Peluqueria Estilos

[Antonio Correia]

[rpcrowe]

The shot is great and shows a segment of life. If it were mine, I might crop it to eliminate the table (image left) and some of the red wall image right making it almost a square composition; unless you feel that the table adds to the image. I'd also open the shadows a bit around the barber in gray shirt...

[Shadowman]

Nicely seen and captured.

[Antonio Correia]

Thank you John for the usual comment.

Richard, I am stuck to the crop factor because of the size I usually print on. The 1/1 crop is not my usual crop factor.
About opening up the shadows on the right side, I do agree with you.
Thank you for commenting !
Cheers !

[pschlute]

Antonio, I am sure you could shave a little bit off

[rpcrowe]

Thank you John for the usual comment.

Richard, I am stuck to the crop factor because of the size I usually print on. The 1/1 crop is not my usual crop factor.
About opening up the shadows on the right side, I do agree with you.
Thank you for commenting !
Cheers !

Antonio...

One of the plus factors of not making many hard copy prints of my images is that I don't need to worry about the format. I tend to crop or format images the way that I like them as opposed to when I was working with film and paper prints. Then, I was pretty well restricted to certain formats...

[Antonio Correia]

Richard... I prefer to stick to 3 formats: 1/1 - 3/4 - 3/5
At least for now, as I may change some day in the future. Why not ?
Cheers !

[rpcrowe]

Richard... I prefer to stick to 3 formats: 1/1 - 3/4 - 3/5
At least for now, as I may change some day in the future. Why not ?
Cheers !

Here is the image in about a 1:1 crop - what do you think?

[DanK]

Richard... I prefer to stick to 3 formats: 1/1 - 3/4 - 3/5
At least for now, as I may change some day in the future. Why not ?
Cheers !

I would reverse that question: "why"? Why let an arbitrary aspect ratio be your guide rather than what looks best for a particular image?

IMHO, there are sometimes reasons to stay with a fixed aspect ratio. One is cost: it is often cheaper to buy frames in standard sizes. A second is that many people can't cut their own mats. A good mat cutter is an expense. the third is that sometimes a display requires it. However, even in these cases, it is usually a compromise and usually requires framing an image in a way that isn't best.

I just happened to find an example of my own a few days ago. I was searching among my old macro photos for some photos I could use to illustrate what you get filling the frame at 1:1 magnification. I found pretty nice photo of a bumblebee that I thought would work, but I realized that the cropping was really a bad choice on one side. So, I deleted it and went back to the original to redo it. What I found is that it was a very old photo that I had printed back when I mostly used standard-sized pre-made frames. It was cropped to fit an 8 inch x 10 inch mat, which is a standard size in the US. I changed the aspect ratio to fit the image, not to fit the frame, and it looked much better.

In this specific case, my first reaction was exactly the same as Richard's. There are too many centers of attention, and my eye was pulled to the table instead of the barbers. One solution would be Richard's, which IMHO is much stronger image. I might also play with ways of including the mirror on the left, but I haven't tried that.

[Antonio Correia]

Huuummm... this requires an answer for which I do not have the time now !
Later, later !

Thank you Richard and Dan !

[shreds]

I am in agreement that Richards crop certainly creates a stronger image.

Regards cutting frames/mounts, yes, buying in a variety of a standard sizes will save money, but just like buying cheap lenses there is a trade off. Mount cutters last a very long time (with a good supply of blades) and you really can create suitable mounts for your images. A Longridge Mount cutter https://www.longridge.co.uk is great fun once you get the hang of accurately cutting which is very simple and now whenever at a gallery I will often judge the mount and its quality before I consider the picture or photograph.

Some judges can be very critical of poorly cut mounts if you are into camera club competitions. However more than anything it is a case of creating a suitable finish for the images at whatever ratios are appropriate. Sure crop the picture firstly as necessary, but don't ruin it all by compromising on this area of presentation. You can even get creative regards the cutting angle, creating effects with the mount board edges. Good quality mount board doesn't yellow where cut and again you can get differing coloured mounts and depth of multiple mounts, too

After spending a fortune on your camera equipment, this is usually a small fraction of the cost. Some mount board cutters are cheap and scrappy, but ultimately its your images that you have taken and want to portray in the best light. I never did understand why my local camera club always had a session on mount cutting, but made it out to be a 'dark art'. It's not.

Some years ago I was commissioned to create a series of frames for some photographers I had been training, for an exhibition. Little did I know that the exhibition would be attended by royalty until after the event. Clearly they wanted the work to look the best. Luckily I was able to cut to suit the images and the exhibition hall space.

So don't be afraid or compromise on gaining the finishing touch.

[billtils]

I like the way that Richard's crop brings the mirrors into play as part of the picture and not a distraction.

[DanK]

I agree with Ian, although I certainly haven't had royalty look at my mats. AFAIK, the Longridge mount cutter isn't available on this side of the pond, but similar ones are. B&H stocks half a dozen brands. I use a Logan, which appears to be the most common. It really is quite easy once you see it done, and there are videos showing the process, step by step.

It does require an investment. The Logan 450 that I use, which comes with a 4-ply mat cutter, costs about $180 US. An additional cutter for 8-ply mats, which I much prefer, costs another $48. But my view of the cost is the same as Ian's:

After spending a fortune on your camera equipment, this is usually a small fraction of the cost.

Presenting an image with the wrong aspect ratio--including material that detracts, cutting off material that helps, making edges too tight, or whatever--can have a far larger impact on the quality of an image than spending an extra $500 on a lens.

[rpcrowe]

One aspect of digital photography that I dearly love is that you can experiment with various crops before you need to invest any great amount of time and money into your image. In the days of film, especially when printing in color, it was not always easy to inspect the image before the initial printing.

I for one, always had a difficult time judging color negative images before a print was made. And... each print cost money and was time consuming... Now with digital imaging, all it takes is a couple of key strokes and mouse sweeps to see what the image will look like. I did not have the same problems with B&W negatives and could usually judge these pretty well before printing...

One of our major local contests is the San Diego County Fair Photographic Exhibition. In this contest, the photographs have a dual tier entry procedure. You enter a JPEG image into the preliminary judging and only if the entry is selected for final judging do you need to enter a hard copy print. IMO, this is a win-win procedure since it is easier for the judges to view and judge the thousands of entries as JPEG's rather than as hard-copy prints but, also it saves the cost and effort of printing images for the contest which will have no chance of winning or even for selection to be included in the exhibition exhibition... https://www.wattsdigital.com/sdcfairfaq.html

I have usually not paid a great deal of attention to the closing dates for entries into the Fair competition and have not entered any images. However, this year, I am assembling a set of JPEG images in a "Fair Entry" folder to be ready to submit them for judging. ISN'T DIGITAL GRAND?

I learned a workflow procedure from an expert digital printing specialist (John Watts Digital Imaging - https://www.wattsdigital.com/ ) which has helped me greatly. He calls it a "Master Image or Master File" in which all exposure and color and other corrections both global and local are applied to the image but no cropping or output sharpening is applied. Then the image is saved as a PSD Master Image. From that image, I can size and crop subsequent images without having to "reinvent the wheel" by needing to apply the various corrections needed. This is very handy with my dog rescue images when I often need various sizes and various crops. As an example, I use a square crop to post on many rescue websites but, often need the image for other uses such as rescue calendars. It is simple to revert to the Master File which can be cropped, resized and have output sharpening applied but, doesn't need any other corrections. That is a great time saver!

BTW: John has a quite decent book on Photoshop procedures available on Amazon.com ( https://www.amazon.com/Just-Another-...oks+john+watts ) in both hard copy and as a Kindle Unlimited Edition...

[xpatUSA]

Some here may recall the 1996 Advanced Photo System , which offered three different film aspect ratios, almost pre-dating digital but also killed by digital. The term "APS" lived on - to be abused by just about all digital camera makers, particularly Canon and Sigma with their 1.6 and 1.7 crop factors ... grump. Not to mention the so-called APS-H cameras, none of which match 16:9 monitors.

It's enough to make a pedant puke!

Interesting to note that RawTherapee offers about 27 different pre-set crops, one of which (45:35 ePassport) is presumably mandatory.

[DanK]

RawTherapee offers about 27 different pre-set crops

Lightroom offers 11, but you can also simply enter dimensions for any aspect ratio you want, as well as creating one by dragging the cropping frame freehand.

[xpatUSA]

Lightroom offers 11 [different pre-set crops], but you can also simply enter dimensions for any aspect ratio you want, as well as creating one by dragging the cropping frame freehand.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that RawTherapee only allows preset crops! It, and other editors that I have, do allow to simply enter dimensions for any aspect ratio I want, as well as creating one by dragging the cropping frame freehand.

[shreds]

The Longridge mount cutter isn't available on this side of the pond, but similar ones are

The video that accompanies the Longridge system online nevertheless offers some good tips on mount cutting regardless of the brand. I have attended a couple of live sessions at camera clubs/exhibitions and Chris makes being a perfectionist look so easy and simple.

https://www.longridge.co.uk/video-instructions/


The good thing is that even dummies like me, can replicate that very well! Obviously very good instruction and attention to detail in the design, the product and the demo. Much easier and more precise than most mount cutters available here, in my view.

I have been in B&H whenever I have been in NYC so have no doubt that the cutters there are excellent.

There is a whole export market waiting for Chris Longridge and family to explore nevertheless, if they ever wanted to.

[Antonio Correia]

Thank you Dan for your comment and Richard for the square crop !
This one (the square crop) looks to me that it exaggerates the deformation of the wide angle lens. Get restricted to 3 formats allow me to fit them easily in my A format papers because I print myself.

I use the prints not to hang on the walls but for fun and pleasure. On the other hand, I collect the prints so they can be as a legacy for the future when I am gone. Joking I usually say that my children (2) will garbage them ! Who knows ?
However and as I told before, I am ready to change my way of cropping...
But you know... I try as much as possible, to take the picture with the final frame with some deviations obviously

Ian, thank you for commenting. You guys all go into the same direction: crop the best way to get the right feeling / mood / eye pleasure... I understand that and really, really, I must make a try.

Bill, is also of the general opinion...

...Presenting an image with the wrong aspect ratio--including material that detracts, cutting off material that helps, making edges too tight, or whatever--can have a far larger impact on the quality of an image than spending an extra $500 on a lens.

I can't but agree with this statement !

But you know guys, the - shall I call it photography club ? does it deserve that title ? - "club" here is composed of 8 to 10 persons and it is me - yes, me - who tows them ! It is me who is demanding and a pain in their ass, asking, questioning over and over. And people put up with me !

This is the reason why I come here and been to others forums before, trying to evolve, to grow, to learn... very hard. But I do this for fun.

This is not supposed to be a self compliment. This is the reality. The only persons who also does photography "decently" is my wife with whom I can talk over and over.

Thank you all !

Have a nice week end !

[Jim A]

My apologies, Antonio (and other responders), I have not read all of the above posts. My humble take is that I would stick with the original image, however, having it in B&W. To me the colours take our attention away from the marvellous action. The colours are really great, but what is more important?