Square prints

R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
More and more when editing my flower photos I find myself cropping the print to a square aspect. A lot of the surrounding area of a rectangular photo is just extraneous to the central flower. Some time great bokeh will rescue that but otherwise no.
How many of you that print your own photos have come to the same conclusion? For me this just works where the central subject is mostly round. My love is like a red,red rose 11x11 print (1).jpg
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
I've done that when I wanted to create a series of square prints. Some empty space compliments the subject also, the crop you posted feels kinda tight to me and remember, a frame is going to crop it a bit also.
 
D

Dave_W

The Dude
I love making prints but I find it odd that the classic camera frame dimensions of 2 by 3 is not typically supported in the world of frames and mattes. I've worked hard to do as much in-camera cropping and to include/exclude everything within the borders of my image only to have to do it again before I print in order to fit the more common dimensions of 5 x 7 or 8 x 10. Unfortunately, even small changes in the dimensions of your images give a completely different feel to the work and I hate having to reinterpret my images just to fit in a matte and frame. So I'm stuck with either retraining myself to shoot a bit wide in both directions or to learn the art of matte cutting.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
I have started ordering frames in the sizes that more closely fit the size of my camera. 11X17 and 13X19. I only print 5x7 and 8x10 when I see that I can crop without destroying the shot. I tend to shoot a little loose in camera because it is always easier to crop a little than to try and add something back in.
 
B

Bill16

Senior Member
It's great shot, but I think it's a little tight too. But that maybe the way the leaves frame the flower, and not so much the crop. :)
 
K

Kodiak

Senior Member
•

Hi Ron,

This topic brings back old discussions we had in the days… Some folks were shooting
Hasselblad and others, like me, with the RZ67.

Nice thoughts!
 
R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
The shot is tight but i like tight. Print was 11x11 and then matted to 16x16. The mat is my negative space. On bell shaped flowers I like to offset them and leave a lot of negative space right or left depending on which way the flower points. i did have to train myself to cut mats to address what Dave was talking about and it is not easy. I buy my acid free matting material from a wholesale frame Co.and they have cut matts for me but they beat you up on price. I agree that there should be more mat sizes that fit what we normally want to print at the aspect we want. Does someone out there want to start a Company that will do that? I will post some different examples later today. Thanks for all the great comments. Is this a wonderful site or what?
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Dave_W said:
I love making prints but I find it odd that the classic camera frame dimensions of 2 by 3 is not typically supported in the world of frames and mattes. I've worked hard to do as much in-camera cropping and to include/exclude everything within the borders of my image only to have to do it again before I print in order to fit the more common dimensions of 5 x 7 or 8 x 10. Unfortunately, even small changes in the dimensions of your images give a completely different feel to the work and I hate having to reinterpret my images just to fit in a matte and frame. So I'm stuck with either retraining myself to shoot a bit wide in both directions or to learn the art of matte cutting.
Click to expand...
This annoys me no end as well, but frame manufacturers *are* beginning to support digital formats (finally).

If you don't want to crop to 8" x 10" the closest size in digital format is 10" x 12".

Am(a)zon carries frames in that size and Aaron Brothers does too.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Kodiak said:
•

Hi Ron,

This topic brings back old discussions we had in the days… Some folks were shooting
Hasselblad and others, like me, with the RZ67.

Nice thoughts!
Click to expand...

Nice idea a revolving back on Nikon digital (just joking),my wife used Hasselblads for weddings and portraits untill she got an RB67,it became the studio camera.

mike
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Kodiak said:
•

Hello Mike,

Yes, I remember reading about you wife in one of your post.

Did you keep all of her gear?
Click to expand...

No we parted with it although she was ill for 13 years she was a lot of the time well enough to enjoy life, not to the point of being sure she would be fit enough to on any given date to undertake a commission though.
All the wedding gear,studio flash ect was sold and we bought a couple of Hi 8 cameras with interchangeable lenses and had 10 years filming wildlife just for pleasure,we had a motor home and toured all over the UK.

Mike
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Getting back on topic :D i will crop square if i think it looks best that way,the odd time i have printed and framed a square print i had the frame made over size slightly taller than needed and used an overlay cut to size.

mike
 
R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
here are 2 more examples that i promised. One has super tight cropping and 1 has virtually none. I think that it comes down together you like the background or not._DSC0297 - Version 2.jpgPeace Rose #3 11x11 print (1).jpg
 
Top