I don’t know about you, but I tend to be overconservative when it comes to cropping my images. Somewhere in my mind is this absurd little voice that forces me not to deviate from the ‘out-of-camera’ ratio of 3:2. So even when a different ratio would lead to a result that is more pleasing to the eye, I refrain from doing so. I have no idea where this irritating habit of mine finds its origin. Maybe I’m just too tidy a person. Nah, can’t be.
Anyway, only recently have I allowed other ratios to slip into my image archive. But I make sure the number of different ratios remains small and manageable. By know, I am the proud owner of several panoramic images with 2:1 and 3:1 ratios. I even have a few panoramic images composed of multiple shots that have a 4:1 ratio. You could call me a daredevil.
It may just be a matter of time before the first square image or, for cryin’out loud, a 4:3 image might slip through the cracks and live its life to the fullest on my external harddisk. I’ll let you know as soon as I have taken this dangerously enormous risk, if I live to tell, that is.
But seriously: sometimes it pays to look beyond the regular, everyday 3:2 ratio. Too often the sky or foreground in a landscape photograph is not interesting enuogh to take up all this space in your carefully composed image. In such cases, just be hard-boiled on those redundant pixels and crop the crap.
Frozen heathland panorama; Canon 1D Mark III w. 70-200/4; 1/500s at F8 and ISO 100; Gitzo tripod
4 Comments
I do not completely agree. Landscape photography is all about looking for a composition with an interesting foreground and sky.
If the sky is unintresting, maybe it is better to come back another day when weather is changeable, giving you an interesting sky.
..and not just cropping pixels away.
Stitching images is a better option, I think, that way you will be keeping enough resolution.
Hi guys
I agree with comment nr 1!
Do not know your wrote is but its really a good issue what he/she says!
Thanks for the discussion guys, much appreciated.
I completely agree that we should strive to make the perfect composition in the field. But what seems like a good shot on the camera display can be disappointing once home behind the pc, e.g. because of a boring sky. A panoramic crop can then save the day.
The image shown is still of a very high resolution (full width) and can be printed really big if necessary.