PBase

Speaking as someone quite new to DSLR photography, what view do you folks have on non-standard crop ratios?

I've used a couple of "thin and wide" crops in this gallery (see top row):

http://www.pbase.com/timbo_bobcat/maldives_2009__public

as I think they give a better result artistically.

One obvious example where they are necessary is of course panoramas. However in terms of printing, framing, etc I imagine it can be awkward to deal with non-standard ratio crops, so I wonder if it is best avoided otherwise?

Is it easy to get a non-standard ratio photo framed and on your wall without paying a lot for a bespoke frame?

I would say crop them as you see fit. If you are custom framing the cost of the frame will not be out of line but the glass and mat board maybe pricier due to more scrap. You can also put a nonstandard size print into a standard frame and make the adjustment in the mat board as a less expensive option. Personally I tend to sell most of my prints unframed and therefore shoot everything as a final 8X10 crop. If you plan to sell your work framed then it does not matter.

I use (almost exclusively) a wide, 28mm lens. Combined with my Leica M8, this fits best (no cropping) with a final 2 x 3 aspect.
This ratio is more inconvenient for framing, and seems to require for my tastes an un-centered matting with more space at the bottom to provide the kind of balance that is comfortable. but that sometimes requires larger frames with wider matting (attractive, but not so cost or space efficient.)

The most common ratio, 4 x 5, (readily available 8 x 10" frames) matches normal lenses in the 50mm range. When doing landscapes, 2 x 3 (*8' x 12") seems like the best default, and then vary on a per-picture basis.

In the distant past I cropped square a lot. Surprisingly, square works well (if you have a good eye) with lots of frame sizes, but requires custom matting. Though I try not to crop (I happen to like a lot of the irrelevant peripheral detail that wide lenses toss in) I already decided (before seeing this post) that I would explore square more instead shrinking-in on my 2x3 ratio.
You can see some squares here in my newest gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/mnl/ethan_at_bryant_park

You can standardize on a frame and backing mat size and then vary the opening of your mat to fit what ever crop you determine works for the image. I have used metal frames and just take them apart and switch out the pictures. This saves some if you can come up with a satisfactory standard that works with most of your image. In fact, I standardized on two frame sizes that pretty much fit everything.--Rene

halesr wrote:You can standardize on a frame and backing mat size and then vary the opening of your mat to fit what ever crop you determine works for the image. I have used metal frames and just take them apart and switch out the pictures. This saves some if you can come up with a satisfactory standard that works with most of your image. In fact, I standardized on two frame sizes that pretty much fit everything.--Rene

Though I'm not 100% reliable, I try not to print a photo until I have the frame. Ideally, the photo selection, crop ratio, print size, and matt size and image spacing would all work together. From time to time I'll buy a good deal on frame--various sizes--that suit me just to store them. Matt cutting is a fairly easy procedure once you get the hang of it and have some decent tools (although I'm partial to heavy thickness museum matts and haven't found a suitable cutter for them.)

The current online photo printing that I use always has A4 paper size prints on a cheaper rate than the standard equivalent ie 12"x8", So I take advantage of this and often crop to A4 ratio. If you are going to print and you want to keep the cost down you can look for other such offers and crop accordingly. Square crops are also often on special offer. As for online I would agree that do what suits is the best policy.