Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Something I have been puzzling over for a while. The aspect ratio of most cameras is 3:2. I find this suits landscapes here in Wyoming due to the seeming vastness of the possible images available here. Many photographers matte and frame their photos at 4:3 or other ratios. I have tried to use the ratios other than 3:2 but almost always find myself less than thrilled. Somehow the other ratios don't seem to convey what I feel concerning the subjects I choose, they seem incomplete or truncated. Looking at other's work I usually have the same feelings about their work. What concerns me is that I may have developed tunnel vision and am missing something of value. While I am coming along where the technical skills are concerned, I don't want to get into a composition rut that prevents seeing other ratios that may be valuable. Have any of you confronted this issue and if so how did you resolve it? Input of any description is welcome.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Just a few comments about framing and picture ratios.
In the days of plate cameras there were many different sizes and ratios but gradually a few came to be the common ones. Still a variety though: 3x5, 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 etc. Then film was invented and became common and at first they were 1x1 for the most part but people were used to rectangles so film cameras that did rectangle negatives came along but they tried to make them fit the old ratios - it was what they were used to and they looked "right". 35 mm came along as a movie film and was made the standard in 1909 and someone, I forget who did it first but probably more than one person no matter what is the "official story" decided to make small hand held still cameras that could make use of all the tag ends of movie film left over that were too short to use for motion pictures. And they ended up with a 2x3 ratio for the negative size. But when projected and printed they still tried for the old ratios and sizes. So while you would expect 2x3, 4x6, 6x9 etc the prints were still 3x5, 5x7, 8x10 11x14 etc, you did start getting 4x6 as a print size. Now some of those are fading and our print paper comes in 8.5x11 more that 8x10 because that way printers can do standard letter size prints for words, we still have some using 11x14 but more common now is 13x19 - why??????
I tend to crop my images to fit 13x19 since that is the size I print for viewing but some times I just sort of rebel and crop my images to fit the subject in whatever size and ratio I think is right - yes, I still feel a bit uneasy at "wasting" all that space around the image when I print it on 13x19 paper.

So, crop to a ratio that feels right for each image and that you like, they are your images.
And if your landscapes come out needing to be longer than any standard paper sizes, there are always roll fed printers that will allow you to print very wide landscapes or very tall verticals of a subject. the roll fed printers tend to expensive
I miss the printers I had that allowed "banner" prints - I made a lot for use in the classroom.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

I try to maintain a 3:2 ratio simply because it makes framing so much easier. In other words I can reuse frames and matting very easily. If I do feel my composition must be different I will try a 4x5. I like it, and it is a traditional photography ratio. I don't think there is anything wrong with an unconstrained crop. That may be the only way to get it exactly the way you like, but framing a group of those can be a pain. Having run into that, I pay more attention to the compositions I am shooting. When you look for ready made frames you find them made for many ratios for other than 3:2, in fact it can be harder to find 2:3 than you would think. It is a good practice to avoid cropping too tight in camera. I still remind myself to maintain a little room around the edges when shooting, so I can make small adjustments to the edges, while keeping the original ratio. I remember ordering prints from labs, and being upset that parts of my images were being cropped out. Its weird now to think about opting for 5:7 prints. Hope this helps you.

Jerry G Loc: Waterford, Michigan and Florida

I crop to fit the image, not to a set ratio. I try to balance the composition, get rid of excess sky or foreground, etc.

CO

You could crop the photo according to the golden mean, also called the golden ratio.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Shoot the image as you see best and do not worry about the ratios. 35mm is a not a direct 8x10 nor an 11x14. So allow room for crops. Always keep that in mind. If you do not plan on cropping then you will have to pay extra for printing and many places are not prepared for this. So will have limited your sources. And be prepared to pay extra for framing because there are few that will print your unusual print size. I just went through this with a family photo. So my suggestion is to shoot with a little extra space to allow for cropping.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Makes sense to me.

repleo Loc: Boston

16:9 ratio is best if your image is destined to be shown on a computer or HD TV screen. It is also a nice format for landscapes. 16:9 frames and mats are a bit harder to find in your local craft store but they are readily available on-line. Remember that the aspect ratio of the sensor is 3:2. If you use anything else for shooting you are leaving pixels behind. Better to shoot 3:2 and crop to suite later in PP.

You probably feel that 3:2 is the 'right' ratio because that is the way you framed the shot and because it is the most prevalent format since the introduction of 35mm film which was derived from movie film. I usually default to 3:2, but I do look at each shot and decide on the format that suits the composition best. Don't overlook square format which can be very effective for some subjects.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Take a look at the body of work from Ansel Adams - he was a landscape master and rarely shot with anything other that 1:1 or 4:5 - and was still able to capture expansiveness.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

When I shoot with my Olympus mirrorless bodies I shoot full frame, that is a 4:3 aspect ratio. To enlarge I just go from there.

anotherview Loc: California

The 13x19 aspect ratio I find useful for some landscape photographs. Its use depends on the individual scene and how it comes across to the eye.

Most of the time, the 3x2 aspect ratio or the 4x5 aspect ratio present the subject best. I keep in mind that 4x5 translates to 8x10 inches for framing purposes.

Short reply: Suit the aspect ratio to the subject and its potential.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Moving from film to a beginner dslr it was natural for me to use 3:2. With central Washington's vast wide spaces and tall skies, I may feel similar to you in Wyoming: most of the time I like the look. So much so, that with one of my newer mirrorless that is 4:3, I actually tossed pixels to have it constantly set at 3:2.

I have two main styles/experiences: quick shots of fast-moving "weather" events and birds or critters, and serene landscapes that give me time to compose. I love composing in-camera, going back to days of my b&w film class: "Watch the edges of your frame!"

I find it difficult to leave room for any different cropping, though I have certainly on occasion cropped for a different story or second-guessed my original plan. I also have times when I know I'm going to crop because of something in the way, such as a fence that was in near foreground in the attached scene.

I used to cut my own mats, but don't have the patience anymore, so this pic has black "canvas" - via PS Elements editing - at top and bottom to fit the whole into a 8x12 frame. Yeah, low standards - ha - but it's just for my own pleasure in my home.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ditto.
What format (ergo image) comes out of my camera is a starting point. I try to compose in the camera, but sometimes a crop later works better. My one camera is 3:2, the other is 4:3, but I don't concern myself with either "ratio" as my goal is the final image. What looks best (to me) for the intended display size. Unless the original image will fit the desired print format (size), it will require cropping as 4x6, 5x7, 8x10(12), etc. are not the same ratios.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Both Costco and Walgreen's have been doing 8x12 (3:2 aspect) for a long time. The mention I made above re "extending canvas" in pp can be very handy (and inexpensive) for odd sizes. I don't want to hijack further; anyone curious please send me a pm.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Thanks for the tip. But I tried Costco, not that I would use them because their quality is not up to my standard. Yes they are cheap but cheap is not everything when it comes to a lifetime photo. For somethings it would be fine. Costco did not inform me or try to work with me or do anything out of the ordinary. But I will keep it in mind. I hate Walmart lab because they ruined a bunch of images never to be recovered. I found a nice custom lab that did an exceptional job with which I am happy. I did not try Walgreens though. I guess I got tired of looking.