Landscape Crop Ratio

turnthedarncranks

I've been reading a lot of advice about this online, but can't come up with rules of thumb. Maybe there aren't any, but I figured I'd ask.

I recently took a ton of landscape shots out west and have been playing with editing and cropping options. Is there a good rule of thumb about the crop? I've tried 16:9, 5:4, and a bunch of non-constrained options. Some I love, some I hate -- it varies by shot. But I feel like there may be a logical way to approach this that I missing. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Msmoto

My cropping "ratio" is determined by the content of the image. I will play with various cropping, moving each side in or out as I see how this affects the image. In some instances, I may have a 1:3 horizontal, others vary.

One thing i have noticed in cropping is that the position of important elements in the image can be very important is determining the pleasing aspect of the final result. Sometimes moving a border as little as two to four percent can make a huge difference in the final result.

Yes, there are some rules, but I prefer to have good results visually. Maybe the only rule I follow is to avoid unfortunate edge elements,, i.e., cutting a building in half, having half a person in the image, or other items we may find visually disturbing.

Of course, if there is a specific end purpose which requires a specific image ration, i.e., 8 x 10, and if this determines the format, then it is about leaving the proper spaces near the edges to acquire a pleasing result.

haroldp

I always free crop landscapes and include features that should be in the frame and exclude those that shouldn't.

The landscape photo's that folks seem to like best based on print requests or purchase seem to be wide aspect pano's, possibly because I think people see landscapes that way, but my single most successful (requested) landscape is an antelope canyon shot in standard 2 X 3 portrait orientation.

All camera aspect ratios are arbitrary and developed for reasons that had nothing to do with art.

The 2 X 3 (24 X 36 mm) '35mm ' frame was (by Leica) chosen because it was a double frame of 35mm movie film which was the cheapest and most available roll film stock at the time.

The only time I use a fixed aspect ratio like 2 X 3 is when I am giving jpg's to friends and know that they will be mass printed (costco or walgreens), and they will crop to that regardless of what I do, cuting off heads if needed.
.. H

WestEndFoto

No rules. Sometimes a square crop is best.

WestEndFoto

Or a 5:4 in portrait mode.



If I was going to do the following differently, I would crop out some of the bottom and make it a square.

WestEndFoto

Sometime plain vanilla 3:2 is best.

WestEndFoto

And "sometimes", even a pano is best.

haroldp

@WestEndFoto

nice images ... H

donaldejose

I agree with all the above posters. Don't use any "set ratios" unless you are specifically asked for photos that will fit into 5x7 or 8x10 etc frames. This is usually for portraits. Otherwise, crop to taste as the subject dictates to your "inner artist." As we increasingly move to a world in which images are view digitally on some sort of monitor the old photo ratios become obsolete.

spraynpray

I make my own mounts so there are no standards for me. I believe even the notion of having a standard crop creates compromise in ones mind so the image is less good than it could be if cropped freehand. Obviously if an image is very close indeed to a standard, then I try the standard to assess the gain or loss, but I have the mindset of cropping freehand first.

turnthedarncranks

Thanks all. Glad to know that my Google skills weren't failing me and that the rule is that there are no rules. I'll see what I come up with and, I hope, get back to posting on PAD (which I've not done in a year or so) so you can all see the end result. And maybe on the CC thread as well . . .

Oh -- and @Westendfoto -- great shots!

Thanks again.

WestEndFoto

Thanks for the compliments guys.

One rule I do follow is to make my ratios whole number ratios.

But that is just my own rule.

For some reason I love the 5:4 ratio. Perhaps that is Ansel's ghost speaking to me.

framer

My rule of standards are there are none.

framer

Msmoto

Well, I rarely do landscapes, but one which covers nearly 180 degrees....

WestEndFoto

Well, I rarely do landscapes, but one which covers nearly 180 degrees....

You should do landscapes more often Msmoto.

esquilo

8:5 is a ratio I often use for landscapes. Don't remember why I started to use it, but I've come to like it.

proudgeek

My personal preference is 16:9, but it's not a hard and fast rule. Sometimes a custom crop can help you salvage an image or at least get rid of some artifact that you didn't see when shooting.

DaveyJ

I spent many years specializing in large format photography. As the posters have very well put.....it all depends on the scene and making it pleasing to the eye is paramount when it comes to cropping. In the past I have always preferred to shoot the image cropped, rather than crop latter. There are some reasons why this is important if possible. One of the most aggravating panoramic photo defects to me are shots or prints that clearly show distortion that the eye would not see. Msmoto's Acadia National Park Scene shows none of that "edge of the earth" or bow distortion that plague many panoramic scenes. Msmoto should shoot more landscape photos! Last time I was in Acadia there was a lady with two big Nikons with very large lens out on a tour boat and I often wondered if it was Msmoto??

Msmoto

@WestEndFoto & DaveyJ

Thank you... this was shot with a modified 10.5mm Nikkor on my D4.

DaveyJ

To Msmoto: Knowing the vista I was sure it was pretty wide! I also saw some time ago it was your shot with a D4. A modified 10.5mm Nikkor....early morning I assume?

turnthedarncranks

Thanks for the additional thoughts. I wish there was something wider for DX. Sigh.

Ironheart

Wider than 180°? What do you have in mind?

turnthedarncranks

I think I was a bit pithy. I would love a really wide prime for DX. Haven't seen one, but I haven't checked in a while so maybe I've just missed it? I know there's a Tokina 10-17 or something like that, and that may be the best answer for me anyway. Right now I have neither enough time nor money for one anyway!

Ironheart

The 10.5 DX lens is a winner. The 14mm is an expensive lens for what it is. I am pretty happy with my 10-24 as well, though not a prime and not a very fast lens (aperture-wise). The new 20mm f/1.8 is a good FL, and the 16-80 f/2.8-4 gives a great performance at 16mm f/2.8.

DaveyJ

The wide DX I use is the Sigma 10-20. I also own the Nikkor 12-24mm. Both of those lens are very good on say a D7000, D7100, D7200. I have never used the 10.5 Nikkor.