Very recognizable! Most photographers struggle with aspect ratios sooner or later, especially if they're after an expression that their camera (or the one at hand) doesn't offer. My MO is to envision the ideal aspect ration for what I want to convey and approach it as close as possible, which sometimes means heavy cropping or framing the subject very differently than what seems logical. 1:1, 4:3, 4:5, 16:9 are all ratios I use regularly for the 'finished product'.
Interesting article. I don't crop my images for years, but we can try to consider cropping as a game. Trying to redefine the scene help to redefine our "eye" when we are watching in the viewfinder. Sorry for my bad English, greetings from Italy.
I recently discover that IMAX aspecto ratio is almost 4:3, like very old movies and TV sets LOL (at least Dune 2 is) 3:2 looks nice horizontally but in vertical is too... vertical. I'm not afraid of cropping a little to improve composition or clean the borders, but sometimes 4:3 makes the trick. Or maybe is just me doing Street photography with a hacked compact for years.
My go-to aspect ratios are 3:4 or 4x5 (6x7) as well as 1:2 and 3:1 panoramic. The 2:3 aspect ratio feel for me like "nothing". It don't hold the nice aspects as you find with 3:4 and 4x5 when you want a rectangle format that have that "typical" photo feel. They are not too wide, not too narrow. If I want that wide feel the 2:3 also fall flat on it's face, and I find that most often the 1:2 is what I need, and when I really want that expansive look I go for the 1:3. Also I love having the aspect ratio backed in when I shoot. Like you get with for example with the Nikon D800, and of course with analog medium. And when it comes to having a baked in crop for the raw-files I don't subscribe to the thought that you crop later in the "darkroom". For me, that's for "monkeys" (as in the saying: give a monkey enough time, and it will, at some point, turn out Shakespear.) I want to compose my image in the field, not on a computer. Also it boils down to skill for me. Getting things right when I shoot the image so I have the most resolution for my image, and don't waste it because I need to crop down later.
I have too be struggling with this recently. I have been playing with 1:1 ratio as well as the 16:9 ratio. I am wanting to do an entire project were the 1:1 are black and white and the 16:9 are color. I am in the planning stage at this time. My end goal is to produce a zine with the photographs. I have yet to make a zine only photo books from family vacations.
I thought about a similar concept too - square images are on a single page while panoramic images are a spread across two pages. The problem with that was that the center, which would fall on the binding, is the most important part in many of my compositions.
Outstanding article, and love the photos to illustrate these different ratios! I dont know why...but I've been cropping alot to 4x3 lately...like some others mentioned also. for some reason it just feels like a good middle ground between my square and 3x2. maybe its a phase I'll grow out of one of these days? :)
I absolutely love the wide cinema shots that come from xpans and the likes. I’ve never tried it myself but would love to. I could crop a 35mm image but I don’t know, it just feels wrong doesn’t
For some scenes, I stitched multiple frames into a pano, though that comes with its own limitations. Cropping can feel wrong, but if done intentionally, it can work. If you shoot with cropping in mind, your lens and composition choices will likely be different compared to cropping in software as an afterthought.
There are anamorphic lenses, which are basically pano lenses when the image is stretched out. However, I meant that if you shoot with cropping in mind, you’re going to discard a large part of the image, effectively zooming in on it. So you may want to use wider lenses to give more breathing room.
I really love the GFX for this reason, and while the aspect ratio crops are only effectively changing what you see in the EVF since the raw files capture the full image frame at 4:3, it makes composing so much fun. I make photos I’d never otherwise shoot simply because I’m seeing things differently. I’ve especially loved playing with 65:24 and longing for an xpan 🥲
I heard many people love this XPan mode on GF cameras! I never understood why more manufacturers don’t offer various aspect ratio crops in the viewfinder, or even custom ones.
my favourite is 645. unfortunately i have only one medium format like this, the others are 6x6. i've also set one of the digital cameras to 4:3 which is more or less the same. even the phone is set to 4:3.
Sounds like you found your sweet spot! I don’t know what 6x6 cameras you have, but you can install a 6x4.5 film back, or at least a viewfinder mask, in some of them.
I love this thoughtful approach to the topic. It's something that I have wrestled with over the years, and I've come to the conclusion that there's no one right ratio. I think you've reached that conclusion as well.
I've loved the look of 5:4 medium format, so cropped to that for a while. I also love a lot of the minimal 6x6 (1:1) square format, and this really challenges me to strip back everything apart from what is necessary in the image.
But then, I also love the wider expanses, and have favoured 4:3 for this. Sometimes I just leave the camera set as default.
TLDR - It all depends, and that's the joy of photography for me. There are no rules.
You’re right. Maybe trying to choose one aspect ratio isn’t the way to go. It’s a tool, just like a camera or a lens, and having two or more in your arsenal allows for more creativity.
I always shoot 2:3, but I have to say I like 1:1 too. I remember the good old Instagram days with the square format. It's something I wouldn't mind shooting again once in a while. It's definitely something to think about!
Very recognizable! Most photographers struggle with aspect ratios sooner or later, especially if they're after an expression that their camera (or the one at hand) doesn't offer. My MO is to envision the ideal aspect ration for what I want to convey and approach it as close as possible, which sometimes means heavy cropping or framing the subject very differently than what seems logical. 1:1, 4:3, 4:5, 16:9 are all ratios I use regularly for the 'finished product'.
Interesting article. I don't crop my images for years, but we can try to consider cropping as a game. Trying to redefine the scene help to redefine our "eye" when we are watching in the viewfinder. Sorry for my bad English, greetings from Italy.
I recently discover that IMAX aspecto ratio is almost 4:3, like very old movies and TV sets LOL (at least Dune 2 is) 3:2 looks nice horizontally but in vertical is too... vertical. I'm not afraid of cropping a little to improve composition or clean the borders, but sometimes 4:3 makes the trick. Or maybe is just me doing Street photography with a hacked compact for years.
My go-to aspect ratios are 3:4 or 4x5 (6x7) as well as 1:2 and 3:1 panoramic. The 2:3 aspect ratio feel for me like "nothing". It don't hold the nice aspects as you find with 3:4 and 4x5 when you want a rectangle format that have that "typical" photo feel. They are not too wide, not too narrow. If I want that wide feel the 2:3 also fall flat on it's face, and I find that most often the 1:2 is what I need, and when I really want that expansive look I go for the 1:3. Also I love having the aspect ratio backed in when I shoot. Like you get with for example with the Nikon D800, and of course with analog medium. And when it comes to having a baked in crop for the raw-files I don't subscribe to the thought that you crop later in the "darkroom". For me, that's for "monkeys" (as in the saying: give a monkey enough time, and it will, at some point, turn out Shakespear.) I want to compose my image in the field, not on a computer. Also it boils down to skill for me. Getting things right when I shoot the image so I have the most resolution for my image, and don't waste it because I need to crop down later.
Is there “A” perfect aspect ratio? Or is there a perfect aspect ratio for every photo? Or would the perfect aspect ratio mirror the Golden Section?
Does perfection even exist? ;)
Perfect response!
I have too be struggling with this recently. I have been playing with 1:1 ratio as well as the 16:9 ratio. I am wanting to do an entire project were the 1:1 are black and white and the 16:9 are color. I am in the planning stage at this time. My end goal is to produce a zine with the photographs. I have yet to make a zine only photo books from family vacations.
I thought about a similar concept too - square images are on a single page while panoramic images are a spread across two pages. The problem with that was that the center, which would fall on the binding, is the most important part in many of my compositions.
Outstanding article, and love the photos to illustrate these different ratios! I dont know why...but I've been cropping alot to 4x3 lately...like some others mentioned also. for some reason it just feels like a good middle ground between my square and 3x2. maybe its a phase I'll grow out of one of these days? :)
I generally shoot 2:3. However, i do like to use the 1:2.35 for locations that warrant it. Thank you for this article.
Very nice article!
I agree that 3x2 is an uncomfortable middle ground for which we have to blame a famous German engineer. 😉
Some ratios seem to come more natural than others. For example, I really like square images, but find them very hard to compose with intent.
With modern high resolution sensors, camera makes should just build square sensors and allow the aspect ratio to be set freely by the photographer.
Not even a square sensor—ideally, it should be a circular sensor!
Yes, but I assume this to be an engineering challenge 😀
I absolutely love the wide cinema shots that come from xpans and the likes. I’ve never tried it myself but would love to. I could crop a 35mm image but I don’t know, it just feels wrong doesn’t
For some scenes, I stitched multiple frames into a pano, though that comes with its own limitations. Cropping can feel wrong, but if done intentionally, it can work. If you shoot with cropping in mind, your lens and composition choices will likely be different compared to cropping in software as an afterthought.
That’s true. It would be great if a pano style lens existed - I don’t think it does?
There are anamorphic lenses, which are basically pano lenses when the image is stretched out. However, I meant that if you shoot with cropping in mind, you’re going to discard a large part of the image, effectively zooming in on it. So you may want to use wider lenses to give more breathing room.
The mystery continues
I really love the GFX for this reason, and while the aspect ratio crops are only effectively changing what you see in the EVF since the raw files capture the full image frame at 4:3, it makes composing so much fun. I make photos I’d never otherwise shoot simply because I’m seeing things differently. I’ve especially loved playing with 65:24 and longing for an xpan 🥲
I heard many people love this XPan mode on GF cameras! I never understood why more manufacturers don’t offer various aspect ratio crops in the viewfinder, or even custom ones.
Right? It seems like such an easy feature to add on any mirrorless camera.
Interesting read. Thank you!
my favourite is 645. unfortunately i have only one medium format like this, the others are 6x6. i've also set one of the digital cameras to 4:3 which is more or less the same. even the phone is set to 4:3.
Sounds like you found your sweet spot! I don’t know what 6x6 cameras you have, but you can install a 6x4.5 film back, or at least a viewfinder mask, in some of them.
a film back it's not possible: liubitel 166 and the folding nettar. i'm ok with them in 6x6
I love this thoughtful approach to the topic. It's something that I have wrestled with over the years, and I've come to the conclusion that there's no one right ratio. I think you've reached that conclusion as well.
I've loved the look of 5:4 medium format, so cropped to that for a while. I also love a lot of the minimal 6x6 (1:1) square format, and this really challenges me to strip back everything apart from what is necessary in the image.
But then, I also love the wider expanses, and have favoured 4:3 for this. Sometimes I just leave the camera set as default.
TLDR - It all depends, and that's the joy of photography for me. There are no rules.
You’re right. Maybe trying to choose one aspect ratio isn’t the way to go. It’s a tool, just like a camera or a lens, and having two or more in your arsenal allows for more creativity.
I always shoot 2:3, but I have to say I like 1:1 too. I remember the good old Instagram days with the square format. It's something I wouldn't mind shooting again once in a while. It's definitely something to think about!
It’s just so much different than 2:3, and it’s a good way to exercise some creativity!
I agree. Actually I think you can be much more creative with 1:1. It has a more “arty” feel to it.