Commercial photography and tight cropping

[Stoned]

Noticed a comment by Skye_tan that commercial photographs(ie. for commercial usage) should not be tightly cropped. On further examination of other commercial photographs in ads and such it does seem to be the case.

Why is this so?
The only reason I could think of would be to make space for text and other graphics that are necessary to sell the product. Other than that though, is there any special reason to crop commercial photographs more loosely? Or any photographic reason for that matter?

 

[Feinwerkbau]

Simply to give the Art Director more room to make 'adjustments' to suit a Client's never ending changing mind.

Also, some print processes/printers spec a little bit more space to make allowance for the cutting and binding stages (of magazines or other bound print media).

 

[nostagia]

Basically you have to have a bleeding for all offset printing.

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

Noticed a comment by Skye_tan that commercial photographs(ie. for commercial usage) should not be tightly cropped. On further examination of other commercial photographs in ads and such it does seem to be the case.

Why is this so?
The only reason I could think of would be to make space for text and other graphics that are necessary to sell the product. Other than that though, is there any special reason to crop commercial photographs more loosely? Or any photographic reason for that matter?

the photographer does not do the end product, the picture may be cropped by the art director or graphic artist .

 

[CMOS]

the photographer does not do the end product, the picture may be cropped by the art director or graphic artist .

Bravo. You've got the right answer. Basically is to allow more room for later adjustments. Just like when you buy your clothings.

 

[yqt]

Simply to give the Art Director more room to make 'adjustments' to suit a Client's never ending changing mind.

Also, some print processes/printers spec a little bit more space to make allowance for the cutting and binding stages (of magazines or other bound print media).

hit the nail on the head, than again coming from an AD like you, I would expect nothing less
:thumbsup:

 

[uncleparty]

perhaps i could share a little.

one, the pictures used in collaterals are seldom used in a normal 3:2 ratio. a tight crop without enough buffer round the sides, usually results in your image being cut weirdly and cannot be used.

as much as it is a consideration the photographer should pay, it is also quite the responsibility of the design agency to highlight their requirements to the photog, along with the design brief, style of photog, etc etc. (but seriously, most design agencies already expect it, and won't think you're taking horribly composed pictures )

second, in a branding exercise/campaign, your pictures may be used more than once, in different forms of media that works on diff dimensions later on - this info is almost always not avail during the time of ur shoot. thus, the additional buffer is always good.

to err on the safe side here is good beacuse it leaves more room for the graphic designer's usage of ur photos. hope it helps

 

[Stoned]

Hmm thanks. Doesn't that require kind of a high resolution though? Hence MF/LF i guess.

 

[yqt]

Hmm thanks. Doesn't that require kind of a high resolution though? Hence MF/LF i guess.

yeah, that's why most pros are using digital back