I have a compulsion...

[Eric James]

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

Is this normal?

[Ron Marshall]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Eric James]

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]

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]

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.

[Neal Wydra]

Dear Eric,

Why should you bind yourself to the aspect ratio of your camera?

Neal Wydra

[j.e.simmons]

I had forgotten that about Strand. I have drawn a line on my ground glass and have taped my negative holder to make golden mean crops with 4x5 and 2x3.
juan

[Ken Lee]

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

Dunno about the Golden Rectangle. From what I have read and seen, Strand felt that 5x6 was the ideal ratio for portraits, and modified his 5x7 accordingly.

5x6 is less "golden" than 5x7. A true golden ratio would be 5x8, or 4.3 x 7

Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/gallery/dogwood2.htm) is an example

[Bruce Watson]

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

Is this normal?

Yes, it's normal. Cropping is not a sin. I find that I compose first, setup the camera second, and then crop to meet my composition. The film is just a tool to get me from composition to print.

Interestingly, I find that my sense of composition likes certain aspect ratios better than others. And it changes over time. Right now I'm going through a 2.5:1 phase so I crop the dickens out of a 5x4 negative. Makes me think I should look into a 10x4 camera.

I also like the golden ratio (about 1.618:1) more and more, but at least half of my work is still in the 5:4 (1.25:1) ratio.

It's about how you see. Use the film in a way that supports your vision. If that means cropping, so be it.

[roteague]

I find that I rarely crop my images.

[Brian Ellis]

I often end up cropping, sometimes just a tiny bit to eliminate something that inadvertantly got into an edge, sometimes a lot to better suit what I wanted to accomplish. I find that a lot of time with landscapes the negative ends up including too much unwanted foreground to get the mid and background I want, especially with shorter focal length lenses. I certainly see no reason to take great pride in always fitting every photograph into a predetermined film and paper aspect ratio as a few people seem to do. I got into a fairly heated argument with Michael Smith about that at his workshop. He feels, inexplicably to me, that every last mm of every last negative must be printed, kind of like it's cheating to crop.

[bruce terry]

8x10 contact prints aside, I happily crop to what I think the image should contain - be it LF or 35mm. More often than not I usually end up with a five-by-seven-ish image.

[C. D. Keth]

I find that I rarely crop my images.

I'm the same. My profession is in shooting motion pcitures, though, so I think it comes from that. Movies can't be cropped, so I generally don't crop.

[Ken Lee]

At the risk of repeating myself, here (http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=51750&handle=li) is a JPG of one of Paul Strand's more well-known images, a group portrtait of "The Lusetti Family", made in Italy in 1953.

According to the Getty Museum, the print is 4 5/8 x 5 15/16 - apparently a contact print from a 5x6 negative, with a little cropping for the film edge.

I have read that for the majority of his career, Strand shot 8x10 and 5x6 (cropped in-camera from 5x7).

[Brian Ellis]

From an essay by Richard Benson in the book "Paul Strand - Essays on His Life and Work," ISBN 0-89381-441-5:

"Following this period (referring to the period immediately after the 1st WW) Strand adopted two cameras, the 8x10 inch view camera and the 5x7 inch Graflex and he used these two machines, without variation or exception, from roughly 1920 to almost 1960. . . . Another interesting aspect of this body of work is that Strand put a mask on the camera back and the ground glass to alter the format to approximately 5x6 inches, which he felt, like 8x10 inches, to possess the 'right' proportion for a picture. This camera, now a 5x6 rather than a 5x7, used one lens only, a 12 inch Goerz Dagor. . . . As Strand entered old age he continued to use these two cameras but also began to work with a foll-film machine which made a square negative which he usually cropped to the 'right' proportions while enlarging. The enlargements were in the vicinity of 11x14 inches - virtually the same size as his very earliest enlarged platinum prints."

[domenico Foschi]

I crop all the time.
I don't believe in rules to be followed rigidly.
I believe the tools should be adjusted to my goals not the other way around
I always put my vision first and if that means to crop a a negative, so be it.

[robc]

ask yourself a very simple question:

Should the subject fit the frame or should the frame fit the subject?

If you think the frame should fit the subject, then you think the subject is more important than the frame.

If you think that the subject should fit the frame then you think the frame is more important than the subject and you have a problem.

[asnapper]

At the risk of repeating myself, here (http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=51750&handle=li) is a JPG of one of Paul Strand's more well-known images, a group portrtait of "The Lusetti Family", made in Italy in 1953.

According to the Getty Museum, the print is 4 5/8 x 5 15/16 - apparently a contact print from a 5x6 negative, with a little cropping for the film edge.

I have read that for the majority of his career, Strand shot 8x10 and 5x6 (cropped in-camera from 5x7).

I beleive Paul Strand had a metal bar fitted to his 7x5 camera so that he would get a
4 5/8 x 5 15/16 neg. I have a 7x5 contact print from the Paul Strand archive which I bought off eBay. I can confirm it has exactly the same dimensions as those quoted by the Getty. On the rear of the print there are two sets of dodge & burn times, both of which are complex. Grade 1 1/2 paper was used and it was also flashed so I expect the negitive to be quiet dense. I'm not sure what film Paul Strand prefered but this neg had 4 x v cuts, I know Tri X has 3. The paper is slightly warm D/W and glossy. I don't know if the print was made by Paul Strand or an assistant but I'm pleased to have it