Jump to content

Aspect Ratios


Guest

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not sure if anyone else on here has shot LF or Hasselblad (4:3). But for me I find that the Leica aspect ratio is very narrow and makes me want to crop it to 4:3, but sometimes that is not possible as when the initial picture was framed if you later want to crop then you may well lose vital information.............infesting to hear what others think if they have shot in 4:3 ore 4:5 before?? 

 

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

That implies that the 3:2 ratio works for some subjects!  I have never had a problem with film composition swapping from 1:1, 3:2, 6:7, 5:4 as all are suitable ratios for something, why do you need to keep digital images in certain ratios ratio when you can crop to anything that suits the subject?

john

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John McMaster said:

why do you need to keep digital images in certain ratios ratio when you can crop to anything that suits the subject?

john

That's part of my point. If it's shot at 3:2 and later want to crop, the crop might not work

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, NW67 said:

If it's shot at 3:2 and later want to crop, the crop might not work

Exactly why if I suspect there's an image I'll want to crop; I'll be sure to leave the appropriate space around the 3:2 frame so it can be cropped.  A portrait for example looks better in a traditional frame, but if you frame within the camera...your right; something will get lost or have to get cut off.  

In general however, after I get scans back from my exposed rolls of film...I'll crop to any non standard ratio to what ever works best for that particular image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, thebarnman said:

Exactly why if I suspect there's an image I'll want to crop; I'll be sure to leave the appropriate space around the 3:2 frame so it can be cropped.  A portrait for example looks better in a traditional frame, but if you frame within the camera...your right; something will get lost or have to get cut off.  

In general however, after I get scans back from my exposed rolls of film...I'll crop to any non standard ratio to what ever works best for that particular image.

I guess I should have added Digital not Film.

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I am with you Neil. I have shot a lot of 4x5 and 6x7, and 4x5 is my preferred ratio. It also fits better on the page for most traditional book formats, especially for verticals...3:2 tends to look very skinny as a vertical. When I started working towards books as my final output, I switched to shooting a lot more to the 4x5 ratio, and now I see that I prefer it regardless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/16/2018 at 3:26 AM, NW67 said:

That's part of my point. If it's shot at 3:2 and later want to crop, the crop might not work

Neil

So then you do not need to crop?  Are we talking about two different things; cropping is changing the picture area to suit a subject and can be anything 5:1, 1:1 etc, fitting the image into a certain space (page or standard paper size etc) is different to cropping even though it involves it...

john

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the 3:2 ratio perfect for my needs. When using portrait mode I often crop to 4:3 but shooting in landscape mode I often crop in 16:9. So the 3:2 is the best compromise.

I'm watching Breaking Bad again these days. In the last episode there were 4:3 inserts from news flashs. That reminded me how old fashioned  the 4:3 looks in landscape mode (IMHO).

Hated it when I was using Phase One. Happy that Leica chose the 3:2 🙂

Edited by SaW
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2018 at 9:26 AM, NW67 said:

That's part of my point. If it's shot at 3:2 and later want to crop, the crop might not work

Neil

Meaning if it's taken in 3:2 and I want 5:3 when it's cropped to 5:3 I could loose vitel parts of the image.

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, John McMaster said:

Why do want it as 5:3 if that does not suit the image?

john

Forget it john. You know what I mean and I can't be annoyed arguing with you

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2018 at 3:31 PM, NW67 said:

I guess I should have added Digital not Film.

Neil

Hi Neil, digital or film it doesn't matter...your dealing with the same ratio.  A full frame DSLR or full frame digital rangefinder has the same 3:2 aspect ratio as a 35mm film camera.  The point is if you know in advance what your end use is going to be, simply make sure you leave enough space in your viewfinder (so you can correctly crop later) before you take the picture.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thebarnman said:

Hi Neil, digital or film it doesn't matter...your dealing with the same ratio.  A full frame DSLR or full frame digital rangefinder has the same 3:2 aspect ratio as a 35mm film camera.  The point is if you know in advance what your end use is going to be, simply make sure you leave enough space in your viewfinder (so you can correctly crop later) before you take the picture.  

My original question has nothing to do with cropping, my question was more what people's preferance is as far as aspect ratio is concerned.

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil,

I like 3:2 for horizontal. 4:3 for vertical. For some buildings, 3:2 is fine for vertical. 

I loved 1:1 in a TLR and I loved the Pentax 67 and Mamiya 7 formats as well.

Lenses first, ergonomics second, aspect ratio is not in my top five. 

M

Edited by mgrayson3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like 35mm’s 1.5: 1 ratio. It is very close to the Golden Ratio (about 1.6: 1), which has been recognized since at least classical Greek times as a naturally pleasing ratio. I compose my pictures to work well within the 35mm frame. And I rarely crop unless I can improve things by trimming off some extraneous and annoying detail that spoils things right at the edge of the frame. I do not look for pictures hiding in my pictures.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, SaW said:

I find the 3:2 ratio perfect for my needs. When using portrait mode I often crop to 4:3 but shooting in landscape mode I often crop in 16:9. So the 3:2 is the best compromise.

I'm watching Breaking Bad again these days. In the last episode there were 4:3 inserts from news flashs. That reminded me how old fashioned  the 4:3 looks in landscape mode (IMHO).

Hated it when I was using Phase One. Happy that Leica chose the 3:2 🙂

Exactly my thoughts! I come from filmmaking and I like wide aspect ratios. The S's 3:2 aspect ratio is the best option if the end result is going to be wide.

It's is the most economical for 16:9 and wider and Portrait is easily converted to 3:4, using the better part of the (already fantastic) glass.

BTW, I'm starting to like 1:1 more and more (must be Instagram🙂)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...