3:2 ratio vs. 16:9 (Page 3): Yes, I always shoot full frame and it’s the image that determines the crop, not some standard aspect ratio. The main thing if I’m printing is to leave...

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

wmurnahan wrote:

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.

Yes, I always shoot full frame and it’s the image that determines the crop, not some standard aspect ratio. The main thing if I’m printing is to leave about 1/16” all around for mat overlap.

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

[quote=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. [/quote]

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

PHRubin wrote:

Since the sensor has a 3:2 aspect ratio, any other ratio will be a crop. So I use 3:2 and when appropriate, crop in post.

williejoha

I shoot in 3:2 format. You cannot crop what you never had. IMHO
WJH

delder Loc: Maryland

3:2, then crop.

I have found if I have to straighten or re-center I have more to work with.

Video may be different...

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

I shoot what ever ratio is using the full size of the sensor and then crop in PP. If you set the camera to a different ratio then you are not using the full sensor. Why not use the maximum sensor. But I have to admit that sometimes I will switch my FF to APS-C when shooting birds to better visualize the subject.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Choosing a different aspect ratio IN the camera is just like "pre"-cropping.
I just use the whole sensor simply because it's there, whichever camera.
Pre-crop, the camera does it, post-crop I do it, where I want, to get any aspect ratio I want, which could be multiple.

lorvey Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

bsprague wrote:

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.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

Longshadow wrote:

Choosing a different aspect ratio IN the camera is just like "pre"-cropping.
I just use the whole sensor simply because it's there, whichever camera.
Pre-crop, the camera does it, post-crop I do it, where I want, to get any aspect ratio I want, which could be multiple.

Using the entire sensor makes perfect sense.
My point is that if your camera is 3:2, and you frame your subject to occupy most of the vertical space from top edge to bottom edge, then you can't crop it in post to 16:9 without losing part of your subject. Therefore plan ahead when taking the photo.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

David Martin wrote:

Using the entire sensor makes perfect sense.
My point is that if your camera is 3:2, and you frame your subject to occupy most of the vertical space from top edge to bottom edge, then you can't crop it in post to 16:9 without losing part of your subject. Therefore plan ahead when taking the photo.

To me that would be kinda self evident. Awareness of what one is getting coupled with what one may desire to do with it. Sometimes I take similar shots, one in portrait, one in landscape, just in case.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Longshadow wrote:

…Sometimes I take similar shots, one in portrait, one in landscape, just in case.

delder Loc: Maryland

David Martin wrote:

Using the entire sensor makes perfect sense.
My point is that if your camera is 3:2, and you frame your subject to occupy most of the vertical space from top edge to bottom edge, then you can't crop it in post to 16:9 without losing part of your subject. Therefore plan ahead when taking the photo.

Great response:

I have to keep reminding myself NOT to try to fill too much of the frame:

In print days, the processing seemed to take about 5%.
You STILL have to worry about a frame covering some of your shot.
Also need space for straightening.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

delder wrote:

Great response:

I have to keep reminding myself NOT to try to fill too much of the frame:

In print days, the processing seemed to take about 5%.
You STILL have to worry about a frame covering some of your shot.
Also need space for straightening.

In the days when the film in the camera was the film in a slide mount, compositional awareness at the camera was critical. Everything was 3:2 or 2:3 unless you owned a slide duplicating setup. I was an AV producer for 8 years in the 1980s, and also did photo illustrations for print media my company produced. I had to think very differently when composing slides than when photographing people for a newsletter or products for a catalog.

I always appreciated my Nikon F3 with its 100% viewfinder accuracy, until it came time to make slides. I always had to back off slightly to allow for the slide mount!

Cropping uncertainty is even greater for video. Most TV screens "overscan" the image, meaning the edges of the TV cut off a small amount of the image, and this varies from set to set. So broadcasters have "TV Safe" and "Title Safe" zones marked in their cameras. Some video editing software lets you display guide frames for these areas.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

If I was planning to crop to 16:9 (to fit a monitor, or modern TV screen) I would probably shoot in 16:9 to make it easier to "pre-visualize" the image. I f you are planning to crop, you are throwing out pixels anyway.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

cmc4214 wrote:

If I was planning to crop to 16:9 (to fit a monitor, or modern TV screen) I would probably shoot in 16:9 to make it easier to "pre-visualize" the image. I f you are planning to crop, you are throwing out pixels anyway.