3:2 ratio vs. 16:9: Want to get some perspective on shooting a different frame ratio. I have for a long time shot 3:2, I think that was the default of the camera when new. I changed it...

johnm1369 Loc: Indiana

Want to get some perspective on shooting a different frame ratio. I have for a long time shot 3:2, I think that was the default of the camera when new. I changed it to 16:9 and have shot about 200 images. I like it and just wondering if anybody else has used 16:9 format.

RightOnPhotography Loc: Quebec,QC

johnm1369 wrote:

Want to get some perspective on shooting a different frame ratio. I have for a long time shot 3:2, I think that was the default if the camera when new. I changed it to 16:9 and have shot about 200 images. I like it and just wondering if anybody else has used 16:9 format.

I often crop my images in LR to 16:9 ratio if this improves the composition.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

What editing software do you use? You might find cropping on your computer is a better approach rather than having the camera discard that information from the 3:2 aspect of the digital sensor. I use both 16:9 and 16:10 about as much as I leave the images at 3:2, all done during editing.

johnm1369 Loc: Indiana

I use photo shop elements and Faststone image viewer. Which is freeware, pretty good for free. I do like 3:2 aspect then crop to 16:9.
Thanks!!

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I think Paul wrote this too, but differently.

Set you camera to keep the full sensor data which is probably the 3:2. Keep all the pixels! Then if you want to throw some away later in post, that is the time to change to 16:9 or whatever feels and looks good. Don't let the camera decide.

worldcycle Loc: Stateline, Nevada

I crop many of my images to 16x9 landscape in PP because many I post online. 19x9 is fairly standard format for TV’s and phones. That way my photos show full screen quite nicely. Shooting original format 3x2 I believe gives you much more latitude for cropping later.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

johnm1369 wrote:

Want to get some perspective on shooting a different frame ratio. I have for a long time shot 3:2, I think that was the default of the camera when new. I changed it to 16:9 and have shot about 200 images. I like it and just wondering if anybody else has used 16:9 format.

I don't. No need to. (Not going to tailor images to monitor size(s)).
I crop as required for "standard" prints from my 3:2 (mostly) and 4:3 cameras. My most printed size is 8x12.
Maybe some day I'll play with other aspect ratios, different compositions.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

johnm1369 wrote:

Want to get some perspective on shooting a different frame ratio. I have for a long time shot 3:2, I think that was the default of the camera when new. I changed it to 16:9 and have shot about 200 images. I like it and just wondering if anybody else has used 16:9 format.

It might be a little more effort to shoot the full sensor while imagining the framing for a different format, but it gives more options to crop in other formats, not only the 16:9 which if selected actually drops a lot of pixels.

rcarol

johnm1369 wrote:

Want to get some perspective on shooting a different frame ratio. I have for a long time shot 3:2, I think that was the default of the camera when new. I changed it to 16:9 and have shot about 200 images. I like it and just wondering if anybody else has used 16:9 format.

I have used it occasionally but not on a steady diet.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Longshadow wrote:

I don't. No need to. (Not going to tailor images to monitor size(s)).
I crop as required for "standard" prints from my 3:2 (mostly) and 4:3 cameras. My most printed size is 8x12.
Maybe some day I'll play with other aspect ratios, different compositions.

After so many years of using 35mm, I tend to think in 3:2 terms; occasionally square might work better, but certainly not 16:9.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

I'll do 16:9 in post when helpful. Doing it in camera limits what can be done in post - I think it removes the extraneous pixels.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

Wallen wrote:

It might be a little more effort to shoot the full sensor while imagining the framing for a different format

This is a great point which should be emphasized. If there is any reason you might anticipate cropping a 3:2 image to 16:9, you need to have included enough "dispensable" pixels at the top and/or bottom which can be safely discarded without losing essential parts of the image.

A few years ago my kids gave me a Meural frame on which to display my favorite images. The frame is 16:9, and images look best when using the full screen. I have many images which were taken in 3:2 where cropping to 16:9 would delete essential parts of the subject matter.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

ecobin wrote:

I'll do 16:9 in post when helpful. Doing it in camera limits what can be done in post - I think it removes the extraneous pixels.

I learned early in my photographic ‘career’ to leave ‘dispensable’ image on the edges ….. but, of course, my viewfinders weren’t very reliable in those days.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

rehess wrote:

After so many years of using 35mm, I tend to think in 3:2 terms; occasionally square might work better, but certainly not 16:9.

Ditto. Maybe someday I'll print a square shot (composition)....

I simply use the native aspect ratio in the viewfinder.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

I shoot in the fullest frame and I don't crop to a set aspect ratio. If I didn't frame the shot when I shot it, I crop every shot to what looks best with no concern for a ratio. But I do have a mat cutter and I'm a wood worker and can make frames but I usually will mat a print to a commercial frame size.