I have a compulsion...

**Eric James** · 4-Nov-2006, 20:59

...to crop to my film's aspect ratio. (I shoot 24 X 36 mm and 4 by 5 in.)

Is this normal?

**Ron Marshall** · 4-Nov-2006, 21:04

I like to shoot 5x7 as well as 4x5. The aspect ratio of 5x7, 1.4:1, is close to that of 35mm.

I crop to whatever aspect ratio suits the image, but mostly I prefer that of 5x7 over that of 4x5.

**Peter Lewin** · 4-Nov-2006, 21:21

I don't think there is a "normal" standard. Personally I crop (if I have to) until I like the final image, and that is more likely to result in a print with a different aspect ratio than the full-frame negative. I'm usually cropping foreground or a side, and I don't eliminate other parts of the image just to keep an aspect ratio.

**Sheldon N** · 4-Nov-2006, 22:15

I think I feel the same compulsion. I started shooting 35mm, and moved from that to 4x5 then 6x6cm. I typically compose images that tend to fill the frame regardless of whatever format I'm shooting.

More recently though, I have found that the 35mm aspect ratio is feeling a little too rectangular for me, and that I'm starting to see a little bit more in the 4x5 or square aspect ratios. A lot of my 35mm stuff is getting cropped to 8x10's, especially when printed in the darkroom.

**Eric James** · 4-Nov-2006, 22:27

I much prefer the 5 X 7 aspect ratio - I think it's perfect for my compositional tendencies. I shoot 4 X 5 largely because of the simplicity and portability that Quickloads afford.

I'm pretty new to large format. I think that much of my tendency to crop maximally to aspect ratio comes from the comparatively little information on a 35mm scan, and the desire to print large. Having shot 35mm forever, the utility of more real estate has yet to fully sink in.

I suppose I'm also influenced by the aesthetic appeal of having the composition right when the shutter is released.

**Jim Ewins** · 4-Nov-2006, 22:37

A finished image may have borders that respect no standard aspect ratio. It may go against our Calvinistic heritage to waste paper but thats life.

**Frank Petronio** · 4-Nov-2006, 22:49

Paul Strand added a bar to the guts of his 5x7 to make it into a Golden Rectangle camera...

**Eric James** · 4-Nov-2006, 22:52

Sheldon, we posted simultaneously. While you were writing your post I was wondering how frequently 6X6 shooters crop. I think it's a somewhat clumsy aspect ratio, but if maintained in the print the square can really energize many compositions.

I too am finding 35mm more and more rectangular.

For sure Jim, the BEST composition for a given image will not likely conform to a standard dimension.

**Sheldon N** · 4-Nov-2006, 23:40

Here's a recent example of how sometimes the camera you happen to be shooting with has the wrong aspect ratio for the picture you're taking.

I shot this original image on 4x5, but when I saw the result I decided that it wanted to be square. I think it's the influence of the Hasselblad...

**Eric James** · 5-Nov-2006, 00:19

It's a good crop! The square really is dynamic, as your shot illustrates. I'm inspired to look for more-square compositions for my 4x5.

I shot a Mamiya 7 for a few dozen rolls until a wind gust sent the tripod and camera crashing into Chugach Choss. Although there are cheaper ways to learn, I was latently relieved that I no longer had to deal with 6 by 7cm compositions. The Japanese 6X8, sure; or the Hassy 6X6, maybe - but the 6X7 seemed a poor compromise.