Portrait Image Area Size
Nov 22, 2022 20:08:52 #
digitalnut
Loc: Endwell, NY
Is it okay to use 1:1 image area size on a portrait using a Nikon mirrorless camera? I just received a new Z30 and was not sure since I have never had that option on any of my previous cameras. Thanks in advance for all responses.
Hope every UHH member has a wonderful Thanksgiving
Hope every UHH member has a wonderful Thanksgiving
Nov 22, 2022 20:12:20 #
Consider shooting in the native 3:2 aspect of the digital sensor and cropping to 1:1 while you process the image. Leave the space needed to support the 1:1 crop, which is all that the camera is doing when you change the aspect ratio in the camera.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Nov 22, 2022 20:14:59 #
Do you mean a 1:1 aspect ratio?
Sure, if you want a square image.
Have you ever cropped an image to square in editing from another camera before?
Sure, if you want a square image.
Have you ever cropped an image to square in editing from another camera before?
Nov 22, 2022 20:21:38 #
You can but I think you'd prefer a more rectangular format with the longer side being vertical.
--Bob
--Bob
digitalnut wrote:
Is it okay to use 1:1 image area size on a portrait using a Nikon mirrorless camera? I just received a new Z30 and was not sure since I have never had that option on any of my previous cameras. Thanks in advance for all responses.
Hope every UHH member has a wonderful Thanksgiving
Hope every UHH member has a wonderful Thanksgiving
Nov 23, 2022 01:02:59 #
As stated I also find 3:2 ratio the best, then can always do square in PP. However back in the day of shooting weddings with my Rollie Twin Lens 2-1/4 × 2-1/4" sq negatives on film I loved it because could leave my flash mounted high, print 8x10" in vertical or horizontal dependent on the composition.
Nov 23, 2022 20:34:52 #
delder
Loc: Maryland
I keep relearning the need to leave some margin around my shots:
1. Even with film, the mass processors [Drug Store] always cropped about 5%
2. Most frames & Mats reduce visible viewing area.
3. Film OR digital, you need margin for straightening.
Just because I CAN frame closely with my Zoom lens doesn't mean I SHOULD!
1. Even with film, the mass processors [Drug Store] always cropped about 5%
2. Most frames & Mats reduce visible viewing area.
3. Film OR digital, you need margin for straightening.
Just because I CAN frame closely with my Zoom lens doesn't mean I SHOULD!
Nov 23, 2022 20:57:57 #
Sidwalkastronomy
Loc: New Jersey Shore
I'm having a hard time not filling the frame and my prints are suffering. I have to leave more margins for the standard 3:2 ratio
Nov 23, 2022 22:45:34 #
For quite a long time the (film) medium format of 2 1/4 X 2 3/4 or 6x7 Centimeters was called the "ideal format" because ir was perfectly proportional to 8x10 inch prints- and 16x20 and so on. I you want a smaller camera you could use a 6x4.5 CM model. So, who said the 5:4 format is "ideal"? I suppose it made some sense in that if you fill the frame exactly how you want to compose it, you col make 8x10 kinda prints without any serious cropping or cutting off a vital element in the shot. We leave a little space and make a 20x24- 6:5 just a little bit off!
Again, who said 5:4 is "ideal"? Perhaps it was the album and frame manufacturers who and some may albums in from in that size or the clients or photographers who did not want to bother with custom framing and matting? Some theorize that this aspect ratio, although there were no such stands athe time, was present in much of the work of the old masters' portrat painters. Some photograher claim that if you fill the negative exactly and did not leave space or requre cropping you would have sharper prints. Meanwhile, I had a 6x7 camer in the studio but was running around with a Hasselblad and made 30x40 prints from both with no difference in IQ.
Bad news for some because 35mm and full-frame digital is proportional, to kinda 5x7 or something like that.
There is nothing wrong with TOTALLY pre-visualizing your composition in the viewfinder, exactly as to how you inted pricing or exhibiting it on a screen, but that is not always possible, especially in my fast-breaking shooting situation. If you need to conform to a layout, a specific space, or a display plan and/or you are shooting a static subject and have plenty of time, you can predetermine your aspect ratio and every other element of the composition.
My own opinion is that there are certain subjects, compositions, concepts, and images in general that are more suited to a square format, something that is kinda panoramic or "widescreen" not always the same. There are some aspects of photograhy such as pixel counts, mega-sharpness, total lack of grain or noise, and more, that have become preoccupations that preclude creativity. Not everything, every time gonna work SOOTC and if you try to do that, you will miss out on many spontaneous images and spend too much time fumbling with gear.
Why the dickens did come back with that portraait=vertical and landscape=horrizinat thing? I have seen stunning portraits in the horizontal orientation and great vertical landscapes.
With today's digital gear and good glass is a bit of cropping going to obliterate all the sharpness.
There are incredible and iconic photograher mad wit came that had only one format. If you want to change the aspect ratio, you had to learn how to improvise, leave sufficient space, use negative space effectively and realize your composition during printing.
Again, who said 5:4 is "ideal"? Perhaps it was the album and frame manufacturers who and some may albums in from in that size or the clients or photographers who did not want to bother with custom framing and matting? Some theorize that this aspect ratio, although there were no such stands athe time, was present in much of the work of the old masters' portrat painters. Some photograher claim that if you fill the negative exactly and did not leave space or requre cropping you would have sharper prints. Meanwhile, I had a 6x7 camer in the studio but was running around with a Hasselblad and made 30x40 prints from both with no difference in IQ.
Bad news for some because 35mm and full-frame digital is proportional, to kinda 5x7 or something like that.
There is nothing wrong with TOTALLY pre-visualizing your composition in the viewfinder, exactly as to how you inted pricing or exhibiting it on a screen, but that is not always possible, especially in my fast-breaking shooting situation. If you need to conform to a layout, a specific space, or a display plan and/or you are shooting a static subject and have plenty of time, you can predetermine your aspect ratio and every other element of the composition.
My own opinion is that there are certain subjects, compositions, concepts, and images in general that are more suited to a square format, something that is kinda panoramic or "widescreen" not always the same. There are some aspects of photograhy such as pixel counts, mega-sharpness, total lack of grain or noise, and more, that have become preoccupations that preclude creativity. Not everything, every time gonna work SOOTC and if you try to do that, you will miss out on many spontaneous images and spend too much time fumbling with gear.
Why the dickens did come back with that portraait=vertical and landscape=horrizinat thing? I have seen stunning portraits in the horizontal orientation and great vertical landscapes.
With today's digital gear and good glass is a bit of cropping going to obliterate all the sharpness.
There are incredible and iconic photograher mad wit came that had only one format. If you want to change the aspect ratio, you had to learn how to improvise, leave sufficient space, use negative space effectively and realize your composition during printing.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.