such requests, and that’s what separates the winners from the also-rans.

—Michael Reichmann, Understanding the Art of Cropping, March, 2011

On the other hand:

My solution was to standardize on a handful of aspect ratios with the idea that I can easily swap-out prints in frames and matts  so I don't grow a collection of mat boards and frames gathering dust in the garage or in a closet.

I do this as well for the same reason—to the extent that is seems feasible—but with the understanding that there are some images which demand "to be constrained in certain ways."

My experience is that it is always best to avoid being doctrinaire about "rules" regarding imaging.

[bcooter]

This guy had some interesting thoughts a while back regarding the current subject:


My experience is that it is always best to avoid being doctrinaire about "rules" regarding imaging.

As I mentioned there is no holy grail and every book . . .  heck every photograph usually has a viewer in mind, even if you're the only viewer.

I would look at this link from Taschen, who probably has the highest end large books in the world.

https://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/photography/all.htm

As you can see there are no rules.

All the best.

BC

[Doug Peterson]

It's good to see you back James!

[bcooter]

It's good to see you back James!

Thanks Doug . . .  hope you and yours are doing good.  We're doing OK, just the same ol fighting it out though we've learned a lot in the last two years.

I don't think I ever thanked you properly for getting that phase charger to the NY studio in about 15 minutes, so if I didn't . . . big thanks.

BC

[Alan Klein]

This guy had some interesting thoughts a while back regarding the current subject:

On the other hand:

I do this as well for the same reason—to the extent that is seems feasible—but with the understanding that there are some images which demand "to be constrained in certain ways."

My experience is that it is always best to avoid being doctrinaire about "rules" regarding imaging.

I think you're right that there is no right way.  First off my style was to frame in the camera.  Growing up with slides that I projected, there was no cropping after the fact.  The pictures came back from the processor already in the cardboard slide holder ready for the projector.  So my shooting style has remained pretty much get it in the camera.

Of course, when I shoot digitally on vacation when I travel now, I have flexibility.  I crop to improve the shots before I create video slide shows.

Thirty years back when I started shooting MF 6x7, I also framed in the camera.  Using a tripod and shooting landscapes gave me the time to be slow and persistent in framing the right shot.  When I finally got around to printing them in a lab that used internegatives, I standardized on 16x20" which pretty much matches the 6x7 of the film shots.  So I framed all 25 or so pictures in a 22x26 frame with a 3" mat.  I don't recall if at the time I did that because I thought I framed them right in the camera and they didn't need cropping.  Or I just wanted to standardize on the frames going on the walls. 

[Chris Kern]

Growing up with slides that I projected, there was no cropping after the fact.  The pictures came back from the processor already in the cardboard slide holder ready for the projector.  So my shooting style has remained pretty much get it in the camera.

I did the same when I was shooting 35mm film in that era and making analog prints.  You could make minor adjustments to the in-camera framing, but if you were printing at 8x10 inches or larger, there just wasn't enough resolution to crop aggressively.  I'm shooting some film again with a recently-acquired sample of the first 35mm camera I used as a teenager, but I scan at high resolution and also have the option of enlarging the pixel dimensions significantly using Adobe's Super Resolution or Topaz Gigapixel, so I have more latitude for cropping than I did with a purely analog workflow.