Lexie2

[Evertking]

6d
85 1.2
Ad600 camera left
1/1000
2.8
Iso 100

 

[smoke665]

Another great shot, you're on a roll. I like the perspective on this one much more then the one you posted earlier looking up, she looks comfortable and natural in the pose. Exposure & processing on this one looks good, and the lines from the body, steps and shadow work well. I'm undecided on the bright area at the top, part of me says burn it down some, part of me says leave it alone. Overall this may be one of your better shots of this pretty young lady.

 

[Evertking]

Thank you and I really like it myself. While I got ya here can you help me with something real quick? Which aspect ratio do you set your camera to? Should I just leave it at 3:2 and crop in post?

 

[smoke665]

Thank you and I really like it myself. While I got ya here can you help me with something real quick? Which aspect ratio do you set your camera to? Should I just leave it at 3:2 and crop in post?

I leave mine at 3:2 and crop in post. I also tend to leave a little margin, because no matter how careful I am I inevitably end up needing it. Also, depending on if I'm editing in Lr or Ps, I may save the crop as the last step. In Lr, crops are easily changed to fit specific print sizes, but not so easy in Ps. It makes a little larger file in Ps, but it sure makes it a lot easier to stretch an image to fit when you have to.

 

[tirediron]

Lovely image; agree with everything Smoke said!

Thank you and I really like it myself. While I got ya here can you help me with something real quick? Which aspect ratio do you set your camera to? Should I just leave it at 3:2 and crop in post?

That's what I do.

 

[smoke665]

@Evertking here's a couple of quick examples of where you need extra margin sometimes if you intend to print, and why I generally reserve crops to the last step unless I know for sure what my print size will be.

First is 5x7 print. You have one of two choices here stretch each side to fit or zoom the image resulting in crops where you don't want them.

Second is an 8x10. Closer, but still the same problem.

 

[Derrel]

Smoke gave some pretty good advice in his first CNC. As far as aspect ratio goes his second post shows the real problem with shooting in the 3 to 2 ratio. This is one of the reasons why the Nikon company offers the 5:4 or 8 x 10 aspect ratio as an in-camera crop option. If you plan to shoot for 4 x 6 or 8 x 12 the 3 to 2 ratio is of course perfect. Otherwise, you would be better off changing the aspect ratio and shooting 5:4.

 

[smoke665]

problem with shooting in the 3 to 2 ratio.

Valid point, though not difficult to work around. The pre-release on the K1 included 3:2 and 1:1, but it was dropped in production. I don't find it that difficult to work around, as I said earlier I tend to shoot a little wide anyhow. There's a grid overlay that will show me various crop factors, but after awhile it became unnecessary, as I became familiar with the camera, and how an image looked in the viewfinder or on LV.

The thing I find more useful (especially given Pentax's ability to interchange lenses) is when a DA★-, DA Limited- or DA-series lens is mounted on the K-1, its Crop mode automatically switches an image area to the APS-C size covering the middle section of the image field, while displaying the cropping frame in the viewfinder.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon introduced in viewfinder cropping years ago, and I have been using it since the D2X in May 2005. In later cameras such as the D3X, D610, and D800, The presence of both the DX crop and the 5:4 allow the photographer to make it perfect 8 x 10 framing, which is different then shooting wide and cropping in post. Years ago I was taught to frame to show the entire frame, from a university professor who loved the so-called black knockout border.
The idea of framing loosely and then cropping after the fact it's not what I grew up with. I use the viewfinder as a very precise tool, and I do not like to shoot loose and crop later, And I tremendously prefer shooting to the final aspect ratio. For example, the square or one to one aspect ratio, is largely based upon centering the main subject within the frame, and I personally preferred to see what I am composing in the camera, rather than envisioning mentally, what might be, or what could be.

 

[Derrel]

For many years, professional Nikon cameras have offered in viewfinder masking or frame line cropping indicators so that demanding work can be done in Camera, and avoid the necessity to crop each and every 8 x 10 aspect ratio frame

Years ago as a young man I was taught to "use every millimeter of the frame", and I am used to using the viewfinder as a working tool. When you shoot 300 or 400 or 500 or 600 to 700 tall orientation portraits in the day, it is a huge work-saver do you have a camera that allows you a direct export of an already cropped frame. Even at Ten Seconds per frame to open and crop each of 500 pictures do you minutes of work saved by shooting directly into the 5 to 4 aspect ratio is a huge timesaver.

 

[Derrel]

I personally wish that more cameras offered the one to one or square aspect ratio, since much of square format photography involves nearly centering the main subject within the frame area, and one composes a little bit differently with the square than with a rectangle

These days the old 5 to 7 aspect ratio is pretty rare. I remember back in the 1980s when Andy Warhol's magazine Interview was somewhat popular. It was a 3 to 2 aspect ratio magazine , Somewhat tall and skinny, like the 35 mm aspect ratio was. Allegedly, it was designed so that photography done with 35mm cameras could be presented un-cropped. The magazine was discontinued after a few years.

Today we have different formats available, and I particularly like the new 4:3 aspect ratio that is used by a certain new digital cameras, and I think the images look great on computer screens. I am not particularly fond of the 16:9 wide-screen look.

 

[smoke665]

The idea of framing loosely and then cropping after the fact it's not what I grew up with. I

That's probably a big part of it, as I lean the other way. Given the intuitive ability of PS to stretch/fill, and batch processing the disadvantages are minimal

 

[Derrel]

What AF mode are you using?

I'm using center weighted average w/ ai servo.

The idea of framing loosely and then cropping after the fact it's not what I grew up with. I

That's probably a big part of it, as I lean the other way. Given the intuitive ability of PS to stretch/fill, and batch processing the disadvantages are minimal

At 10 seconds per image, no,let's make it 15 seconds per image for cropping or stretching, a 600-frame fashion portrait shot requires 150 minutes
of extra processing effort, just to see the proofs without all that extra, empty space. I call that a a significant disadvantage over shooting it to the desired aspect ratio in-camera, where it's easily possible to shoot RAW + JPEG, and have ready-to-go proofs as soon as the download is complete. I think that's why Nikon has offered the 5:4 and DX crops in camera for over a decade.

 

[smoke665]

@Derrel I think this discussion could be interesting for many, myself included, but I dont want to highjack a thread. Maybe you could start a new thread on In Camera Aspect Ratio and get more in depth discussions from a broader audience.