"Frame close and crop closer": the sin of the enthusiast!

Asher Kelman · Apr 22, 2008

Let me say it again, it's fine for Steven Eastwood, Nicolas claris and Ansel Adams to subscribe to "compose correctly before the shot. The oft taught aphorism works for the expert who has intuition guiding hands and eyes. To the extent both do/did this, it was every day, their life, and knew pretty well how the film would end up on paper.

For the rest of us, what do we do? We try our best to follow directions of teachers and gurus to do it right first time. On the face of it, this is a fine goal. For sure in a professional model shoot the art director will often leave with the pictures.

I keep pleading for the recognition that we can complete composition on the screen! Shoot wide! Check all around for what you are missing unless you do this for a living and know what the client needs or what will sell!

Why is it important?

Limbs missing. Is that needed for what you will do with the image in the end?
Space in from of an animal so it does not appear trapped in your frame.
Wonderful curves of a bay cut off
Part of a stunning tree or bridge that can anchor an entire picture insufficiently included.
A major cloud cut in half causing the panorama or scene to appear incomplete.

So how close do you frame? Are you able to compose and frame very close to how deliver the file to the printer or for sale?

Asher

Nikolai Sklobovsky · Apr 22, 2008

Asher,

with all due respect I can't sign up for that approach. Instead I suggest we learn from our own (and others') mistakes and learn to constantly monitor the whole frame while shooting and not get away concentrating on the focal point only.

Naturally, I'm not talking about possibly framing just *a little bit* wider to ensure you indeed get all you wanted in the frame. I'm talking about using 10-22 where one should've used 70-200. I'm a strong proponent of having the vision of the frame in your head before capturing it, so shooting from the hip, at f/16 set to hyperfocal distance and hoping you get what you want in post doesn't fly very high with me.

There is an old rule: "if unsure - get closer", and it seems to work just fine.

PS
BTW, the elbow cut was intentional

Doug Kerr · Apr 22, 2008

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:
Let me say it again, it's fine for Steven Eastwood, Nicolas claris and Ansel Adams to subscribe to "compose correctly before the shot.

We have a saying here: "Positive margin is so much better than negative."

Asher Kelman · Apr 23, 2008

Nikolai Sklobovsky said:
Asher,

with all due respect I can't sign up for that approach. Instead I suggest we learn from our own (and others') mistakes and learn to constantly monitor the whole frame while shooting and not get away concentrating on the focal point only.

Nikolai,

This was not directed to you particularly. Getting to a location can be costly in transport, time and lodgings. A shoot with models/assistants and rentals is even more. So taking a margin around the composition gives reserve and allows multi-purpose use. So the unused pictures, with consent, may make even more money for stock! A limb cut off will not perhaps be as useful.

Nikolai Sklobovsky said:
I'm a strong proponent of having the vision of the frame in your head before capturing it, so shooting from the hip, at f/16 set to hyperfocal distance and hoping you get what you want in post doesn't fly very high with me.

Nikolai, some of my best pictures going through villages in West Africa were literally shooting from the hip while looking in another direction. I knew exactly what I was framing and had a very high success rate. For some shots, I still do not being bring the camera to my eye. However, I'm good at it and one has to learn. Still, I agree for most work, one can get more from the viewfinder and focusing.

Nikolai Sklobovsky said:
There is an old rule: "if unsure - get closer", and it seems to work just fine.

Hmm, that's another aphorism I'd like to kill.

Moving close changes perspective. Unless I wants a harsher distorting perspective, one has to be careful of that lens to subject distance. Using a 50mm lens on 35mm one has considerable leeway and one can still do a lot by getting the right distance and using less pixels or else a x1.6 DSLR like a Rebel!

Asher

Nikolai Sklobovsky · Apr 23, 2008

Asher,
I too, did and still do shoot from the hip a lot when the situation calls for candids.
However, I was under the impression that we're talking about more regular situation here, when a photographer can see the picture in the VF/on the LCD and this makes a conscious decision for a narrow or wide margin.

Again, I understand the dangers of a negative margin. For instance, the 8616 image you apparently liked has her toes clipped. Unlike the elbow shot, it was not intentional, it was my mistake. Why? I followed another old rule: "take the shot". I liked what I see, so I clicked the shutter. I immediately realized that I was too tight (I didnt even chimp

and fixed it in the next few frames, e.g. here

which is, IMHO, a better image in many other respects.

However, it looks like even the first shot (8616) has some merits, otherwise you wouldn't pick it out of the rest. Had I started fiddling with the lens first I would surely end up NOT having it.

There are many things in photography we are responsible for during the moment we press the trigger. Framing, background, light angles, subject angles... They are all important. And yes, I agree, having the framing a little bit on loose/positive side may indeed improve your chances of not getting the toes clipped and such. However, my point is that those "little things" are in fact very important and essential and we should pay attention to them and frame appropriately, as opposed to just thoughtlessly rotating zoom ring to W side

Cheers, my friend!

Doug Kerr · Apr 23, 2008

Hi, Nikolai,

Nikolai Sklobovsky said:
Again, I understand the dangers of a negative margin. For instance, the 8616 image you apparently liked has her toes clipped. Unlike the elbow shot, it was not intentional, it was my mistake. Why? I followed another old rule: "take the shot". I liked what I see, so I clicked the shutter. I immediately realized that I was too tight (I didnt even chimp and fixed it in the next few frames, e.g. here, which is, IMHO, a better image in many other respects.

Fortunately, our "viewers" are often more tolerant than "we" are.

Best regards,

Doug

Nikolai Sklobovsky · Apr 23, 2008

Doug_Kerr said:
Hi, Nikolai,
Fortunately, our "viewers" are often more tolerant than "we" are.
Best regards,
Doug

Doug,
Oh, I totally agree with that!

We're simply neatpicking here;-)
Cheers!

Dierk Haasis · Apr 23, 2008

What about this adage:

Shoot what you want - not what you see.

There's a lot of good reasons to cut away after the fact but I can only imagine one forcing us to go wider than necessary - adjustment for paper ratio. Unless you are making all your frames and passepartouts individually yourself, you have to adjust to paper norms, particularly the DIN/ISO series. Even electronic frames and monitors are often not the same ratio as film and digital images.

To my dismay I fell into that trap last night, when I composed a shot on scene to perfection [whatever that really means; in this case: to my liking]. Only at home I realised I am unable to crop it to the 1:sqr2 ratio I need for printing ...

Other good reasons or cropping after the fact:

- bad composition on the scene
- secondary motif
- advertising [make it wide and leave the cropping to the garphical designer]
- blind shoot [e.g. from the hip]

Bad reason: the one Asher mentions, that is, not being sure what you wnat on the scene. The soundbite name for this is 'to salvage'.

PS: The example is my photo of the day for 22nd April 2008.

Asher Kelman · Apr 23, 2008

Framing tight or not?

Hi Dierk,

You make important points.

Shoot What You Want not just what you see: I love that! Add to that "so one can express what one sees possible".

Dierk Haasis said:
What about this adage:

Shoot what you want - not what you see.

There's a lot of good reasons to cut away after the fact but I can only imagine one forcing us to go wider than necessary - adjustment for paper ratio. Unless you are making all your frames and passepartouts individually yourself, you have to adjust to paper norms, particularly the DIN/ISO series. Even electronic frames and monitors are often not the same ratio as film and digital images.

To my dismay I fell into that trap last night, when I composed a shot on scene to perfection [whatever that really means; in this case: to my liking]. Only at home I realised I am unable to crop it to the 1:sqr2 ratio I need for printing ...

Very important. The magazine or campaign has often very varied needs. What might be used for a double page spread, they might want on one page or some other shape, even fitting text into your image. So this point is really important.

We'll have to get Nicolas to tell us his practice on this as too how much allowance he makes.

"Correcting Poor Composition": Why not! That's what you refer to later as "The soundbite name for this is 'to salvage'", LOL! Still you are correct. and why not!

"Secondary Motif":

Dierk Haasis;46894- secondary motif said:
Secondary Motif

Could you give us an example?

Dierk Haasis;46894- blind shoot [e.g. from the hip said:
Bad reason: the one Asher mentions, that is, not being sure what you wnat on the scene.

That's a misreading LOL! I wrote how I know what I want. Which is your philosophy, "Shoot what you want"! Now in shooting from the hip one might miss the shot, but my keepers are in the 60% range, which I find satisfactory. You called this "The soundbite name for this is 'to salvage'", however the "salvage" are simply the images that are not discarded and that's fine for me.

Asher

Dierk Haasis · Apr 23, 2008

Asher Kelman said:
Shoot What You see

Ahem, that's exactly the opposite of what I wrote ... (oops! Typo! I corrected it A.K.)

"Correcting Poor Composition":

Nothing against salvaging from the rubbish, especially if I can sell it [and I have sold salvaged rubbish more often than the artist in me wants]. I understand your original post as advising people to compose wider in general. Which would ba bad advice on several counts, starting with technicalities [losing size and resolution] and ending with teaching [while you learn from mistakes, it is not a good idea to make making mistakes your habit].

"Secondary Motif":

To make it easy, take the photo of the day from 19th April*. In its current form it is about living in the city, about cityscaping [wide, dreary place between office buildings], about people rushing by, about the place of poor homeless people in our society [namely at the fringe.

Due to the basic idea - let's call it Tati'esque - there is no immediate focal point [metaphorically speaking] but lots of things happening or being at the same time. Lends itself to secondary motifs, like cropping such that the sleeping bag gets more obvious, hence more attention. One could also crop out the right part of the image to focus on the two women parting.

Actually that is exactly what graphic designers in advertising do with photos, take them and change them until the photographer has no idea what he shot.

Now in shooting from the hip one might miss the shot, but my keepers are in the 60% range, which I find satisfactory.

How can a general advice on composition stem from a rather special method, which does depend on explicitly not composing? sure, many of us are adept enough to blindly shoot a half-way decent composition in the broadest sense, to wit, get our object framed.

Obviously he, who can successfully and consistently shoot blindly, from the hip, with a 400 mm is a god [like Clapton]; I'd say if you can do that with a 50 mm field of view on small film cameras
you deserve to be called 'the Great'.

*Same link as in my previous post, just scroll down a bit.

Nikolai Sklobovsky · Apr 23, 2008

Dierk Haasis said:
... I understand your original post as advising people to compose wider in general. Which would ba bad advice on several counts, starting with technicalities [losing size and resolution] and ending with teaching [while you learn from mistakes, it is not a good idea to make making mistakes your habit]....

Yay, I'm not the only bad boy here!

lol
My POV exactly!

Asher Kelman · Apr 24, 2008

Dierk Haasis said:
How can a general advice on composition stem from a rather special method, which does depend on explicitly not composing? sure, many of us are adept enough to blindly shoot a half-way decent composition in the broadest sense, to wit, get our object framed.

"Blindly"? Nah! My eyes are open, I know what I want to include in my shot. I do not shoot blindly. Never! I take images to start a process of expressing what I wish to derive from what is around me, therefore it must be chosen. My eyes have already chosen the subject. I then only need to have the object/subject appear in the place I would like and I usually can photograph them. The image will likely have to be straightened. However the composition, what I want to cover, and what is with that, will be in the image.

For aiming towards the selected subject, I use the wider lens: the Canon 50 1.2L, the Contax MM Distagons 28mm f 2.0, 21mm or 18mm and the 24-105mm f 4.0L IS, at the wide end only. I generally use f5.6 to f11 unless I'm in a street café and the distances are more certain, then I may even shoot wide open, but then I am aiming towards a fixed spot, like a water fountain or bench. checking the LCD, get's everything right and allows low angle shooting too.

Asher

Asher Kelman · Apr 25, 2008

Well does anyone else pretend to look one way and are able to reasonably compose by just pointing? Can't you get what you want with a 50mm lens without putting one's eyes to the camera?

Asher

Dierk Haasis · Apr 25, 2008

Depends on what you mean by 'reasonable' and 'compose'.

Ever seen Zen Buddhist monks shooting arrows from a bow but not looking at their target?

Asher Kelman · Apr 25, 2008

Dierk,

That's fascinating and makes my point. They are dedicated! Practice and a 3D image of the world extended to ones hands is quite learnable. In the wild West shows, the items shot out of the assistant hand was aimed without putting the eye lined up with the barrel of the gun. Shooting can be precise.

Anyway, shooting by aiming the lens works, for me at 50mm or wider! The only risk of the camera is one risks wasting a frame or losing the shot.

Asher

Asher Kelman · Apr 25, 2008

Let me just add that there is a modern obsession with perfect illumination, contrast and focus of lens to the edges and multiple coating to reduce reflections and god forbid one should not even have an optical viewfinder. I used a pinhole camera and am able to get perfect compositions with no viewfinder. I know the camera can capture 90 degrees from side to side. The height is usually O.K. I use a tripod and a spirit level or else a ledge. Here's an example in another thread.

One doesn't need all the technogadgets to make pictures that one wants.

Asher

Dierk Haasis · Apr 25, 2008

Look at this photo Mike Johnston recently show-cased.

You may find a good comment on it ...

Asher Kelman · Apr 25, 2008

Dierk Haasis said:
Look at this photo Mike Johnston recently show-cased.

You may find a good comment on it ...

Dierk,

There's a commonality of humor! People see lines coming out of a head and the mythologies of saints come up like silent occult volcanic eruptions in the brain and make that form an imperative to line up and capture. Then the underlying mythology makes the picture satisfying, although most of us have no clue as to why. I wonder whether or not such motifs are transcultural even to non-Christian impressioned societies?

Asher

Dierk Haasis · Apr 25, 2008

In lieu of this thread my point was just a corroboration of yours on [technical] perfectionism.

As for the photo in question, there's more layers to it than just the obvious halo one. There's the idea of something springing from his head/mind, think Greek mythology. There's the possibility of an exploding head á la Cronenberg or Romero. The possibility of an exploding mind. How about interpreting the lines as strangely upward pointing hairs on a bald head? BTW, halos or similar notions aren't at all exclusive to Christianity.

Back to composition and framing. I think I hit on the difference between our viewpoints, while you seem to use 'framing a subject' synonymous to 'composition', I use the latter much narrower. Sure, as you [and I] wrote, using wide angle lenses for blindly taking pictures - that is, not using the viewfinder - is necessary to record what you want. Of course the image, as opposed to the photo and picture, has to be composed after the fact by cropping with scissors or in an image processor.

The technique behind hip shooting is completely different from normal photography, where you usually have the time to compose and set the light [yes, even natural gets set]. Hip shooting is the most consequent application of documentary reportage, where you have to take a concealed approach to get candid shots or stay alive and healthy. It's a stark contrast to classical landscaping or portraiture.

Nikolai Sklobovsky · Apr 25, 2008

Dierk Haasis said:
...Hip shooting is the most consequent application of documentary reportage, where you have to take a concealed approach to get candid shots or stay alive and healthy. It's a stark contrast to classical landscaping or portraiture...

Which kinda takes us back to what I think was Asher's original question: under the said "normal" circumstances, when you have all the time in the world and all the light you want, do you shoot wide or tight?

And, as I replied earlier - I currently tend to shoot tight... Not ridiculously tight, but tight anyway...

Asher Kelman · Apr 25, 2008

Dierk Haasis said:
In lieu of this thread my point was just a corroboration of yours on [technical] perfectionism.

As for the photo in question, there's more layers to it than just the obvious halo one. There's the idea of something springing from his head/mind, think Greek mythology. There's the possibility of an exploding head á la Cronenberg or Romero. The possibility of an exploding mind. How about interpreting the lines as strangely upward pointing hairs on a bald head? BTW, halos or similar notions aren't at all exclusive to Christianity.

Interesting ideas. We should think more of this!

Dierk Haasis said:

Back to composition and framing. I think I hit on the difference between our viewpoints, while you seem to use 'framing a subject' synonymous to 'composition', I use the latter much narrower. Sure, as you [and I] wrote, using wide angle lenses for blindly taking pictures - that is, not using the viewfinder - is necessary to record what you want. Of course the image, as opposed to the photo and picture, has to be composed after the fact by cropping with scissors or in an image processor.

Click to expand...

I'd say I sample what is in the milieu, aiming to fully contain my composition and allow a generous margin for later "exercise of competing subtilties" as the picture is made. I think we need to remove from out brains the idea that the best pictures are made as conceived at the time of letting light enter the camera.

Dierk Haasis said:

The technique behind hip shooting is completely different from normal photography, where you usually have the time to compose and set the light [yes, even natural gets set]. Hip shooting is the most consequent application of documentary reportage, where you have to take a concealed approach to get candid shots or stay alive and healthy. It's a stark contrast to classical landscaping or portraiture.

Click to expand...

Normal? Ha Dierk, you know better? To me, most of the time "Normal" is being impossible and getting the picture even when socially unacceptable. The time when I put my Kodak Retinette 1B to my eyes in Biafra, I was dragged off to the local chief for capturing a boys spirit in my camera. He was taking a thorn out of his foot and I thought that would be great shot. The
crowd became rather angry!

There is nothing "normal" about holding the camera to one's eye. It just works better in where there is no offense likely to getting the shot.

Asher

Click to expand...

Nikolai Sklobovsky · Apr 25, 2008

Asher Kelman said:
Normal? Ha Dierk, you know better? To me, most of the time "Normal" is being impossible and getting the picture even when socially unacceptable. The time when I put my Kodak Retinette 1B to my eyes in Biafra, I was dragged off to the local chief for capturing a boys spirit in my camera. He was taking a thorn out of his foot and I thought that would be great shot. The
crowd became rather angry!

There is nothing "normal" about holding the camera to one's eye. It just works better in where there is no offense likely to getting the shot.

Asher

Uhm, Asher, I guess we simply must differentiate "shooting under fire" from the more friendly environments and - especially - from the studio or pseudo-studio (planned shoot on location) work (which happens to be my particular case

.

Otherwise it's apples to oranges, too many things are different to justify one-size-fits-all soluition...

Why would I shoot a landscape from the hip (unless I'm in an extrmely tight climbing spot holding for my life)? Or a model? Or a family/senior portrait? Or a still-life/product?

nicolas claris · Apr 25, 2008

Despite Asher's call for me to contribute to this thread, it is very difficult for me after his 1st phrase in the thread intro… I don't think I desserve such a compliment… nearly blushing!

For me, photography is a love affair. Should I photograph a yacht, a car, a bolt, a screw, a tree, a Frank Gehry building or a model I do frame as I do feel and fall in love, of the texture, the light, the material, the eye, the skin or whatever, I want to show what moves me…
Then they are NO alternatives, no wider, no tighter, just what has to be in and what has to be kept out…
Some graphic designer do crop my pics, some (the good ones) even find another photo in my photo… fine!
A single page or a double spread page doesn't work the same way, so I never forget to shoot verticals and horizontals pics…

For fun I did shoot sometimes without looking in the view finder, but I would never do that for a client, and BTW that doesn't fill my pleasure of making the pic in the viewfinder, there are so many tiny details to put in the right place!

Did I say I need to be moved to press the shutter button?

Asher Kelman · Apr 25, 2008

Perfect!

"I need to be moved to press the shutter button!"

Also shooting verticals and horizontals. That's a professional way and essentially doing what I plead for, allowing for different end use.

You way of working covers the contingencies for your self and your clients. Enthusiasts ruin their pictures so often by simply not including enough to complete composition without major photoshopping. Part of this is perhaps not even recognizing defects that a wider margin would take care of. The less experienced photographer, however, may need to see the image a 2cd an 3rd time on the beautiful monitor to make up for the lesser experience.

You Nicolas do this every day and gather all has thrilled your senses that must be completely framed and then you know you have it all.

BTW, your recent work has taken a leap to a new level. Is part of this the new lenses? Perhaps. I really think you now work on a higher plane. This is not flattery or loose praise. I do notice even tiny flaws like a speck on the right nostril of your model! So you are not yet perfect. Haha ha!

nicolas claris · Apr 25, 2008

Asher Kelman said:
Perfect!
…
So you are not yet perfect. Haha ha!

I do prefer that!

BTW the image you're talking about has ZERO PP in CS… tifs straight out of C1-4 and cropped only in CS then saved in jpeg.

Asher Kelman · Apr 27, 2008

Nicolas, I had to hunt to find one thing not perfect!

These images really show the value of great modern lenses with image stabilization, careful preparation and then experience.

Just for people who might not realize the challenge. The 500mm lens is a monstrous missile needing muscle just to prevent it swinging all over the place. Even if on a monopod, cushioned by a beanbag, the vibrations are not completelyd ampened. Helicopters are really massive vibration machines that somehow defy Newton. So all of you imagine that one cannot simply rent a helicopter and think you will be able to do this with anything but a wide to 100 mm lens without projecting your stomach contents all over the boat below!

Asher

Asher Kelman · Apr 27, 2008

Back to my plea for wider framing, I do not say this as a "Rule". I like to break rules, however, it's good to know what the audience might think the rules might be. Unless you really are professional and can deliver what you want from what you see, you may disappoint yourself by not having something you, yourself, find important.

Yes, you may become so adept that you will be able to close in and get the "essence" of the thing as your mind sees it, but until then, the extra will help you more times than not. Also, photography is making a picture not pressing a button. This is a process~! You might do more upfront or downstream. I'm not talking about rescuing "bad" pictures, but of "The process of picture-making" which requires devotion to what you want to achieve. This process may even cause your vision and wishes to evolve. So the work in making a photograph is iterative and dynamic all the way until it tells you, "Done!"

Actually, I myself do not believe it's wrong to cut limbs, place your image in the center or have light fail at one side of the frame for my own artwork. However, don't do that for work to be delivered unless they know what you are likely to do!

Why do I then argue against framing tight? It's just from the thousands of images I look at I have the impression that there's scene missing, not because someone does not agree with "The Rules", but because the whole area was not interviewed carefully enough. But this ability requires great experience.

So, we either we need to really slow down or else take the project back to darkroom with a little more of the milieu to work more.

However, if you plan or need to move right in to express the subjects essence and fulfil your vision, go for it.

The Rules! In art, rules are, after all, are derived from particular fashions, preferences, conceits and styles by which art historians and teachers describe the works of various epochs, cultures, movements, styles and end use. These so-called "rules" can be helpful in meeting expectations for impact, balance, focus, beauty, harmony and so forth. However none of these makes art.

The Photograph Can be Art! A photograph can be anything recorded by light on a sensitized surface. To be art, what then?

Art just requires the externalization and implemetation of your own vision and what and how you want of that you photograph. That can be written in one sentence but is not often made by just one shutter click! It's a process with effort and skill in many small steps. When a photograph works as your art, it will have a life and even perhaps sometimes transcend your ownership to be embraced by others. Will it sell? That is another subject!

Asher

As a challenge in being "Open" look here.

Dierk Haasis · Apr 27, 2008

Asher Kelman said:
Why do I then argue against framing tight? It's just from the thousands of images I look at I have the impression that there's scene missing

Only shows the difference between "good" and "bad" photographers, artists and hacks.

While Capa's 'get closer' makes for a nice soundbite, he didn't actually say that. He advised people to get closer to their subject, thus distinguishing between objects and subjects as I do. Thinking a mere moment about Capa's advice, which has become an empty echo in many guides to photography, should make clear that he did not mean to move your feet over until you are literary part of your motif. As a journalist he meant to get to know your subject, research it, make up your mind what to show and how to do it. And he meant to not leave much room for interpretation - leave off excess.

Just because the majority of button pushers take only the very literal denotation of Capa's claim - sometimes, that is my impression, even actively trying to not do more than moving in - doesn't mean the opposite advice is good. It is just as bad, with the only advantage that you can go in later [you cannot go out after the fact].

Get to know your subject, get to know what you want, and try hard to get what you want into your photo, but nothing more. that's the way to make pictures with a photographic device - and images from pictures.

Erie Patsellis · May 5, 2008

Asher,
I have a tendency to shoot tightly, in fact, from time to time (when the composition benefits from it) I even let a subject fall off the edge of the frame. Alot of it (from an artistic standpoint, as contrasted with paying the bills) stems from my graphic design experience, and using meta-graphics (as they are (used to be) called in the graphic arts world), to bring emphasis to a subject.

Though in all fairness, I sometimes take a broader view,

I happened to be driving in the country and saw a field of sunflowers, after shooting way too many frame filling sunflowers, I threw the 17mm on the F3 and while framing, noticed just how wide the sucker is, exaggerating the near far juxtaposition nicely. Of the 2 rolls I shot there, this is the only picture I'm truly happy with.

In contrast, of the 5 rolls of 120 I shot at a car show, this image:

is the only one I'm truly happy with. (I, like most of us, are my own worst critic)

This was shot as a "spec" piece, to sell both my design and photography work (while they loved the work, the ole "it's not in the budget" excuse came up, good thing I didn't spend 2 hours wiping and oiling grapes!)

with the copy added:

So, yes, sometimes a little wiggle room is good, but some sujects just scream "make me fall out the edge of the frame, fer goodness sake!"

erie

Shane Carter · May 5, 2008

There is no right answer here. For high qualilty reproductions, shoot the frame you want to print or sell. If you are going to have have various print enlargements, better that that into account. Shooting 4x6 fully framed and then someone asks for an 8x10, you're in trouble.

"Frame close and crop closer": the sin of the enthusiast!

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

New member

Well-known member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

New member

Well-known member

New member

pro member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

pro member

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

pro member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

pro member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

pro member

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

New member

OPF Co-founder/Administrator

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

OPF Co-founder/Administrator

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

pro member

pro member

New member