What aspect ratios do Pentax users like?

Barry Pearson wrote:

Increasingly, I'm liking 1:1 - square.

To me, 1:1 just "makes sense" in certain cases. Sharing some of mine:

georgehakim wrote:

I shoot in the original aspect ratio of the camera (to use all the sensor area), then in post processing I crop in the "Unconstrained" mode, if it looks best at 3.4:1.8 so be it.

As long as you maintain the perspective of the image.

For example, cropping a 3:2 image that has a house on the right side to create a 1:1 image that has the house in the middle of the frame - the cropped image does not look natural.

Then again, “art” can be anything.

Personally, I know what I want during the original framing.

I rarely restrict the composition to a fixed aspect ratio like 3:2 or 16:9. Of course I have to use a specific ratio when I send the photo out for printing/framing. Also when I submit to some photo sharing sites like Instagram, which have rigid aspect ratio requirement.

Regardless of what aspect ratios we like, I still think that the final image should conform to the aspect ratio of the camera used to take it. The camera provides a frame and we should use that frame to pull all the various elements into a composition that pleases us, when we take the actual picture.

Obviously some cameras do offer various aspect ratios to choose from, my Panasonic DMC LX100 for one but if you want a square, then I think it better to compose in a square and so on for other ratios. I think that this approach leads to more conscious observation and more rigorous composition and produces stronger images than fiddling about later in photoshop or the darkroom.

This was the approach of Cartier Bresson and other photographers who were inspired by him. They would often file out the negative carriers in their enlargers, so that a black line would be printed around the image, proving it was the full negative area and apart from one or two exceptional images, this was the approach he took for the majority of his images. What you see in his photographs, is what he saw in the viewfinder.

Phil A Martin wrote:

Regardless of what aspect ratios we like, I still think that the final image should conform to the aspect ratio of the camera used to take it.

I happen to think the same way.

Regardless of which camera I am using - Pentax K-3, or Canon 6D, or Panasonic G9 - I set the aspect ratio consciously and compose within the frame of that aspect ratio.

Further, and strictly personally, I always tell myself: “You are fully responsible for whatever in the frame of your choice when you release the shutter.” This may sound unreasonably demanding to some, but it provides me discipline and deliberation.

When someone asks me what composition in photography means, I say: “Composition is the art of leaving certain things out of the frame.” So, to me, the frame of a certain aspect ratio at the moment of image capture has its significance.

The camera provides a frame and we should use that frame to pull all the various elements into a composition that pleases us, when we take the actual picture.

Obviously some cameras do offer various aspect ratios to choose from, my Panasonic DMC LX100 for one but if you want a square, then I think it better to compose in a square and so on for other ratios. I think that this approach leads to more conscious observation and more rigorous composition and produces stronger images than fiddling about later in photoshop or the darkroom.

This was the approach of Cartier Bresson and other photographers who were inspired by him. They would often file out the negative carriers in their enlargers, so that a black line would be printed around the image, proving it was the full negative area and apart from one or two exceptional images, this was the approach he took for the majority of his images. What you see in his photographs, is what he saw in the viewfinder.

Thanks for sharing.

AshleyMC wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

Regardless of what aspect ratios we like, I still think that the final image should conform to the aspect ratio of the camera used to take it.

I happen to think the same way.

Regardless of which camera I am using - Pentax K-3, or Canon 6D, or Panasonic G9 - I set the aspect ratio consciously and compose within the frame of that aspect ratio.

Further, and strictly personally, I always tell myself: “You are fully responsible for whatever in the frame of your choice when you release the shutter.” This may sound unreasonably demanding to some, but it provides me discipline and deliberation.

When someone asks me what composition in photography means, I say: “Composition is the art of leaving certain things out of the frame.” So, to me, the frame of a certain aspect ratio at the moment of image capture has its significance.

The camera provides a frame and we should use that frame to pull all the various elements into a composition that pleases us, when we take the actual picture.

Obviously some cameras do offer various aspect ratios to choose from, my Panasonic DMC LX100 for one but if you want a square, then I think it better to compose in a square and so on for other ratios. I think that this approach leads to more conscious observation and more rigorous composition and produces stronger images than fiddling about later in photoshop or the darkroom.

This was the approach of Cartier Bresson and other photographers who were inspired by him. They would often file out the negative carriers in their enlargers, so that a black line would be printed around the image, proving it was the full negative area and apart from one or two exceptional images, this was the approach he took for the majority of his images. What you see in his photographs, is what he saw in the viewfinder.

Thanks for sharing.

and thank you for your response.