# Setting aspect ratio in camera vs cropping in LR



## camner (Aug 22, 2019)

I have always shot 4:3 images because all my cameras have used that as their native aspect ratio.  Of course, I crop as I wish in LR.

I just bought a Canon G5X Mark ii camera, whose native aspect ratio is 3:2, though the aspect ratio can be chosen in camera to be 4:3, 16:9, and 1:1 as well.

Since I'm so used to composing in 4:3, I thought I'd set the camera to 4:3.

After taking some test shots and importing them into LR, I realized that the camera always takes the shot in 3:2, but specifies a crop (in EXIF?), so when I open the image in the Develop module and select the Crop tool, I see the full 3:2 image captured by the camera with a 4:3 crop imposed on it.

So, that left me realizing that I have two choices:  I can set the camera to 3:2 and then choose whatever crop I want in LR, or I can set the camera to 4:3 and just accept the default crop unless I want to crop differently.

I was wondering if there is a good reason to prefer one method over the other?  What I see on the camera screen is the aspect ratio I choose in the camera.  From a composition point of view, if I'm more comfortable (due to personal history) with 4:3, my composition will be aided by being familiar, which argues for setting the camera aspect ratio to be 4:3.  Or are there reasons I should get used to 3:2 by setting the camera that way, and then if I want to crop most shots to 4:3, I can do that in LR?

Thoughts?


----------



## clee01l (Aug 22, 2019)

A 3:2 aspect ratio is an industry standard.  This was a default when 35mm film was the most common film for consumers. (36X24mm).  Full Frame Cameras use 36X24mm sensors and often offer an in camera crop for APS-C (~24X16mm) as well as HDTV (16:9), 4:3 (Analog TV) and others.   If you shoot RAW, you get the full sensor no matter what aspect ratio you choose in the camera.  The aspect ratio chosen in the camera only affect JPEGs produced by the camera. 

I always crop in LR.  I compose in the camera to leave  wiggle room and recompose in LR for the Golden ratio or the "rule of thirds".   All too often people tend to fill up the frame and peoples heads and feet get trimmed when trying to print a group shot on standard photo paper (4:5).  Many cameras have a view finder that shows as little as 80% of what is  recorded on the sensor.   So this needs to be taken into consideration (check your manual).  Viewfinders often have built in crop guides for standard aspect ratios other than the default 3:2.  
As long as you shoot RAW, it matters little what methods you choose to compose in the camera.   My LR crops are based upon the intended target (screen, print) which I might not know when I take the photo.


----------



## camner (Aug 22, 2019)

Thanks, Cletus, as always, for your expertise and perspective.


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 23, 2019)

I shoot cameras with both ratios as native.  When shooting, I try to keep in mind the final product and then leave room accordingly so an image can be cropped with less loss than expected.  For example, I shot an event for my wife in 3:2 format , but knew that we would be printing out 8x10 prints.  I then try to compose accordingly so I do not lose any of my subjects during cropping.  If I do not have a specific output, I often try to leave a bit of room to crop so I have some choices.  If I know the final product will be an identical ratio to the camera sensor, then I know that I can fill the frame without too much worry.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------



## LouieSherwin (Aug 23, 2019)

My own usage is that I crop every image that makes it to 3star rating. The advice that I was given and I follow is to make the crop to make the best  image and forget aspect ratio. 

Since most of our output is digital these days the aspect ratio is not that important. And if you do want to take an image to print and frame then it is easy to make or have made a custom mat. 

-louie


----------



## mcasan (Aug 23, 2019)

I only crop once I know the destination.    It is for print, I usually do 11x14 mat  So I crop to 11x14 and print to an 11x14 cell on 13x19 paper.    That allows for a 2" white mat and plenty of area to attach the mat to the paper.


----------



## clee01l (Aug 23, 2019)

mcasan said:


> That allows for a 2" white mat and plenty of area to attach the mat to the paper.


A waste of expensive photo paper.  Use 11X14 photo paper and do a proper mat. A 13X19 foam core board base behind to stabilize the photo and a 13X19 cover matte board with a 11X14 cut out.   Frame shops will often hinge the cover to the base for stability  I use these archival photo corners to prevent damage to the print from photo adhesive or tape.
https://www.amazon.com/Lineco-Infinity-Archival-Clear-Corners/dp/B004BNF7JG/ref=asc_df_B004BNF7JG/


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 24, 2019)

clee01l said:


> A waste of expensive photo paper.  Use 11X14 photo paper and do a proper mat. A 13X19 foam core board base behind to stabilize the photo and a 13X19 cover matte board with a 11X14 cut out.   Frame shops will often hinge the cover to the base for stability  I use these archival photo corners to prevent damage to the print from photo adhesive or tape.
> https://www.amazon.com/Lineco-Infinity-Archival-Clear-Corners/dp/B004BNF7JG/ref=asc_df_B004BNF7JG/


Are you expecting archival permanence for your framed photos? If you are, you shouldn't really be using foam core at all: https://www.trueart.info/?page_id=373


----------



## Paul_DS256 (Aug 24, 2019)

camner said:


> Since I'm so used to composing in 4:3, I thought I'd set the camera to 4:3.


I compose to get the picture I want. I was taught to get the picture in the frame but then discovered the image I wanted did not always fit in the ratios of the sensor. In those cases, I crop and if need be, cut my own mat. There is nothing forcing you to be constrained to the shooting ratio.

Personally, I leave my cameras in the ratio if the sensor.


----------



## clee01l (Aug 24, 2019)

RoyReed said:


> Are you expecting archival permanence for your framed photos? If you are, you shouldn't really be using foam core at all: Foam Centered Boards


I have some mounts that are archival and you are right, I don't use fome core for those. Although I note from your reference that there are acid free fome cores available.   
My camera club requires matted prints.  These are for me temporary and I have several hinged foam core mattes that I use to easily switch out for new competitions.


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 24, 2019)

clee01l said:


> I have some mounts that are archival and you are right, I don't use fome core for those. Although I note from your reference that there are acid free fome cores available.
> My camera club requires matted prints.  These are for me temporary and I have several hinged foam core mattes that I use to easily switch out for new competitions.


There are some with acid free card, but you can still get chemical contamination from the foam core interior.


----------



## clee01l (Aug 24, 2019)

RoyReed said:


> There are some with acid free card, but you can still get chemical contamination from the foam core interior.


From your reference "There are three types of Fome-Cor: original,  acid-free, and super thick."   To me "acid-free"  means archival.  I would think Monsanto could get sued for selling  acid-free that still yielded chemical contamination.


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 24, 2019)

Also from the same reference:

"Despite the many advantages  of this type of board over most paper boards, it cannot be considered archival  because the core is polystyrene, or some variant of polystyrene, and this  material naturally decomposes over a long period of time and is said to give off  acid vapors."

And with specific reference to Monsanto Foamcore:

"The  surface pH is slightly acidic, 5.5 to 6.5, and it is for this reason Monsanto  produces an acid-free Fome-Cor where the surface paper is buffered to a pH of  7.5 to 8.5. The printed literature for this board suggests that it is archival  and may be used as a substitute for museum board. This seems questionable  because, for example, the surface of this board is made from a Kraft paper and  not a purified cellulose, or cotton fiber. It is uncertain how much alkaline  reserve the buffer can provide in neutralizing air pollutants and the natural  formation of acid during the aging of Kraft paper. There are also questions  about the permanency of polystyrene itself."

Apologies to the OP - I didn't intend to hijack this thread.


----------



## prbimages (Aug 25, 2019)

Another reason to leave a little "wiggle room" when taking a photo is that some parts around the edges can get lost when you do a perspective transform of the image.


----------



## govindvkumar (Aug 25, 2019)

I go with the 2:3 format in my DSLR camera. Most of the images which I upload to the web will be of this aspect ratio.
I use a 4:5 aspect ratio for uploading to Instagram images. 
If you are only going to use 4:5 images then better to change it in the camera side itself.


----------



## ininraiclim (Nov 23, 2019)

Aspect ratio is simply a measurement of a photo's width to height. Your DSLR camera most likely has a 3:2 ratio.


----------



## camner (Nov 23, 2019)

Well, I recently returned from a 3-week trip to Spain, which gave my new camera its first real workout.  I kept the camera aspect ratio setting at 4:3, as that’s what I was used to.  

When I got home and started working on the photos in LR, I found myself at times thinking, “I took that shot a little too tightly,” and the “extra” room from the 3:2 image the camera captured came in handy.  Also, as pointed out by @prbimages, when doing perspective transforms, something I had to do often given the limitations on where I could stand, that extra room also came in handy.

On the other hand, in order to see if the extra room was helpful (even when not doing a perspective transform or thinking I was zoomed in a bit to tightly), I had to open the crop tool in every image, because when viewing the image in Loupe view I was only seeing the 4:3 version of the image.  That was a pain.

It strikes me that the best way going forward would be to set the aspect ratio of the camera to 3:2, and be more careful to err on the side of being zoomed in a little less than I might think of as ideal, and then in LR crop to whatever I think makes for the best looking and most effective photo.


----------



## clee01l (Nov 23, 2019)

camner said:


> It strikes me that the best way going forward would be to set the aspect ratio of the camera to 3:2, and be more careful to err on the side of being zoomed in a little less than I might think of as ideal, and then in LR crop to whatever I think makes for the best looking and most effective photo.



The best way going forward is to shoot RAW. No matter what crop setting are in the camera the camera always shoot a full sensor.
You can see this in the crop tool by selecting “Original” as Oppose to “As Shot” Then if you want a slightly different crop in processing, you have everything the camera recorded at your disaposal. If you record only JPEG, the sensor gets cropped to the aspect ratio of the settings in the camera


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## camner (Nov 23, 2019)

clee01l said:


> The best way going forward is to shoot RAW.


Yes, I do always shoot raw.  That’s why I have access to the “extra” room when I set the camera to 4:3.  What I was ruminating about was whether it was better to set the camera to 4:3 (because I was used to composing at that ratio) and use the extra pixels as I need/want them or to set the camera to 3:2, get used to composing shots having that aspect ratio available on the screen, and then cropping in LR as needed for the best looking shot.  I’m now thinking this latter approach is better.


----------



## ernie (Nov 30, 2019)

Another "in between" possibility is to shoot in 2/3 ratio but set up an import preset, or develop preset that you apply at import, that only crops to 4/3. Then that crop is applied to all the images and as you open each one all you have to do is hit R and then slide the image to the cropped composition you want.
Took a lot longer to type this than it will to do it.


----------



## camner (Nov 30, 2019)

ernie said:


> Another "in between" possibility is to shoot in 2/3 ratio but set up an import preset, or develop preset that you apply at import, that only crops to 4/3. Then that crop is applied to all the images and as you open each one all you have to do is hit R and then slide the image to the cropped composition you want.
> Took a lot longer to type this than it will to do it.


An interesting approach; thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Nov 30, 2019)

ernie said:


> Another "in between" possibility is to shoot in 2/3 ratio but set up an import preset, or develop preset that you apply at import, that only crops to 4/3. Then that crop is applied to all the images and as you open each one all you have to do is hit R and then slide the image to the cropped composition you want.
> Took a lot longer to type this than it will to do it.


I type this on my iPad, so I can’t check this, but AFAIK you cannot save a crop setting in a preset. Unless that changed recently.


----------



## clee01l (Nov 30, 2019)

Johan Elzenga said:


> I type this on my iPad, so I can’t check this, but AFAIK you cannot save a crop setting in a preset. Unless that changed recently.


It has not changed.  Crop aspect Ratio and Straighten Angle are not part of the develop preset.  They are a part of the copy settings /paste settings in the Develop menu.  You can create a crop only develop settings on the first image and then Sync all of the other images using the Paste Setting menu function


----------

