Reading mode: Light Dark

Have we been trained to see a certain aspect ratio?

Go to last post
MinAZ

MinAZ

Veteran Member
Messages
5,715
Solutions
5
Reaction score
2,212
Location
Los Angeles, CA, US
For me it would be 2x3. I shoot mostly 2x3 - the DSLR default, but when I edit I am free to recompose to any aspect ratio I prefer. I find however, that I almost always leave the AR at 2:3. This is even though I realize that the most popular printing format is 4x5, so it would actually make sense for me to crop to that ratio since the end user is likely to print at that ratio. I try to accomodate and whenever possible, I do crop to 4x5, but I never really seem to quite like it as much as 2x3. Since there is nothing really special about 2x3, I wonder if it doesn't come from just getting so used to seeing 2x3 that my mind automatically frames that way. OTOH, I do like the 4x3 AR but that's even harder to print than 2x3, so maybe I'm just making stuff up. Does anyone feel the same way or is this just me?
 
MinAZ said:
For me it would be 2x3. I shoot mostly 2x3 - the DSLR default, but when I edit I am free to recompose to any aspect ratio I prefer. I find however, that I almost always leave the AR at 2:3. This is even though I realize that the most popular printing format is 4x5, so it would actually make sense for me to crop to that ratio since the end user is likely to print at that ratio. I try to accomodate and whenever possible, I do crop to 4x5, but I never really seem to quite like it as much as 2x3. Since there is nothing really special about 2x3, I wonder if it doesn't come from just getting so used to seeing 2x3 that my mind automatically frames that way. OTOH, I do like the 4x3 AR but that's even harder to print than 2x3, so maybe I'm just making stuff up. Does anyone feel the same way or is this just me?
Click to expand...
 
Maybe. I certainly prefer 4:3, but I'm not sure if it's because I'm used to it, or whether there is a good reason for it. I can say I dislike 3:2 for portrait orientation photos.
 
MinAZ said:
For me it would be 2x3. I shoot mostly 2x3 - the DSLR default, but when I edit I am free to recompose to any aspect ratio I prefer. I find however, that I almost always leave the AR at 2:3. This is even though I realize that the most popular printing format is 4x5, so it would actually make sense for me to crop to that ratio since the end user is likely to print at that ratio. I try to accomodate and whenever possible, I do crop to 4x5, but I never really seem to quite like it as much as 2x3. Since there is nothing really special about 2x3, I wonder if it doesn't come from just getting so used to seeing 2x3 that my mind automatically frames that way. OTOH, I do like the 4x3 AR but that's even harder to print than 2x3, so maybe I'm just making stuff up. Does anyone feel the same way or is this just me?

--
http://markteng.500px.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/myazphoto/
Click to expand...
I tend to do a LOT of square images, but I think that's because I came up on the old 6cm X 6cm TLR cameras. I prefer to shoot with the 4:3 Aspect Ratio. For me, I think it offers less "waste" on a 1:1 crop, and less waste when printing to traditional print sizes. Full frame 4:3s prints aren't a problem for me since I matte them anyway, though I tend to crop to the traditional sizes more.

I think, by now, I'm so used to 4:3s and the subsequent 1:1 accomodation in my head, that it seems quite natural to me. If I've been trained, I did it to myself, I think.

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
 
Last edited:
quadrox said:
MinAZ said:
For me it would be 2x3. I shoot mostly 2x3 - the DSLR default, but when I edit I am free to recompose to any aspect ratio I prefer. I find however, that I almost always leave the AR at 2:3. This is even though I realize that the most popular printing format is 4x5, so it would actually make sense for me to crop to that ratio since the end user is likely to print at that ratio. I try to accomodate and whenever possible, I do crop to 4x5, but I never really seem to quite like it as much as 2x3. Since there is nothing really special about 2x3, I wonder if it doesn't come from just getting so used to seeing 2x3 that my mind automatically frames that way. OTOH, I do like the 4x3 AR but that's even harder to print than 2x3, so maybe I'm just making stuff up. Does anyone feel the same way or is this just me?
Click to expand...
3:2 is very close to the golden ratio - this is the explanation that I have read somewhere.
Click to expand...
1.5 isn't particularly close to 1.62. And many of the things that are claimed to be proportioned to the golden ratio aren't. There was a post here some months ago with several links to support that: I hope someone can point it out.

3:2 photographically comes from the fact when 35mm film, which was introduced for cine frames at 4:3, was adapted to stills the frame size was doubled (and turned through a right angle): 2 x 3:3 becomes 6:4 = 3:2.
 
I don't "see" a particular aspect ratio. When I'm taking photos I'm usually (not always) aware of the aspect ration I'm likely to use for the final output.
MinAZ said:
For me it would be 2x3.
Click to expand...
I use this less than just about any other aspect ratio.
MinAZ said:
I shoot mostly 2x3 - the DSLR default, but when I edit I am free to recompose to any aspect ratio I prefer. I find however, that I almost always leave the AR at 2:3.
Click to expand...
That's how I mostly shoot; but I almost never stay at 3:2.
MinAZ said:
This is even though I realize that the most popular printing format is 4x5, so it would actually make sense for me to crop to that ratio since the end user is likely to print at that ratio.
Click to expand...
It depends on how you count popularity. If you do it on simple numbers of photos printed worldwide I'd think 6x4 and 6x4.5 inches (4:3 and 3:2) are much the most used.
MinAZ said:
I try to accommodate and whenever possible, I do crop to 4x5, but I never really seem to quite like it as much as 2x3. Since there is nothing really special about 2x3, I wonder if it doesn't come from just getting so used to seeing 2x3 that my mind automatically frames that way.
Click to expand...
Possibly; but if your viewfinder is 3:2 and you frame to fill it you can't go squarer without cropping something away that you want. That's why I think about my output aspect ratio: I mentally adjust the VF to suit.
MinAZ said:
OTOH, I do like the 4x3 AR but that's even harder to print than 2x3, so maybe I'm just making stuff up.
Click to expand...
I've always preferred to see my photos as large as possible: my preferred film medium was slides. My wife likes to put small prints in albums but that's a small proportion; usually I frame to suit myself.

We bought a UHD TV a few months ago that lets me see my photos in high quality at large size; I've suddenly started using 16:9 a lot. That's certainly nothing to do with long-time training or habituation.
 
I'm glad to see that some cameras have multiple aspect ratios available. I think my D 300s is only 3:2, but my RX 100 I has, I think 4 different ones available.

I also shoot occasionally with my Reolleiflex 3.5 which is 1:1 ( 6x6cm ).
 
Last edited:
Who is "we?"

The general public is pretty clueless about it.

Photographers, it varies. Most are good at visualizing / framing in 3:2 because it's so prevalent.

I for one dislike 3:2. It's taken a bit of work to learn how to compose well in other aspect ratios.

One of the problems with cropping in post is that you initially composed in 3:2. IMO cropping in post produces inferior compositional results, unless you are really good at pre-visualizing.

This is a big reason why I prefer M4/3. It gives me the option to compose in 1:1, 4:3 and 16:9 in-camera.
 
MinAZ said:
For me it would be 2x3. I shoot mostly 2x3 - the DSLR default, but when I edit I am free to recompose to any aspect ratio I prefer. I find however, that I almost always leave the AR at 2:3. This is even though I realize that the most popular printing format is 4x5, so it would actually make sense for me to crop to that ratio since the end user is likely to print at that ratio. I try to accomodate and whenever possible, I do crop to 4x5, but I never really seem to quite like it as much as 2x3. Since there is nothing really special about 2x3, I wonder if it doesn't come from just getting so used to seeing 2x3 that my mind automatically frames that way. OTOH, I do like the 4x3 AR but that's even harder to print than 2x3, so maybe I'm just making stuff up. Does anyone feel the same way or is this just me?
Click to expand...
 
MinAZ said:
For me it would be 2x3 ... Does anyone feel the same way or is this just me?
Click to expand...
I was raised on 3:2 (35mm film) with no real cropping capability. I have 2 cameras that shoot 3:2 However, the designers of HDTV and more recently 4K UHTV cause me to crop mostly to 16:9 (fits my new 4K terminal and imminent 4K TV) 1.78 vs golden 1.61
Hence 16:9 seems fine to me.


Bert
 
Interesting discussion. Images I post are typically 800 * 600 pixels (4*3) including a border. I have been doing this so long I think the 800 limitation came about because at the time that filled most monitor screens.

I shoot and print only for myself, and some family and friends. Any prints that are wanted they ask me, so I don't concern myself with what size or format the local drug store uses.

For display prints up to 17 x 22 I print, cut the mats, and build the frames. Basically everything but cut the glass. I have never given much thought to aspect ratios. But now, out of curiosity, I will measure a few prints hanging on my walls and see if the fall into any norm.

---
See ya later,
Bill
 
Last edited:
TacticDesigns said:
[Snip] Which this post goes on to say "A 4:3 ratio mimics human eyesight visual angle of 155°h x 120°v, that is 4:3.075, almost exactly the same."
Click to expand...
But this makes no sense because human eyesight doesn't have that angle. To start with, human eyes don't see in rectangles.

But the more significant point is what does "human eyesight visual angle" actually mean? The full angle that we can see with both eyes is more like 220° wide, although with our heads and eyes held stationary we can't see details that far out.

On the other hand, with our heads and eyes held perfectly stationary we can see only 1 or 2° with absolute peak clarity. Perfectly stationary is virtually impossible, though: the best I've managed to measure is to keep still enough to se about 10° horizontally, 15° vertically (that way round, I think, because of the overlap of both eyes).

If you keep your head still and let your eyes move (the typical situation when looking at a print or screen) the angle you see is what you're looking at - the eyes simply scan over whatever it is that interests you.
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
TacticDesigns said:
[Snip] Which this post goes on to say "A 4:3 ratio mimics human eyesight visual angle of 155°h x 120°v, that is 4:3.075, almost exactly the same."
Click to expand...
But this makes no sense because human eyesight doesn't have that angle. To start with, human eyes don't see in rectangles.

But the more significant point is what does "human eyesight visual angle" actually mean? The full angle that we can see with both eyes is more like 220° wide, although with our heads and eyes held stationary we can't see details that far out.

On the other hand, with our heads and eyes held perfectly stationary we can see only 1 or 2° with absolute peak clarity. Perfectly stationary is virtually impossible, though: the best I've managed to measure is to keep still enough to se about 10° horizontally, 15° vertically (that way round, I think, because of the overlap of both eyes).

If you keep your head still and let your eyes move (the typical situation when looking at a print or screen) the angle you see is what you're looking at - the eyes simply scan over whatever it is that interests you.
Click to expand...
 
An intersteing question, but for me I like to see work in a few differnt aspect ratios. I came up shooting 35mm and was fine with that more panoramic type format. Now I have an m4/3 camera and have come to prefer that format. You see, I like the square as well and 4:3 seems to me to be a nice middle ground between the square and something wider. I like it much better genrally for vertically oriented shots too... All that being said though I like the flexibility of using a few different aspect rations in my photos. For the sake of consistency though I genreally keep it to only square, 4:3 and 2:3 as I don't really like the look of having too many different formats too look at. I do however break that rule when I've shot a panorama and then anything goes!

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
 
Last edited:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
TacticDesigns said:
[Snip] Which this post goes on to say "A 4:3 ratio mimics human eyesight visual angle of 155°h x 120°v, that is 4:3.075, almost exactly the same."
Click to expand...
But this makes no sense because human eyesight doesn't have that angle. To start with, human eyes don't see in rectangles.

But the more significant point is what does "human eyesight visual angle" actually mean? The full angle that we can see with both eyes is more like 220° wide, although with our heads and eyes held stationary we can't see details that far out.
Click to expand...
+1

Hence the title.

Yes. No. Maybe so.

If someone used that as a target, then that may be the reason that that standard has come around. Doesn't need to have any root in reality. :)
Gerry Winterbourne said:
On the other hand, with our heads and eyes held perfectly stationary we can see only 1 or 2° with absolute peak clarity. Perfectly stationary is virtually impossible, though: the best I've managed to measure is to keep still enough to se about 10° horizontally, 15° vertically (that way round, I think, because of the overlap of both eyes).
Click to expand...
But thinking back to this standard being created for cinema, and it being projected large on a screen, if you are looking at the middle of that screen, would it feel like your natural peripheral vision?

Take care & Happy Shooting!
:)
Gerry Winterbourne said:
If you keep your head still and let your eyes move (the typical situation when looking at a print or screen) the angle you see is what you're looking at - the eyes simply scan over whatever it is that interests you.
Click to expand...
 
MinAZ said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
TacticDesigns said:
[Snip] Which this post goes on to say "A 4:3 ratio mimics human eyesight visual angle of 155°h x 120°v, that is 4:3.075, almost exactly the same."
Click to expand...
But this makes no sense because human eyesight doesn't have that angle. To start with, human eyes don't see in rectangles.

But the more significant point is what does "human eyesight visual angle" actually mean? The full angle that we can see with both eyes is more like 220° wide, although with our heads and eyes held stationary we can't see details that far out.

On the other hand, with our heads and eyes held perfectly stationary we can see only 1 or 2° with absolute peak clarity. Perfectly stationary is virtually impossible, though: the best I've managed to measure is to keep still enough to se about 10° horizontally, 15° vertically (that way round, I think, because of the overlap of both eyes).

If you keep your head still and let your eyes move (the typical situation when looking at a print or screen) the angle you see is what you're looking at - the eyes simply scan over whatever it is that interests you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
MinAZ said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
TacticDesigns said:
[Snip] Which this post goes on to say "A 4:3 ratio mimics human eyesight visual angle of 155°h x 120°v, that is 4:3.075, almost exactly the same."
Click to expand...
But this makes no sense because human eyesight doesn't have that angle. To start with, human eyes don't see in rectangles.

But the more significant point is what does "human eyesight visual angle" actually mean? The full angle that we can see with both eyes is more like 220° wide, although with our heads and eyes held stationary we can't see details that far out.

On the other hand, with our heads and eyes held perfectly stationary we can see only 1 or 2° with absolute peak clarity. Perfectly stationary is virtually impossible, though: the best I've managed to measure is to keep still enough to se about 10° horizontally, 15° vertically (that way round, I think, because of the overlap of both eyes).

If you keep your head still and let your eyes move (the typical situation when looking at a print or screen) the angle you see is what you're looking at - the eyes simply scan over whatever it is that interests you.
Click to expand...
Actually neither do lenses - if that were not the case, we would have a different AR for a wide-angle lens vs a telephoto lens!
Click to expand...
Not really. Our eyes have evolved to be what they are; photographic lenses have been designed to serve our desire for pictures ...
MinAZ said:
I think the circular sensor case has been brought up before, and I am not entirely sure why we prefer rectangles when nothing in nature is rectangular.
Click to expand...
... which in the early days were often circular or elliptical. The circular shape was largely because the image circle of early lenses was often smaller than the plates used; elliptical was more by way of copying some painted or sculpted images.
MinAZ said:
Quite a puzzle!
Click to expand...
Now that we can make our pictures any shape we like, but being naturally greedy, we tend to fill the available space with picture. And the most common spaces are rectangular prints, pages or screens. But when the art is more important all sorts of shapes are used.
 
Last edited:
MinAZ said:
For me it would be 2x3. I shoot mostly 2x3 - the DSLR default, but when I edit I am free to recompose to any aspect ratio I prefer. I find however, that I almost always leave the AR at 2:3. This is even though I realize that the most popular printing format is 4x5, so it would actually make sense for me to crop to that ratio since the end user is likely to print at that ratio. I try to accomodate and whenever possible, I do crop to 4x5, but I never really seem to quite like it as much as 2x3. Since there is nothing really special about 2x3, I wonder if it doesn't come from just getting so used to seeing 2x3 that my mind automatically frames that way. OTOH, I do like the 4x3 AR but that's even harder to print than 2x3, so maybe I'm just making stuff up. Does anyone feel the same way or is this just me?
Click to expand...
 
4:5 times 2=8:10 now if you multiply 4:3 by 2.5=10:7.5 just slighlty narrower.
 
If you crop in-camera, the camera influences (maybe strongly) what composition you choose. In a similar way, shooting for print and or screen display also channels your vision.

For "photography" (as an art form) you really should shoot to allow the scene to be recorded as the guiding inspiration. Shoot "sloppy" to allow you to choose the appropriate composition aspect ratio.

I try to shoot the "scene" and to heck with "aspect ratio". On the other hand, if I had to stipulate a print aspect that I sort of like, it would be 11x14. :) Even if I print a square or narrow image, printing on 11x14 paper is "nicer" to me with white or black borders around the image. (Golden ratio aspect is simply "wrong" ... except when it is "right" :) )

--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
  • Question Question
Aspect ratio setting
Replies
0
Views
236
kluebecks
K
D
Advice on aspect ratio for R5II and Frame TV
Replies
3
Views
225
bing041
B
saltydogstudios
Why don't more cameras let you pre-choose crop in camera?
2
Replies
20
Views
554
Pilsenaaa
P
B
Fun with Aspect Ratios, including - Vertical!
Replies
0
Views
417
bing041
B
J
One frustrating aspect of the X-E5
Replies
15
Views
3K
Lance St. Paul
L

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top