aspect ratios - 4:3 vs 3:2

[AndyGM]

So much for the use of the Golden Ratio in art!

The only time I find 4:3 limiting is when taking pictures of landscapes. Any shot with people or animals seems to look better in 4:3.

 

[DarkShift]

I you like to shoot an photograph with 16:9 aspect ratio you're already wasting fov in vertical direction. Even 30" monitors max out at 2560 pixels in horizontal direction, so your argument about loosing pixels is moot.

For most pro photography 2:3 is quite stupid format. Portraits in portrait mode it always needs cropping to fit more better looking 4:3 - 1:1 formats. Its not very well suited for architecture or interior either.

 

[kenw]

Yes, thanks. Having shot 3:2 format for a few decades I have a large collection of my own. Sorry if you didn't like my word.

Here's the problem with your 3:2 portrait oriented shots (and mine as well). The eye is frequently drawn to the border rather than the subject. This is a risk with all narrow aspects but it is a bigger problem with "portrait" or "vertical" shots. Reason why you don't see many vertical 16:9 photos. Certainly they can work, there are great examples of extreme narrow vertical aspects - but these are carefully executed exceptions in which the frame/border complements the composition rather than dominates it. For general use this is rarely the case. This is pretty basic Gestalt theory and the reason why even many thoughtful 3:2 shooters will crop vertical shots most of the time unless there is a very good reason not to. If the photographer chooses to just leave things as 3:2 all the time without thought the result on average is a weaker composition for verticals than if the default were more towards square.

So perhaps instead of ridiculous I should say "an awkward and not useful default aspect for vertical compositions."

3:2 is OK in landscape on occasion but sort of ridiculous in portrait.

...it depends a lot on what you consider a "portrait" and what constitutes "ridiculous":

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=35161409

Portrait and landscape orientation - not subject!

Ah. Well, the last two portraits in the link were in portrait orientation. However, here's an assortment of 2:3 pics (portrait orientation):

Seems to work well enough for a wide variety of scenes. That's not to say that many wouldn't prefer 3:4 better, but "ridiculous" seems rather out of place for 2:3 portrait orientation pics.

--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

 

[panos_m]

ryanshoots wrote:

Just curious. Does anyone else think new cameras should be 3:2 instead of 4:3? I speculate most image viewing these days is done on computer & TV screens, not prints.
Im curious what others think.

Photo aspect ratios should fit the subject and composition, not the viewing device.

If you present your work (say 60-70 images) in different aspect ratios (to fit the subject and composition) it becomes quite tiring for the viewer...IMO .

--
Panagiotis

 

[panos_m]

sdh wrote:

Just curious. Does anyone else think new cameras should be 3:2 instead of 4:3? I speculate most image viewing these days is done on computer & TV screens, not prints. I don't remember the last time I saw a new laptop or large-desktop monitor, or new TV that was 4:3. IMO, 3:2 images "fill" 16:9 screens pretty well, but 4:3 images waste too much space on the sides. Sure, 4:3 cameras can be set to create 3:2 images, but most do so by cropping, at which point you're wasting the lens' angle of view and (more trivially) losing pixel count.

Im curious what others think.

I find anything too wide or too narrow (16:9 or 1:1) very difficult to deal with . I tried 4:3 with no success. I went back to 3:2. I will try again the other aspect ratios in the future again.
--
Panagiotis

 

[danijel973]

I actually prefer 3:2 because I originally come from 35mm film background, but I can work with 4:3 just fine.

 

[Daz90]

If you present your work (say 60-70 images) in different aspect ratios (to fit the subject and composition) it becomes quite tiring for the viewer...IMO .

Really? I guess you haven't been to many photo exhibits, a lot of the ones I've been to, the aspect ratios are all over the place. "Art is the elimination of the unnecessary" Picasso

 

[MatW]

I used to do a lot of photography with a Panasonic LX3 which features a dedicated aspect ratio switch. I started out using mostly 3:2, then found that 16:9 is great fun for some landscape images (until you try to print, frame or display your images, or until you use it once in portrait orientation) and ended up always using 4:3.

4:3 offers the best compromise/starting point to me. You can always crop it to a more narrow format if that is what you need for a certain image, and frankly, you do not lose that many pixels from doing so. But it also allows you to easily work in portrait orientation when needed without resulting in a very narrow "stripe" of a photo (try that with 16:9, ugh). And being somewhat of a "compact" format (as in not super wide) it is manageable for the human eye and easy to compose.

Just curious. Does anyone else think new cameras should be 3:2 instead of 4:3? I speculate most image viewing these days is done on computer & TV screens, not prints. I don't remember the last time I saw a new laptop or large-desktop monitor, or new TV that was 4:3. IMO, 3:2 images "fill" 16:9 screens pretty well, but 4:3 images waste too much space on the sides. Sure, 4:3 cameras can be set to create 3:2 images, but most do so by cropping, at which point you're wasting the lens' angle of view and (more trivially) losing pixel count.

Im curious what others think.

 

[panos_m]

Daz90 wrote:

If you present your work (say 60-70 images) in different aspect ratios (to fit the subject and composition) it becomes quite tiring for the viewer...IMO .

Really? I guess you haven't been to many photo exhibits, a lot of the ones I've been to, the aspect ratios are all over the place.

I don't wish to start an argument on this . I was just expressing my opinion which comes from experience as a viewer. That is why I added "IMO" in the end.

"Art is the elimination of the unnecessary" Picasso

IMO the subject in photography is not only the object, person, scene whatever triggered my reaction to raise the camera but everything that is included in the rectangle. So if I had to interpret the Picasso quote I would say that the unnecessary here is the different aspect ratios .
--
Panagiotis

 

[Hen3ry]

I remember the editor at the photo agency I sold through in London urging me to shift from 6x6 square to 35mm. Two reasons:

• I was doing magazine text and picture features, and magazine editors in the late 60s and 70s were looking for 35mm as the format used by the best photographers. By sticking to 6x6, I was instantly labeling myself as not top class (they could work that out when they looked at the pix!). But with 35mm, at least I would be looked at.

• The elongated format tended to force the photographer to make more interesting compositions, compositions with and element of movement involved because the eye could wander left and right in them. Or something!

That latter point is real -- or at least it was for me. I had painted lines (with my wife's nail polish!) on my 6x6 ground glasses to provide guides for myself to produce more oblong pix, fewer square pix. It worked a bit. But taking up 35mm full time … at first, I found it disruptive and difficult. I had to force myself into composing pix that would fit that frame. It was then that I realized how much I had learned not only to take pictures, but to take square pictures, by using 6x6. I nearly packed it in, actually. Then one day, it just clicked.

For example, you take a portrait with a horizontal 3:2 format. You have to do something interesting and different -- perhaps include background elements in the composition, make it more environmental, perhaps crop the face top and bottom, perhaps ... whatever. With the square format, it was all too easy to take a square picture. A face fitted nicely! It could be very nice, very flattering, but it could also be photographically boring and very stationary.

But I use 4:3 for some close-ups and some portraits and some other pix where it suits the subject. I also use 16:9 from time to time, where it fits.

But 3:2 is my preferred, general purpose format. I see stuff that way now.

Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

 

[MadsR]

Always.

And as with 4:3, 3:2 or 16:9 what you do is to frame accordingly to what you want the output to be.

I do find myself sometimes framing for a square shot on my 4:3 sensor, and sometimes for 3:2 (actually I do this alot, since pre-cut passepartouts are usually 3:2 and I am lazy... and don't really have the skill to cut my own anyway)

 

[boggis the cat]

[Ideally] a square sensor that circumscribes the image circle would be the best solution, and is very feasible for smaller sensor mirrorless. In fact, just using an APS-C sized sensor in mFT bodies comes close enough that I'm surprised it has not been done.

Wasn't it you who likes to claim that the final crop is the only relevant factor in determining the usefulness of a sensor aspect ratio?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=41481274



You seem to agree with me that a 1:1 sensor allowing variable aspect ratio would make the most sense. If you restrict the widest (or tallest, for vertical orientation) aspect ratio to e.g. 2:1 then you needn't fully circumscribe the image circle, either.

I am also surprised that no manufacturer has decided that such a system offers a competitive advantage, outside of Panasonic's limited implementations. (Perhaps they have a broad patent that covers this?)

 

[Marty4650]

If your goal is to perfectly fit your computer monitor, and "waste no pixels" then the ideal sensor aspect ratio might be 16:9... or perhaps even 16:7. This might be best for people who never print photos, and who can only compose photos in "widescreen" mode.

But if your goal is to take photos in the aspect ration that best suits the composition, then you will have to use lots of different aspect ratios. And there are only two ways to currently do this. Either crop the photo (after the fact, or before using in-camera masking) or simply own a lot of cameras with different aspect ratios.

There are many compositions for which 4:3 works a lot better than 3:2. For example, vertical shots and portraits. Similarly, there are others where 3:2 might be better, like landscape shots. And there are times that 1:1 is the best possible choice.

If 3:2 was the "best aspect ratio" then someone must explain why $30,000 medium format cameras usually provide a 6:7 or 5:4 or even 1:1 aspect ratio. If customers wanted 3:2, then surely someone would sell those to them.

I think Great Bustard has the best idea. Simply use a "way over-sized" sensor so the image circle is circumscribed. There are just too many advantages to this idea, and the cost should be reasonable now that sensor prices have started coming down. Panasonic actually did something similar to this by using a "slightly over-sized" sensor to reduce the image loss due to cropping.

As good as the Olympus OM-D results seem to be, I cannot help but think that image quality would be even better if a "way over-sized" Sony 16.2 MP APS-C sensor was used (the very same sensor used in the Nikon D7000, Pentax K5 and Sony NEX5, A55, and A580).

Of course, then the camera might have to be a little bigger, but that might end up being a very good thing for people who use longer and heavier lenses.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1
Sony SLT-A55

 

[Ropo16]

If you used a APS-C sensor how could it be "way over-sized" ref M4/3. Crop Canon APS-C into 4/3 ratio and it is a 4/3 sized sensor within a 1.8 mm height difference!

As good as the Olympus OM-D results seem to be, I cannot help but think that image quality would be even better if a "way over-sized" Sony 16.2 MP APS-C sensor was used (the very same sensor used in the Nikon D7000, Pentax K5 and Sony NEX5, A55, and A580).

-

Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1
Sony SLT-A55

 

[Ropo16]

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/sensor-size.html

If you used a APS-C sensor how could it be "way over-sized" ref M4/3. Crop Canon APS-C into 4/3 ratio and it is a 4/3 sized sensor within a 1.8 mm height difference!

As good as the Olympus OM-D results seem to be, I cannot help but think that image quality would be even better if a "way over-sized" Sony 16.2 MP APS-C sensor was used (the very same sensor used in the Nikon D7000, Pentax K5 and Sony NEX5, A55, and A580).

-

Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1
Sony SLT-A55

 

[Great Bustard]

[Ideally] a square sensor that circumscribes the image circle would be the best solution, and is very feasible for smaller sensor mirrorless. In fact, just using an APS-C sized sensor in mFT bodies comes close enough that I'm surprised it has not been done.

Wasn't it you who likes to claim that the final crop is the only relevant factor in determining the usefulness of a sensor aspect ratio?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=41481274

For a sensor inscribed in the image circle.

You seem to agree with me that a 1:1 sensor allowing variable aspect ratio would make the most sense.

For a sensor circumscribed about the image circle.

If you restrict the widest (or tallest, for vertical orientation) aspect ratio to e.g. 2:1 then you needn't fully circumscribe the image circle, either.

A big advantage of a square sensor that circumscribes the image circle is that the camera need not be rotated for landscape vs portrait aspect ratios, which is particularly useful if using on-camera bounced flash.

I am also surprised that no manufacturer has decided that such a system offers a competitive advantage, outside of Panasonic's limited implementations. (Perhaps they have a broad patent that covers this?)

Canon missed their opportunity with the G1X.

 

[Great Bustard]

Yes, thanks. Having shot 3:2 format for a few decades I have a large collection of my own. Sorry if you didn't like my word.

I pay keen attention to Language. See Louis' "Ansel" thread for an example.

Here's the problem with your 3:2 portrait oriented shots (and mine as well). The eye is frequently drawn to the border rather than the subject.

I am fully willing to accept that I am just different -- I went through all the photos again, and no such thing happened with me.

This is a risk with all narrow aspects but it is a bigger problem with "portrait" or "vertical" shots. Reason why you don't see many vertical 16:9 photos. Certainly they can work, there are great examples of extreme narrow vertical aspects - but these are carefully executed exceptions in which the frame/border complements the composition rather than dominates it. For general use this is rarely the case.

I can't argue against 3:4 might better fit for most with portrait orientation on average , but simply cannot agree that 2:3 portrait orientation is that much different, and certainly not agree that it is "ridiculous".

This is pretty basic Gestalt theory and the reason why even many thoughtful 3:2 shooters will crop vertical shots most of the time unless there is a very good reason not to.

Guess I'm not a "thoughtful 3:2 shooter".

If the photographer chooses to just leave things as 3:2 all the time without thought the result on average is a weaker composition for verticals than if the default were more towards square.

I tend to compose in the viewfinder, not on the computer monitor. For sure, there are times I eff up and need to crop, but 95% of the time, the composition I captured is the composition I wanted.

So perhaps instead of ridiculous I should say "an awkward and not useful default aspect for vertical compositions."

Well, I wouldn't want to argue for what should be a "useful default aspect for vertical [or horizontal] compositions". I will say that I compose on the basis of what I see in the viewfinder.

When I shot compacts, I composed for 4:3, and the two primary concerns I had moving to a DSLR was 3:2 vs 4:3 and TTL vs LCD. I quickly preferred both. That's not to say that 3:2 and TTL is superior to 4:3 and LCD, just that, for me , I prefer it.

But, yes, there have been occasions where I felt 2:3 was "too skinny" and 3:4 would have been closer to the mark. That said, even on the times I felt that to be the case, I felt the original 2:3 composition was "better than" cropping the photo to 3:4. In other words, for portrait oriented photos, I may find that I prefer 3:4 over 2:3 on average , but prefer to display the photo as framed than to crop.

In any event, the difference between 2:3 and 3:4 is rather subtle, in my opinion (cropping off 1/9 of the photo, e.g. 18 MP to 16 MP) transforms one into the other -- not a big deal. In other words, not particularly "awkward" and certainly not "ridiculous".

 

[Great Bustard]

If you used a APS-C sensor how could it be "way over-sized" ref M4/3. Crop Canon APS-C into 4/3 ratio and it is a 4/3 sized sensor within a 1.8 mm height difference!

See this idea:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=40778093

 

[Lights]

Even though I usually use 4:3 'in camera' - mostly since it gives a bit more to work a full size crop out of, and I try (not always successfully) to use full size crops, whether square, 4/3,10x8, or 16x9. Sometimes a person gets a bit more sky, something too vertical near an edge, compositional balance a bit off...etc. I find these links particularly interesting.
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emat6680/parveen/gr_in_art.htm
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle.html
--



http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/

 

[Lights]

I agree that 3:2 and 4:3 verticals probably work most times for portraits (even candid)

but I sure do think there is no hard and fast rule for it. Maybe the 4:3 is more often used for tighter framed shots? and the 3:2 more for "placed" but either to me work, if done with thought (as in big bird's examples). Even the weird Pentax 67 (or is it 76?) works for verticals well..depending. But so much depends on the crop, the composition. I've even, though rarely, used 16X9 horizontal ( Eghads! ) for portraits. (Most times I also try and frame the shot with the camera and 'try' not to crop)









--



http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/