What is the aspect ratio you most use?

[gamora77]

I've been playing about with ratios and spent quite a lot of time shooting in 16:9 before I switched to 3:2. I flipped back to 16:9 and now images just look 'weird' to me even though it is the aspect ratio I view most often on my monitor. I also read that aspect ratio in this day and age is not important and people 'crop to image' meaning anything goes. I'm just wondering what others use, do and think about the subject?
Thanks.

 

[Chris R-UK]

I use the aspect ratio on the camera that gives me the highest resolution (4:3 on my M4/3 bodies, 3:2 when I was using a DSLR) and crop in post processing.

 

[Mark B.]

I've been playing about with ratios and spent quite a lot of time shooting in 16:9 before I switched to 3:2. I flipped back to 16:9 and now images just look 'weird' to me even though it is the aspect ratio I view most often on my monitor. I also read that aspect ratio in this day and age is not important and people 'crop to image' meaning anything goes. I'm just wondering what others use, do and think about the subject?
Thanks.

Whatever camera I'm shooting, I only shoot in the native AR and crop later.

 

[Bob A L]

I've been playing about with ratios and spent quite a lot of time shooting in 16:9 before I switched to 3:2. I flipped back to 16:9 and now images just look 'weird' to me even though it is the aspect ratio I view most often on my monitor. I also read that aspect ratio in this day and age is not important and people 'crop to image' meaning anything goes. I'm just wondering what others use, do and think about the subject?
Thanks.

Whatever camera I'm shooting, I only shoot in the native AR and crop later.

what he said

 

[tbcass]

I also read that aspect ratio in this day and age is not important and people 'crop to image' meaning anything goes.

Yup that's me. My cameras take 3:2 ratios but I crop them to anything I want after the fact. The idea that we are somehow stuck with whatever ratio the camera takes is a holdover from film. Even with film if you print your own you can use different ratios depending on the ratio of the print paper.

--
Tom

 

[Holger Bargen]

I've been playing about with ratios and spent quite a lot of time shooting in 16:9 before I switched to 3:2. I flipped back to 16:9 and now images just look 'weird' to me even though it is the aspect ratio I view most often on my monitor. I also read that aspect ratio in this day and age is not important and people 'crop to image' meaning anything goes. I'm just wondering what others use, do and think about the subject?
Thanks.

It depends on the content of the photo. I always do some cropping in post-processing. §:2 is standard as this is the standard of my cameras. Sometimes 16:9 works fine for landscape. Very often 4:3 is much better for my macro work. In rate cases I go 1:1 or 6:7.

The aspect ratio follws the needs of the particular content of the photos, the relation of areas/parts within it, the way of lines within the photos.

The different aspect ratios have a different effect on the viewers. 16:9 gives a nice panorama and refers to cinema content (maybe supported in a special way of colour rendering or use of LUTs in post-processing. 2:3 works fine in landscape and portrait orientation - and is a good classic format for both phtographic disciplines according the names of the orientations. For my macro work I prefer 3:2 if I have an environmental portrait or if the photo telles a little story - maybe a macro with some inscets in some kind of interaction. 3:4 fits best in in macro portraits of insects and flowers. 1:1 is fine for photos with a strong central symmetry. 6:7 fits fine for art/table top photography.

Best regards

Holger

 

[Mark_A]

I've been playing about with ratios and spent quite a lot of time shooting in 16:9 before I switched to 3:2. I flipped back to 16:9 and now images just look 'weird' to me even though it is the aspect ratio I view most often on my monitor. I also read that aspect ratio in this day and age is not important and people 'crop to image' meaning anything goes. I'm just wondering what others use, do and think about the subject?
Thanks.

1) This thread was just recently done

2) I tend to stick to 3x2 which is the native aspect ratio of my camera.

3) Often even if I crop I try to stick to 3x2

Mark_A

 

[BG454]

I've been playing about with ratios and spent quite a lot of time shooting in 16:9 before I switched to 3:2. I flipped back to 16:9 and now images just look 'weird' to me even though it is the aspect ratio I view most often on my monitor. I also read that aspect ratio in this day and age is not important and people 'crop to image' meaning anything goes. I'm just wondering what others use, do and think about the subject?
Thanks.

I very rarely use the camera's native aspect ratio.
All my photos are cropped to suit the actual image.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

I've been playing about with ratios and spent quite a lot of time shooting in 16:9 before I switched to 3:2.

My cameras each have a fixed aspect ratio - two of them are 3:2, one is 4:3. So when shooting I always "use" what the cameras offer.

I flipped back to 16:9 and now images just look 'weird' to me even though it is the aspect ratio I view most often on my monitor.

When viewing photos I choose an aspect ratio that best suits the picture and display medium. For portrait orientation 3:4 usually works best regardless of medium but sometimes 4:5 or 2:3.

In landscape I use 16:9 for pictures that I'm likely to view on my UHDTV because it fills the screen; for prints I use whatever the print aspect ratio is.

I also read that aspect ratio in this day and age is not important

It never has been. Go to any picture gallery, look at a book or magazine. Pictures come in all aspect ratios.

and people 'crop to image' meaning anything goes. I'm just wondering what others use, do and think about the subject?

The only time aspect ratio might be fixed is when buying prints from companies who hold stocks of standard sizes. Custom printing has always offered complete flexibility.

Thanks.

 

[Stephenhampshire]

7x5

 

[yardcoyote]

I usually use the native ratio of the sensor ( 3:2 for all my current cameras) to gather all possible data with each shot, though i often crop my finished images to another ratio. My favorite is 1:1 ( nothing more interesting than dividing up a square) followed by 4:3 and 16:9.

I do have one camera that i usually set to shoot at 1:1, but that is just because it amuses me to do so.

 

[richiebee]

I always shoot 3:2 since that's what the sensor is.

I do e-zine work which requires a banner shot to work in 5:2, 2:1 and 1:1. Non-banner shots need to be 5:7 portrait or anything for landscape. I usually keep my landscapes 3:2 unless its a group of people that makes for a wide shot with too much top and bottom emptiness, in which case I usually crop it to either 16:9, 5:2 or 2:1.

For my personal work, I like 3:2 most. I do print some crops of custom ratios (virtually all wide), but I use floating frames that don't require any specific dimensions. Obviously some look more natural than others, but I don't really worry about it.

 

[jrtrent]

I've been playing about with ratios and spent quite a lot of time shooting in 16:9 before I switched to 3:2. I flipped back to 16:9 and now images just look 'weird' to me even though it is the aspect ratio I view most often on my monitor. I also read that aspect ratio in this day and age is not important and people 'crop to image' meaning anything goes. I'm just wondering what others use, do and think about the subject?
Thanks.

When most monitors and televisions were 4:3, I shot 4:3 to fill the screen, and I liked that aspect ratio. With the advent of wider monitors and televisions, I tried 16:9, but found it more difficult to compose shots with. To fill the screen a little better than 4:3, I went back to 3:2, which I shot for decades with 35mm slide film.

I like to compose my shots in the viewfinder and don't want to crop later.

 

[nicodimus22]

16:9 for most things. I just like the wider shape.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

[No message]

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

I usually use the native ratio of the sensor ( 3:2 for all my current cameras) to gather all possible data with each shot, though i often crop my finished images to another ratio. My favorite is 1:1 ( nothing more interesting than dividing up a square) followed by 4:3 and 16:9.

I do have one camera that i usually set to shoot at 1:1, but that is just because it amuses me to do so.

Personally speaking, a square format is maybe the only aspect ratio that I just can't stand. I have one image out of my entire 10's of thousands, which just needed to be cropped as a square, and it was an otherwise pleasing image too, wonderful color.... But I just can't bring myself to post it on my website, as that square format just looks atrocious !

I'm guessing you love Instagram ? Lol Sorry.

Anything but a square photo !

 

[Aaron801]

I really like the proportions of the native 4x3 that my m43 camera does. Often I crop to a square and very occasionally a 3x2. I like making the occasional panorama too and when I do I don't bother trying to fit it into any particular ratio, just "very wide."

 

[Pontoneer]

I've been playing about with ratios and spent quite a lot of time shooting in 16:9 before I switched to 3:2. I flipped back to 16:9 and now images just look 'weird' to me even though it is the aspect ratio I view most often on my monitor. I also read that aspect ratio in this day and age is not important and people 'crop to image' meaning anything goes. I'm just wondering what others use, do and think about the subject?
Thanks.

3:2 native format of my camera

 

[ToxicTabasco]

I've been playing about with ratios and spent quite a lot of time shooting in 16:9 before I switched to 3:2. I flipped back to 16:9 and now images just look 'weird' to me even though it is the aspect ratio I view most often on my monitor. I also read that aspect ratio in this day and age is not important and people 'crop to image' meaning anything goes. I'm just wondering what others use, do and think about the subject?
Thanks.

As one who shoots hybird photo/video and landscapes it's 16:9. Equally second is 2:3, 4:3, and 3:1.


Nevertheless, I try to stick to industry standard aspect ratios when composing shots. Mainly to keep the highest resolution, and for printing. Seeing the world in many aspect ratios allows one to pick the best aspect ratio for the composition being shot. Not every scene or portrait will look good in one specific aspect ratio. In many way's I'm glad there are many to choose from.

 

[yardcoyote]

I do like Instagram, but I have loved squares since long before there was even an internet.