Reading mode: Light Dark

Aspect ratios: why be constrained?

Go to last post
T

timo

Veteran Member
Messages
6,126
Solutions
2
Reaction score
2,246
Location
Singapore and London, UK
Leaving aside the convenience of using commercially available paper sizes or photo frames, why do so many people feel it important, when cropping, to stick to standard, predetermined aspect ratios? I was in the National Gallery (the London one) yesterday, and it struck me that painting aspect ratios are over the place. Presumably frames for paintings are customised. Photographs in books and magazines are commonly cropped to fit the page layout and no one complains. Why not use cropping more creatively, disregarding the standard aspect ratios offered to you, say, by Lightroom?
 
It is an interesting question. However, it is really part of a much bigger question about how to achieve the optimum composition. The more variables you have, the harder it becomes.

One of those variables is the aspect ratio. Sometimes it is simply easier to fix the aspect ratio and adjust the composition to fit best in that shape.
 
I don't crop to standard aspect ratios unless it's necessary. It's necessary when I use a service that doesn't customize frames or print sizes. Such customization is either rare or expensive. Files I upload to stock photo services or give to customers have to have standard aspect ratios, because if they don't, people will likely have issues with them.
 
Hello timo

I think you're absolutely right.

However, it's easier to do this for a print. When I view it on a monitor, I'm often not as impressed. This is because the monitor acts as a kind of "passepartout" for me, and its appearance changes quickly due to different aspect ratios of the images. The 'passepartout' often looks disproportionate, and the image view suffers as a result. I often give the image than a white frame, which then becomes the dominant 'passepartout', rather than the monitor.

best regards KPM2
 
Last edited:
In other words, why not freehand crop? I think it's tradition as much as anything else. Photographs are "supposed" to be cropped to certain sizes and ratios, so people stick to that. I'm as guilty of this as the next person.
 
yardcoyote said:
In other words, why not freehand crop? I think it's tradition as much as anything else. Photographs are "supposed" to be cropped to certain sizes and ratios, so people stick to that. I'm as guilty of this as the next person.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly - why not freehand crop? it can be the best way of optimising a composition.

It offends the 'get it right in the camera' zealots I know: somehow selecting the parameters for a scene in post is somehow more sinful than doing exactly the same thing with your viewfinder, even if the result can be more impactful.

People are wedded to 'the right way of doing things', as they see it.

Ah well ...
 
Don’t print, crop to suit composition, try and compose to avoid wasting too much light.



d284cb24fb6d475fb024419c94a982aa.jpg



2622fc17636b442db640b0fa26b54ed9.jpg



a3c7595b252f4d67ad833feb5c2f2dc3.jpg

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post
 
timo said:
Leaving aside the convenience of using commercially available paper sizes or photo frames, why do so many people feel it important, when cropping, to stick to standard, predetermined aspect ratios? I was in the National Gallery (the London one) yesterday, and it struck me that painting aspect ratios are over the place. Presumably frames for paintings are customised. Photographs in books and magazines are commonly cropped to fit the page layout and no one complains. Why not use cropping more creatively, disregarding the standard aspect ratios offered to you, say, by Lightroom?
Click to expand...
 
I don't really bother myself with such things, I crop to taste.

I quite like the aspect ratio of 4:3 though, it's generally what I use, not because I'm used to it (most of my photography has been done with 3:2 sensors) but because I like the way it looks. It also looks better when shooting verticals.
 
timo said:
Leaving aside the convenience of using commercially available paper sizes or photo frames, why do so many people feel it important, when cropping, to stick to standard, predetermined aspect ratios? I was in the National Gallery (the London one) yesterday, and it struck me that painting aspect ratios are over the place. Presumably frames for paintings are customised. Photographs in books and magazines are commonly cropped to fit the page layout and no one complains. Why not use cropping more creatively, disregarding the standard aspect ratios offered to you, say, by Lightroom?
Click to expand...
Okay, you want to leave aside the reason for standard aspect ratios when asking why people crop to standard aspect ratios.

When I photograph art on paper, I crop to the dimensions of the frame or paper. The paper is often not a standard ratio, and the frame is almost always not a standard ratio (because standard ratios apply to the inside of the frame, not the outside.

But otherwise, I generally crop to standard ratios for consistency, and because anything I do could wind up getting printed and framed and I don't want to add the extra effort of doing a custom mat. But if I'm doing a special print, I may crop freely and then print with a border or cut a custom mat.

If a photo will only be viewed digitally, then it can be cropped however you want. But I tend to like filling the frame, which is some standard aspect ratio.
 
In the beginning I printed to maximize the full frame ratios of my negatives in a home darkroom. Now I’m often shooting to order prints from labs with standard paper and mount sizes.
 
Last edited:
I'm definitely a " get it right in camera" person when it comes to exposure, focus, and a sound basic composition. My image should at least look good without a crop. But after that, crop away.
 
Tom Axford said:
It is an interesting question. However, it is really part of a much bigger question about how to achieve the optimum composition. The more variables you have, the harder it becomes.

One of those variables is the aspect ratio. Sometimes it is simply easier to fix the aspect ratio and adjust the composition to fit best in that shape.
Click to expand...
Yes, that can work. I do it sometimes with 1:1 square format. There are occasions when you don't know if a certain aspect ratio will look OK until you try it.
 
timo said:
Leaving aside the convenience of using commercially available paper sizes or photo frames, why do so many people feel it important, when cropping, to stick to standard, predetermined aspect ratios?
Click to expand...
In general...the human eye/viewing system has an aspect ratio that's somewhat standard for most folks. Close to 16:9 and/or 4:3. So it would make some sense that many viewing mediums also follow closely...and natural to see many preferred crops to mimic that as well. There will naturally be many exceptions...but in general....

I think that's why I have an aversion to phone vids done vertically
 
There are several reasons that I typically use a 2:3 aspect ratio. First is composing in camera. Using the viewfinder aspect ratio makes it easier to achieve a desired composition. It is easier by far than trying to visualize a very different crop later on.

Next is the convenience of printing and framing. I realize that the majority of amateur photographers buy expensive high megapixel gear and then only show their work online. I have a hard time understanding that. No wonder cellphone cameras are taking over.

Anyway, I have about 30 frames and mats which work best for the 2:3 aspect ratio. My smaller frames are 16x22 for 12x18 matted prints. I am limited by my 17" printer so my larger frames are 20x28 for 16x24 prints on 17x25 paper.

I do make some modifications for my paintings. I do pastels on paper and the paper I like is available as 18x24. Instead I cutback a bit to a final artwork size to about 16x23 and I have mats that work for the 20x28 frames.

The final reason is a matter of pride and artistic intent. I compose my images rather than being "constrained" by the subject. My images are about composition, rhythm, style and less about the subject matter.
 
Mako2011 said:
timo said:
Leaving aside the convenience of using commercially available paper sizes or photo frames, why do so many people feel it important, when cropping, to stick to standard, predetermined aspect ratios?
Click to expand...
In general...the human eye/viewing system has an aspect ratio that's somewhat standard for most folks. Close to 16:9 and/or 4:3. So it would make some sense that many viewing mediums also follow closely...and natural to see many preferred crops to mimic that as well. There will naturally be many exceptions...but in general....

I think that's why I have an aversion to phone vids done vertically
Click to expand...
Binocular viewing is a 2:1 ratio. Narrower aspect ratios progressively focus the eyes into a smaller space; that is 1.85:1, 16:9, 3:2, 4:3. Cinematic ratios such as 2.39:1 provide a noticeably wider aspect than binocular viewing.

Vertical phone vids remind me of what you see when you are peaking through a partially closed door. Very voyeuristic.
 
jrkliny said:
There are several reasons that I typically use a 2:3 aspect ratio. First is composing in camera. Using the viewfinder aspect ratio makes it easier to achieve a desired composition. It is easier by far than trying to visualize a very different crop later on.

Next is the convenience of printing and framing. I realize that the majority of amateur photographers buy expensive high megapixel gear and then only show their work online. I have a hard time understanding that.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is because we are doing what we feel like doing with our gear.
jrkliny said:
No wonder cellphone cameras are taking over.
Click to expand...
Cellphone cameras are ubiquitous because they are built into ubiquitous devices.
jrkliny said:
Anyway, I have about 30 frames and mats which work best for the 2:3 aspect ratio. My smaller frames are 16x22 for 12x18 matted prints. I am limited by my 17" printer so my larger frames are 20x28 for 16x24 prints on 17x25 paper.

I do make some modifications for my paintings. I do pastels on paper and the paper I like is available as 18x24. Instead I cutback a bit to a final artwork size to about 16x23 and I have mats that work for the 20x28 frames.

The final reason is a matter of pride and artistic intent. I compose my images rather than being "constrained" by the subject. My images are about composition, rhythm, style and less about the subject matter.

--
Jim, aka camperjim
http://www.specialplacesphoto.com
Click to expand...
 
When I first got into digital and needed to crop the resulting images were all sorts of sizes. As I looked back at the images as a whole collection I noticed that I didn't like them being that way, I guess messing with my OCD!! (Ha). I have always cropped "in the field" since the film days and additional cropping in the darkroom wasn't needed. So I just applied that standard to digital and never changed. Ratio sizes remain the same.
 
timo said:
Yes, that can work. I do it sometimes with 1:1 square format. There are occasions when you don't know if a certain aspect ratio will look OK until you try it.
Click to expand...
This takes me back to 1970-1998, shooting 6 X 6 cm square film and applying crops to taste in the darkroom. But as with film, so with digital: when composing within the square, leave ample room on the four sides. If you want 2:3, 16:9 or some other strongly rectangular ratio in the final, something could otherwise be cut off. I learned this the hard way, shooting weddings with square format cameras way back in the day.
 
Last edited:
bodeswell said:
bodeswell said:
Next is the convenience of printing and framing. I realize that the majority of amateur photographers buy expensive high megapixel gear and then only show their work online. I have a hard time understanding that.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is because we are doing what we feel like doing with our gear.
Click to expand...
Sure everyone can do what they feel like doing, assuming they have the money. I still don't get spending thousands on high megapixel and advanced cameras and then posting at the equivalent of a couple of megapixels. Of course, fewer and fewer people are doing this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Phocal
  • User review User review
OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO Initial/Ongoing Review
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
53K
Hmm1000
H
JimKasson
Why we own cameras, and why it matters
2
Replies
38
Views
15K
DavidMillier
DavidMillier
B
Brought Back from the Dead
Replies
1
Views
897
simple-joy
simple-joy
M
GFX 35mm format mode - why only 3:2 aspect ratio?
Replies
2
Views
1K
marc aurel
M
A
  • Locked
Petition Fuji, give us 4:3, 5:4, and 6:7 aspect ratios on X-series cameras
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
438
Bobo Hodls
Bobo Hodls

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