format 3:2 or 4:3,16:9

[leica1215]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

can someone tell me when do you use other format than 3:2 ?

[Jeff S]

When it suits the picture.

 

Jeff

[geetee1972]

When it suits the picture.

 

Jeff

This.

 

Perhaps the question you want to ask is what type of picture does each aspect ratio suit?

[leica1215]

This.

 

Perhaps the question you want to ask is what type of picture does each aspect ratio suit?

 

yes, geestee, the full frame camera are 3:2 ratio so I would like to know what type of picture  will you change the frame ratio

[IkarusJohn]

can someone tell me when do you use other format than 3:2 ?

 

 

Never, as that is the full area of the sensor.  If I decide to do any cropping, it's in processing.

[ramarren]

I often set the cropping to 1:1, particularly when I'm doing my "Hasselblad SWC simulation" with the Super-Elmar-R 15mm lens or WATE. It helps me visualize the square crop. Similarly, I often set the cropping to 16:9 if I'm going for a 'wide screen movie-like' look, and 4:3 if I'm looking for 'standard US magazine cover' look. Again, the format choice simply helps visualize the cropping while shooting. 

 

As soon as I put the DNG files into Lightroom and touch the cropping tool, the full format capture (2:3 proportions) are accessible so none of these choices is limiting or changing the raw data potential. JPEG files will be produced as cropped, but for DNG files it's simply a couple of dimensional parameters defining to Lightroom (and other intelligent raw converters) what to display. 

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use other formats when I am In lightroom.

[steppenw0lf]

In the camera I usually use the dafault  aspect ratio.  And do some crops later in LR if needed.

With the exception of 1:1, which is interesting for UWA lenses   (a Hassy biogon for the poor).   Ramarren has posted many nice examples.

[scott kirkpatrick]

If your objective is to visualize how video will look, setting the aspect ratio to 16:9 is appropriate.  (That gives a "director's viewfinder.")  I sometimes use an ultra-wide angle lens with my SL, but I do the 1:1 cropping in my head, so that the resulting square can be displaced to one side of the other if necessary.

[steppenw0lf]

Some older lenses are not so strong in the corners, so better do it in camera, then the worst is taken away.

[Per P.]

I very occasionally use 16:9

[geetee1972]

yes, geestee, the full frame camera are 3:2 ratio so I would like to know what type of picture  will you change the frame ratio

 

This is a tough question to answer really. A purist would argue that if you need to crop in post you've failed to take the picture correctly in the first place, i.e. you've not composed your shot correctly. I'm not a purist but I aspire to be better and so I do take some learning or insight from that thought and make of it what I can. Consequently I try to keep all my images either in the native aspect ratio if landscape or 7x5 in portrait

 

The SL (and I notice that the GFX also) does offer other aspect ratios that provide a cropped display in the viewfinder and on the JPEG output but the RAW file is still 100% of the sensor. The cropped view is useful if you've decided that you want to compose and shoot in that aspect ratio as it then helps with composition, but then we are back to the original restatement of your question, which is, when does say a square or 6x7 (which isn’t available on the SL) aspect ratio work best.

 

Again, tough question to answer. There's a general history of regarding higher (i.e. more square) aspect ratios, for example 6x7 or 4x5 rather than 2x3 as being more 'intellectual'. I don't know for sure where that came from or why but I suspect it is related to the use of medium and large format photography for more 'serious', fine art work, whereas the 3x2 ratio was more typically used by amateurs, hobbyists and documentary/reportage photographers (which by definition cannot be regarded as 'fine art' if we accept that term to mean 'art for art's sake). I’m speculating of course but there’s likely some truth in this.

 

Someone with a fine art degree would probably also be able to articulate, using concepts like the golden ratio, why a higher aspect ratio is more aesthetically pleasing, but I'm terribly ill qualified to attempt that. It’s also important to understand how such rules governing composition change with these aspect ratios, again not something I’m able to do.

 

But since this is an interesting question and since I'm bored at work, it's worth musing over some specific examples though we are now straying very much into the world of 'purely in my opinion' and I’m primarily a portrait photographer so my views can only be informed about this genre. Personally I think portraiture is, in general, best represented by at least a 7x5 aspect ratio and ideally 5x4, which is my personal favourite. This is particularly true for portraits in portrait rather than landscape.

I’ve shot a Hasselblad 501 extensively for portraiture and am comfortable composing portraits in square format if they are waist up or higher, but it’s really hard to compose anything longer and not lose the subject in the frame. When I composed like this I would usually crop in post down to 6x7 (portrait not landscape).

 

I’ve used the 1x1 crop on the SL a few times, in particular with one project (Transitions - http://www.tearsinrain.co.uk/transition) where the majority of the portraits were made on the Hasselblad in 1x1 ratio but then I ended up with quite a few taken on the SL and I wanted to maintain a consistent presentation but still include these. One of the things I’ve found with this project is just how important consistency in crop really is to the integrity and success of a project. I shot this project in B&W primarily and found that things jarred far more when I mixed aspect ratios between images than if I mixed B&W with colour.

 

All of this might be interesting but I don’t think it really answers your question. I would perhaps summarise by saying just try them all and see how you feel, find your ‘frame’ and then stick to it over time and then revisit things and see how you feel again. Everything is about consistency and experimentation; repetition and difference. It’s all a paradox, just like life!

[ramarren]

...Again, tough question to answer. There's a general history of regarding higher (i.e. more square) aspect ratios, for example 6x7 or 4x5 rather than 2x3 as being more 'intellectual'. I don't know for sure where that came from or why but I suspect it is related to the use of medium and large format photography for more 'serious', fine art work, whereas the 3x2 ratio was more typically used by amateurs, hobbyists and documentary/reportage photographers (which by definition cannot be regarded as 'fine art' if we accept that term to mean 'art for art's sake). I’m speculating of course but there’s likely some truth in this. ... 

 

 

I don't ever recall anyone telling me that one format proportion is more 'intellectual' than another. 

 

Format proportions arise out of three things: the use that photos are going to be put to, the technology of capture, and the aesthetics of photograph/image design. 

 

Examples: Record album covers are square, so square framings work best when shooting for record covers. Standard US paper sizes are approximately 3:4 proportion, so a 6:7 or 4:5 proportion framing has to be imposed on whatever the image is for front/full page layouts. Modern wide-screen cinema proportions are 16:9, so stills supporting cine previsualization should be in that proportion. The original Barnack film proportion mimicked 35mm film cameras of the time (since his original Leica design was to be a short strip exposure test camera...) with an 18x24mm (3:4) frame, but looking for more quality out of the tiny negative —when it became apparent that a small quality still camera based on cine film had value in and of itself—he doubled the length of the frame to 24x36 mm (2:3). 

 

It just turned out that the 24x36 35mm film format became the popular standard because it was a good balance between presumptive quality, camera size, lens speed, etc. It was picked up by photojournalists and later by news services for these reasons. The miniature negative (and HCB's aesthetic 'decisive moment' with no cropping) inspired a lot of users to minimize cropping where these factors were never a consideration for larger negatives since they had plenty of film area to produce a good quality print even when heavily cropped. Unless, of course, you're talking about even larger negatives where the standard printing process was a contact print ... 

 

Aesthetically, the typical wisdom taught in art appreciation is that more square framing/composition tends to be more static in nature and the more oblong a rectangle is used, the more 'dynamic' the composition tends to be. Obviously, this is highly subjective and dependent upon the subject matter in the framing. 

 

With digital, once you have enough pixels to make a good quality image at the output size and proportion you want, the choice of framing is up to you and is most usually driven by aesthetic considerations. The quality is no longer so directly attached to capture medium constraints.

 

I shoot squares a lot because I like the 'feel' of square compositions, but I have no qualms about cropping to 16:9 when I feel it enhances the impression I want a particular photo to make. For example:

 

Leica SL + APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL 90-280mm f/2.8-4

ISO 640 @ f/4 @ 1/500 @ 280mm

[geetee1972]

 

I don't ever recall anyone telling me that one format proportion is more 'intellectual' than another.

 

Maybe intellectual was the wrong word. I think the reference I read said 'high brow' or 'more serious'. I wish I could remember where I read it.

[IkarusJohn]

Lovely poppies, Godfrey.

 

I'm not sure you're entirely fair criticising Greg's use of the word "intellectual" - I liked his post, and I understood the difficult concept he was trying to explain.  In many respects, you make the same point.  I do feel a natural attraction to the square format, and I generally dislike fiddling with image ratios unless I wish to use it for dramatic effect - a panorama, for example.

 

However, as mentioned above, I don't use Jpegs, so changing the format in camera has never seemed useful to me.  I do take the point, though, that it might be an aid to framing.

[ramarren]

Maybe intellectual was the wrong word. I think the reference I read said 'high brow' or 'more serious'. I wish I could remember where I read it.

 

I think that the thing to note is that using format proportions with thought and skill, to evoke desired aesthetic intent, is something that happens well past the "how do I make a technically acceptable photograph" and perhaps past the dedication to some arbitrary rule (like "Full frame, no cropping, only!"). It's what happens when your vision expands to see photographs at a level past the beginning. 

 

Lovely poppies, Godfrey.

 

I'm not sure you're entirely fair criticising Greg's use of the word "intellectual" - I liked his post, and I understood the difficult concept he was trying to explain.  In many respects, you make the same point.  I do feel a natural attraction to the square format, and I generally dislike fiddling with image ratios unless I wish to use it for dramatic effect - a panorama, for example.

 

However, as mentioned above, I don't use Jpegs, so changing the format in camera has never seemed useful to me.  I do take the point, though, that it might be an aid to framing.

 

 

I wasn't trying to criticize, just to clarify and articulate some piece of the history of format proportions and the choice thereof. It's really not very dark and mysterious... or that difficult.

 

It's nice to be able to see the square or the oblong in the viewfinder. I'm as good as anyone else at imagining it, but there are times when it is simply best to see what the proportions do when framing your subject.