Do you print 4x5 full format or do you nearly always crop to different aspect ratio?

[RobC]

Do you print 4x5 full format or do you nearly always crop to different aspect ratio?

 

[Richard Man]

I rarely crop out of camera. It's not a fetish or anything, just the way I work.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do my composing and cropping before a take the photograph in all formats, so the short answer is that I print almost everything full format including 4"x5".

 

[Barry S]

Do you print 4x5 full format or do you nearly always crop to different aspect ratio?

Most of my work is composed tightly in the frame, but if a crop improves the image, I'll do it without thinking twice.

 

[RobC]

I ask this question because I'm just thinking about the possibility of getting back into 4x5. However, in my previous life as 4x5 photographer I never liked the format for landscape orientation and always prefered a wider aspect ratio. But for portrait orientation I really like 4x5.

Thing is that mostly I photograph in landscape orientation and it occured to me that rather then going back into 4x5 I could get a 6x12 camera which is a format I have often cropped to from 4x5. There's nothing stopping me from using that in portrait and cropping down from that. The thought of being able to use roll film in a smaller format camera appeals and the the linhof technoramas have shift too for architectural and landscape if needed.

So I'm really questioning the need for 4x5 and wondered whether other people like me, tend to crop the landscape orientation images down to a wider aspect ratio.

 

[MattKing]

The only time that aspect ratios motivate me are when I have an output format that mandates them. As an example, when I used to shoot weddings, I used to compose to a roughly 4x5 aspect ratio, because that worked economically with the high quality machine prints my lab offered. In most cases, those shots were taken with a square format camera.

Otherwise, I let the subject dictate the aspect ratio of the result.

If I have flexibility available to me, I'll try for something like 4x5 (or even 3x4), because prints that shape are pleasing, they waste very little darkroom paper and it is easy to mat and frame them. I'm happy though if I need to cut a custom mat.

 

[Alan Gales]

I shoot 4x5 and 8x10 and I rarely crop but I love the aspect ratio. I also own a Fujifilm X100s digital camera. The lens on it is comparable to a 35mm on a 35mm camera. I have to crop for 8x10 prints because it's a 35mm camera aspect ratio. I also sometimes crop because the lens is fixed and sometimes a little longer focal length is advantages.

Ever think of shooting a 5x7 camera and using a 4x5 back for portraiture?

 

[antmar]

One think that I like to 4x5 is that it fits to the different size paper aspect ratios, so I take advantage of the whole paper. I rarely crop...

 

[480sparky]

I almost always crop for one reason or another. Exceedingly rare is the time I print the fill neg.

 

[RobC]

I shoot 4x5 and 8x10 and I rarely crop but I love the aspect ratio. I also own a Fujifilm X100s digital camera. The lens on it is comparable to a 35mm on a 35mm camera. I have to crop for 8x10 prints because it's a 35mm camera aspect ratio. I also sometimes crop because the lens is fixed and sometimes a little longer focal length is advantages.

Ever think of shooting a 5x7 camera and using a 4x5 back for portraiture?

Yup, but I dismissed the idea on the basis that it would mean I would need an even bigger enlarger and would also be tempted to get a 6x17 camera. With a 6x12 I can print on my 4x5 enlarger.

 

[Richard Man]

IMHO: mountains and stuff: 4x5. Seascapes: 617. Trees: either. Cityscapes: 617.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I don't let my film format dictate where the borders of my images will be.

The world doesn't come packaged neatly in 4:5, 2:3, or 1:1.61803399 ratios...

My subject dictates where it wants the borders of the final print to be. Sometimes that's full-frame, most of the time it's not; it's a trim here or a trim there to get the composition right... more or less rectangular, square, etc. I do try to use as much film area as possible for the cropping I want; this dictates the choice of lens.

And, although I shoot 4x5 film, I often shoot panorama format (again, no specific aspect ration, just "long and skinny" with the borders dictated by the subject matter), cropping to achieve what I want.

I've got into the habit of indicating cropping on my exposure records along with exposure info, development and the paper grade I'm shooting for.

Best,

Doremus

 

[removed account4]

it really depends robc.
often i contact print 4x5 and up but sometimes i crop ...
it really depends on what is in the frame and what camera i used
often times i compose full frame and crop before i expose the film, but sometimes my cameras
don't allow me to compose ( bad milk glass ) ... so i compose post exposure .

 

[Ian Grant]

I'ts very rare I crop, while 5x4 is my main format I also shoot 6x6, 6x17 occasionally 6x9 I always shoot to the format.

Ian.

 

[Jim Jones]

In the Navy I shot mostly Kodachrome and let Kodak do the darkroom work. This dictated full frame composing. After retirement the subject matter could dictate the cropping as well as all the other editing options available in the darkroom. Now, for aesthetic and economic reasons, exhibition prints are cropped to fit a very limited selection of mats. A photographer should feel free to let either the image or the process control the cropping.

 

[palewin]

I would guess that 90% of my 4x5 is printed full frame without cropping, since as many have already posted, the ground glass is where you do the composition. But you bring up the issue of panoramic images, which I love. I have taken photos with a wide-angle (Schneider 80XL) lens on the 4x5, and then cropped (actually trimmed) them to an approximation of a panoramic, probably the equivalent of a 2x5 if there were such an in-camera format. I have seen discussions of people making 4x10 carriers, by cutting the dark slide in half, to get two panoramic images on a sheet of 8x10 film. I'm sure the same approach could be taken with 4x5.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If I print 4x5 on 8x10 it doesn't seems to be close to be called as cropped. 6x6 on 8x10 is crop, but I print it.

 

[BetterSense]

I almost always crop. I deliberately compose loosely. One of the benefits of using a large format is that I have lots of freedom to do so.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Rob, I have a similar view. The best answer for me was to buy a nice 4x5 field camera and a Horseman 6x12cm roll film back. When I start shooting again (I hope I can) then I'll shoot 4x5 and print either full-frame or 2:3 ratio. If I want a narrower ratio then I'll shoot with the 120 back.

 

[RobC]

Rob, I have a similar view. The best answer for me was to buy a nice 4x5 field camera and a Horseman 6x12cm roll film back. When I start shooting again (I hope I can) then I'll shoot 4x5 and print either full-frame or 2:3 ratio. If I want a narrower ratio then I'll shoot with the 120 back.

Yes this has occured to me but again I'm looking for minimalism and devloping roll film appeals greatly over developing sheet film.
I'm really just going through the thinking process to see if its something I really want to get back into. I don't want 4x5 for the negative size but rather for the panoramic image and I'm weighing up whether a panoramic camera is really what I would prefer. And a 4x5 plus 6x12 back will be a lot heavier. I'm also of the opinion that roll film holder will hold film flatter than a 4x5 camera and in a dedicated panoramic camera moreso but thats debateble.

And an Xpan may be all I really need. It would make life much simpler.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Actually, a lightweight 4x5 and 6x12cm RFH is lighter than most dedicated 6x12cm cameras with no Scheimpflug movements. If you truly don't want to shoot sheet film then all you need is a little 1Kg 4x5 camera and the RFH. For landscapes, most 4x5 field cameras will have more movements than you'll ever need.

 

[Richard Man]

And an Xpan may be all I really need. It would make life much simpler.

I have an XPan II, in addition to a 4x5 Chamonix, SH 617, Hasselblad and a couple Leica.

I love the panoramics. The XPan is a really great camera. I have slides from XPan printed to 5' long.

However, if you want the higher quality in landscapes, the XPanII cannot compare with 4x5, 617 and not 612.

 

[Vaughn]

I print 4x5 (and 8x10) full frame 98% of the time. If you have a favorite format/crop, I would mark it on the GG for reference.