I see a lot of people talking shit about cropping and inconsistent

why would it matter

>>2881288
That's why I'm asking. I've watched a few Jared Polin videos and it seems he's highly against cropping at all - along with a few of the posts I've read on here. I get that rather than crop you should focus on better subject framing, but in the picture attached it is just shy of 16:9. Does cropping to a non-existent aspect matter or can I crop how I please?

>>2881291
it's hard to think about an intended crop when you're taking a photo, so cropping can disconnect you from that process a little. I think it's just bullshit and bluster though, jared shoots documentary-ish stuff so he can get away with that kind of purism but if you're printing for galleries framing and aspect ratio matter. I mean what kind of an asshole looks at a panorama and tells you to square crop it? and look at any painter's output: they don't stick to a single aspect ratio because they don't have a stick up their ass about somebody's arbitrary rules.

Anyone that tells you they never crop is a liar, or a foolish idealist.
Anyone that tells you never to crop is a foolish idealist without experience.

>but muh HCB
no, even he didn't maintain his own pretentious standard. Guy jumping over a puddle? Indecisive crop of a decisive moment.

>>2881827
>Anyone that tells you they never crop is a liar, or a foolish idealist.
I don't crop.

but I have different cameras for different aspect raidous.
Anyone can crop if they want to though. If you're framing the shot to be cropped later and can see it in the frame then go for it.

>>2881831
Did you post explicitly so that I would call you a foolish idealist? ;)

I'm certain there are improvements that exist in some of your photos through cropping, regardless of if an attempt was ever made to find them.

>>2881832
No. I posted because I rarely disagree with you and It's not good to assume about others ,';^)
>I'm certain there are improvements that exist in some of your photos
>if an attempt was ever made to find them
Don't imply that I haven't. I hate my work. Explicitly. Cropping won't help me.

>>2881284
>does it really matter that much?
No. Realize, most people are dumb.

>>2881291
>I've watched a few Jared Polin videos
Why would you do this?

inconsistent aspect ratios makes your work look super sloppy and amateur. it also makes you look like you're unsure of yourself and don't know how to compose.

>>2881938
>No. Realize, most people are dumb.
>inconsistent aspect ratios makes your work look super sloppy and amateur.
Case in point.

>>2881940

sick burn, bro!

>>2881831
Different cameras for different aspect ratios? Where can I find a 5:4 35mm camera? Where can I find a digital camera with multiple native aspect ratios that isn't shitty p&s or a 10 year old 4/3 camera?

I used to shoot a lot of TLR 6x6, which is a square format that's generally intended to be cropped after the fact, so I got used to shooting with a little bit of wiggle room around the edges. I still shoot with a bit of room to crop, and I almost always crop to 4x5 because I like the way it looks, but sometimes I'll throw in the occasional square.

Some people will tell you that you have to have a series of uniform prints and it has to be all B&W or all colour, all arranged in a line and one direct illustrative subject snore snore wah I wish modernism wasn't given so much shit

If you can justify using different croppings and if it works with the images as a whole and individually, then you're fine. Just don't bukkake your crops about for the sake of it.

>>2881955
Get a 6x7 medium format then

Or just compose in camera and leave yourself some room

Here's an old-timey perspective.

When a lot of people learned to develop in a darkroom, we just had a paper easel with fixed aspect ratios - 8x10" was most common and the paper we bought was usually 8x10" or 11x14" (usually a larger easel).

So, "editing" required you to kind of stick to the aspects that were available to you and you started "thinking" and "seeing" in terms of those aspects. When you makred up contact sheets with wax pencils, etc. you automatically used those aspects. It became second nature.

This discipline was in many ways refreshing.

Now, often, crops are "fuck - let's see what I have here. I pointed my camera at this interesting thing. What can I make of it?"

That makes old farts cringe, because we were taught that you should get a photo right in your mind before you even take it. The idea of "fucking with it to make it work" after the fact feels like failure.

That sticks with you, and old people are cranky. Put those things together, and old fucks complain about stuff that doesn't make a ton of sense any more.

>>2882634

Says the guy who just wrote a 1000 word essay on why commercial photography just isn't the same anymore.

>>2882634

I appreciate the trip down nostalgia and art history lane, I really do. It was fascinating.

However,
>That makes old farts cringe
who fucking cares? We shoud adhere to some antiquated ideal despite the fact that we have superior tools now?

>Put those things together, and old fucks complain about stuff that doesn't make a ton of sense any more.
This I very much agree with.

I've only started doing nightclub photography and most of the owners want that consistent 4:3 ratio. They even told me to stop taking portraits 3:4 and just stick to landscape orientation.

I don't really care what I can't do and what have to do as long I get dat dolla dolla bills yo.

>>2882645
>I don't really care what I can't do and what have to do as long I get dat dolla dolla bills yo
right answer

>>2882644
The Op question was why guys like Jared Polin complain. I'm not suggesting that it's appropriate to complain. I just offer a possible explanation.

Personally, I do think work that's all over the map (esp sets) for no apparent reason can feel sloppy looking. Like a house where all the doors and windows are different sizes.

Aspect ratio is important but the fake rules people use are just as arbitrary sometimes as the cropping that some guys do.

>>2882637
It isn't the same. Do you think it is?

File: vintage-Bogen-darkroom-enlarging-easel-photo-or-graphic-positioning-layout-1stopretroshop-z78160-1[1].jpg (21KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 640x426px

>>2882634
>>2882644
uhhh, no
you just had shitty fixed-frame easels that students use? or are you young and never actually worked in a darkroom and just making up shit about what you thought the past was like?

>>2882719
What you're showing is not what most shit tier amateurs (like me) used. I didn't even see one of those until the 3rd darkroom I had access to. .

The majority of people who just learned in high school or took a photography course (before digital) used fixed frame easels and 8x10" paper. I don't think that's very controversial.

>>2882719
WHY ARE EASELS SO FUCKING EXPENSIVE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I legit don't understand how these are so expensive.

>>2882727
okay? not to be rude but your post was just spreading misinformation

the use of standardized aspect ratios has nothing to do with the darkroom vs. the invention of digital. unconventional cropping has always been a thing in fine art printing. a lot of people printed at the same proportion as the negatives just for fidelity or convenience, but really the only time you HAD to use a a certain standard aspect ratio (besides tradition, or documentation photographs) was in cinema

>>2882732
I don't know - for a while, finding good darkroom stuff for free or close to it was easy. Getting harder.

New stuff is really niche, so it's expensive. It's almost $60 for a Kodak gray/color scale/separation guide.

>>2882734
Don't read into it too much. I'm not disputing that cropping wasn't possible and done by some people - just offering one explanation as to why some (not all) people complain about seemingly random crops.

Before digital, most of us plebs had a "get it right in the camera or you suck" "make all your decisions before you shoot the photo" and "enlarge to the aspect of the paper" mindset burned into our minds. We can be nostalgic about it.

If I submitted some 16:9 or 1:1 photo to any of the "old school" professors from high school or college, they'd kick me out of class. Tons of people learned this way.

The "1 hour photo + Kodak Gold" people basically didn't even know what cropping was. You ordered 4x6" or 5x7" prints - and most people didn't even know that 5x7" meant some of the photo would be "cut off"

Digital did disrupt that thinking quite a bit. It's second nature to no trouble. Cropping is a tool on every phone now and even my Mom knows about it. That wasn't the case 20 years ago.

>>2882743
yeah, you had shitty professors then. I've met some older photographers who consider cropping to be the eighth deadly sin, but they don't know what they're talking about

take a look at 100 of the most popular / famous / "best" fine art photographic prints from the 20th century... pretty varied in ratios

>>2882719
I appreciate the trip down nostalgia lane, I really do. And I used one of these back in the 90s... But what the fuck does that thing's existence have to do with the fact that superior tools exist today?

>>2882291
Worst answer na