So why don't people ever talk about the 4/3 aspect ratio?

Started Jan 28, 2014 | Discussions thread
RoelHendrickx Forum Pro • Posts: 25,162
My view: I see mostly very real benefits

For whoever moves to FT, the aspect ratio is a given.

Many cameras do offer the option to use another ratio.

And 4:3 is actually not that uncommon : most compact cameras use it too.

Me, personally, I love that ratio (although I also like to use 1:1 and 16:9 for certain images).

Cropping to square goes better from 4:3.  Cropping to 16:9 may be easier from 3:2 but the difference is less dramatic.

But let us get back the ratio in itself.

Just the fact that it is more square, is a benefit, not so much for horizontal orientation, but for vertical orientation (of which I shoot a lot, even for landscapes). If you turn 2:3 to vertical position, it just seems too high and narrow to me, while 4:3 looks natural in both orientations.

And photos in horizontal and vertical orientation 4:3 and 3:4 can work well together and can be composed into nice total views on a wall, much better than photos in 2:3 and 3:2.

I am busy compiling an exhibition compiled of pillars with multiple images per side.  The graphic designer who does the layout, agrees with me that keeping the images at 4:3 is the best way to create harmonious total views composed of smaller and larger images.  At first she had made a layout grid made of 2:3 and 3:2, but 4:3 and 3:4 looked more "serene".

-- hide signature --

Roel Hendrickx
lots of images:
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara:

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow