Why 4:3?

[DavidMillier]

I think those classical philosophers' ideas of perfect mathematical ratios and so on have lived on as a guide to composition far past their usefulness. Anything goes as long as it suits the subject to my mind.

I do think we need to make a clear distinction between two different arguments, though.

Argument #1 is about the final output shape. To me any output shape is fine if it suits the image.

Argument #2 is not about output shape but about the utility of in-camera aspect ratios (especially switchable ones) as a technical aid to composition. It sounds to me like you can look through any aspect ratio viewfinder and mentally crop what you see through it to how you guess the final image should look like. I can't do that easily and I benefit from switchable aspect ratios as a visualisation/composing aid.

At least I did until I realised the extreme utility of the square format and the unique way that it both simplifies the process of composition by drawing attention to the relationship between subject elements and the frame edges; and the way it also enables compositional choices because it makes very tiny composition changes have a big effect.

 

[tilted_horizon]

I've read that the human FOV - not the total possible FOV, more what we are typically aware of while casually looking at things - is about 5:4 or 4:3, and less commonly I've read it's 3:2. So maybe 4:3 is a choice based in biology.

4:3 feels the most right to me, but I'm conditioned to it from TV in the 70s and from using so many compacts. Though I can work with any aspect ratio, I think every mirrorless camera should have crops for 4:3, 5:4, 3:2, 1:1 and 16:9 at minimum.

 

[DavidMillier]

Yes!

Ideally a custom aspect ratio as well so you can set the viewfinder to anything. And a rotary knob to let you quickly change ratio.

--
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2022 - website rebuilt, updated and back in action)
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[paulraphael]

I think those classical philosophers' ideas of perfect mathematical ratios and so on have lived on as a guide to composition far past their usefulness. Anything goes as long as it suits the subject to my mind.

I'll challenge the idea that those classical guides are somehow in conflict with "anything goes."

There are parallels in the history of music theory. Not that many hundreds of years ago, it was taught that certain notes went with certain chords. By the early 20th century (modern music, experimental music, jazz) the idea developed that you could play any note against any chord. But to make it work, you had to understand the kind of tension you'd produce, and you had to know where it would resolve.

To understand those principles, music students still learn classical harmony. Even if they're trying to do music that's way outside the box. Because it's still helpful to know where the box is!
For what it's worth, most musicians aren't going outside the box, or even anywhere near its edges. Popular music is usually harmonically less adventurous than Bach. I might say the same about most photography done commercially or for popular consumption.

My favorite photography is angular and dissonant and is played by musicians who wear sunglasses indoors and smoke stuff you can't get. But they still often use the traditional rectangles, because they're experimenting with other things.

 

[Rich42]

I've read that the human FOV - not the total possible FOV, more what we are typically aware of while casually looking at things - is about 5:4 or 4:3, and less commonly I've read it's 3:2. So maybe 4:3 is a choice based in biology.

4:3 feels the most right to me, but I'm conditioned to it from TV in the 70s and from using so many compacts. Though I can work with any aspect ratio, I think every mirrorless camera should have crops for 4:3, 5:4, 3:2, 1:1 and 16:9 at minimum.

All cameras have all those crops. And more. Like other creative controls they’re located in the 12 inches just behind the camera.
--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[moimoi]

Good thread. If I had to summarize the 4:3 ratio, I would say is well balanced. I think it provides a good optimization between height and length for subject framing.

3:2 or 16:9: the former is still useable but it is harder to fill in the whole frame without introducing any distractions. For street photo 3:2 still makes sense, good for landscapes but definitely not well suited for portraits. The latter is not appealing to me so I can't comment objectively.

5:4 (and to a less extent 6:7) my favorite crop ratio. If framed well, the photo should show no room for bs. Works very well for what I shoot.

1:1: I rarely use it as it is more specific. I just don't see well using a square box. Too "Cartesian" for my taste.

--
135 & 120 | Fuji GFX
http://www.maximesiegler.com/
https://www.instagram.com/maxsiegler645/