Shoot whatever format that uses all the pixels of your camera and crop afterwards.

@bubbajones5905

29 күн бұрын

Exactly!

@bobair2

22 күн бұрын

That is how I do it too. Make full use of all of your camera pixels and crop in post.

@lichtloper

21 күн бұрын

In the old days of 35mm film I used 2x3 (couldn't afford 4,5x6). Now, with my Oly M1ii, I'm happy to use 3x4 most of the time, because it is so well balanced and leaves roo m for vertical elements.

@kentsoderstrom8378

2 күн бұрын

Not all cameras do that. For instans my Leica D-lux 6 got 4:3, 3:2, 1:1 and 16:9. The 4:3 is the standard and gives about 24mm eqv to fullframe. The 16:9 actually gives the most and about 21mm eqv. Even though it supposed to be 4:3 formated sensor. I’m not 100% sure, but I have a feeling that the 1:1 also gave more headroom than the 4:3 format. So that camera uses the lens streched to the max for different formats.

@kentsoderstrom8378

2 күн бұрын

Cropping afterwards is a bit lazy. Make the thinking in the field when you see the subject, not adjusting at home in the computor.

As full-frame and APS-C sensors have a 3:2 aspect ratio this is what you should also shoot with in order to fully use the format. Afterwards one can still decide to crop to another ratio.

@bolleolympus

Ай бұрын

Agree!

@timothykieper

Ай бұрын

I was just thinking the same thing. The whole discussion seems rather irrelevant with digital images and editing software ?? Also, with some genres of photography it is not always possible to compose for the final image; sports, wildlife, street, etc.

@mikejankowski6321

Ай бұрын

If you shoot RAW, don’t all cameras capture the full sensor anyway? If you process to replicate the jpeg instead of use it SOOC, you have an opportunity to change your mind.

@Semeyaza

19 күн бұрын

I doesn't work for me. Cropping in post in almost never as precise as composing in the format I want (usually 1:1). I like to think my images in the format I'll end using and frame them on location to be sure I have exactly what I want. Obviously it's just a personal preference. 😉

I always shoot in the format that yields the most resolution and options to reframe later, on most of my cameras this is 3:2. How I reframe later is an entirely different story. I may even reframethe shoot to a non-traditional format because it "works" with the subject.

@jamesburne3893

18 күн бұрын

Re-framing to a non-traditional format is a bit of a cop-out in my opinion.

@rayspencer5025

18 күн бұрын

@@jamesburne3893 I suppose some said that about Frederick Church and his painting formats.

@jamesburne3893

18 күн бұрын

@@rayspencer5025 I just think it’s a bit messy to be too flexible with photo sizes these days. I like the discipline of framing the shot properly to start with and not risk losing resolution when cropping. With respect, my point was about aspect ratios in photography and traditional ones are more convenient when displaying your work on different digital platforms. If you are a successful fine art photographer, who works in a similar way to an 1800’s painter then congratulations. Chances are you are not. Happy to be proved wrong. Have a nice weekend

@rayspencer5025

18 күн бұрын

@@jamesburne3893 I am an old photographer that predates any electronics in cameras, not even a meter. Every shot used to cost serious money, and you only had a few, and whatever film you put in the camera was what you were forced to work with. Photographers have always cropped images either through their choice of lenses or later while processing. I tend to like non-traditional framing because it is it keeps things non-repetative, and some images are much more visually engaging. Plus, some uses require multiple formats. If you precisely frame shot for a client as a 3X2, but then he wants 4x5, and 8.5X11, and 9X16.....🤣.

@jamesburne3893

17 күн бұрын

@@rayspencer5025 It also depends whether you are taking pictures for fun, or ‘to order’. I have to admit I like to stick to a structure as it disciplines me to learn to shoot better. Although since this conversation I have picked up my camera and for fun I will try to shoot 4:3 in portrait mode and 16:9 landscape. I always found 3:2 a little oddly proportioned.

I'm a quadratic aficionado. 😉 Meaning I like to shoot mostly 1:1 pictures. Fell in love with the format when I got my first TLR a long time ago and never looked back really. I do mostly landscapes and some abstracts and even if most people find the square format "limiting", I find it's liberating exactly for its limits.

Excellent 👌 content. Thanks. Love the 3:2 for horizontal landschapes and the 4:3 for vertical landscapes.

@nickshepherd8377

Ай бұрын

Totally agree!

There is a reason why 3:2 format exist. Its the nicest format cowering wide landskap. The greatest painters also used it for the most landskaps paints.

@ChrisThe1

Ай бұрын

disagree. 4:3 is superior

@petrub27

Ай бұрын

3:2 is horrible

@tubularificationed

Ай бұрын

Would be interesting to learn about the reasoning - why 3:2 was invented in photography - as the preferred choice for what we call "full frame" today, - why it became popular and dominant so quickly in modern times (already in film days). Whereas 4:3 seemed a temporary throwback introduced for technical reasons, the vacuum television tubes (and computer CRT monitor tubes) being safe and robust (and cheap) if their format was short, i.e. nearer to a square. As soon as these old vacuum tube technology became obsolete and replaced with LCD/LED/OLED, i.e. relieved from technical boundaries for the format choice, then the format became instantly wider again, even surpassing 3:2.

@GS-vb3zn

Ай бұрын

I’m not sure any of that is true.

@TheGotoGeek

Ай бұрын

@@tubularificationed3:2 came about because Ernst Leitz turned cinema film sideways when he invented the Leica. Which in turn helped invent photojournalism in the hands of Henri Cartier-Bresson. For decades 35mm wasn’t considered a serious format for photography, because you couldn’t do large prints with it. It was referred to as “miniature format”, only good for newspapers and small prints. When the Japanese companies started making mass-market compact cameras in the 50s, they went with 35mm because it made a much better travel format than 120: the cameras were smaller, and you could get more frames on a smaller roll, and the target market didn’t care about the lost image quality. And then CaNikon started making professionals quality cameras and lenses for sport and PJ work. In the mind of the public, this turned 35mm into the professional format, even though art and fashion were still using the largest cameras they could carry, per the advice of Ansel Adams. So that’s how 35mm became regarded as the profession format: an accident of history. There’s no special benefit to it, and in many ways it’s pretty awkward.

Great topic. Helpful perspective!

Very helpful. And those sample images are wonderful!

Excellent video. Thanks.

Thank you for an excellent video. I shoot mainly film in 645, 4x5 & 1:1 square format. My favorite by far is square format! Love it!

Excellent pedagogy AS USUAL !!! 👌👌👌 Thank you very much for sharing you knowledge and phylosophy.

Another great video! Superb album back drop!😆

Excellent as always. Shoot m4/3 so always 4:3. But now you have me thinking to try 1:1. Experimenting keeps things interesting. Thanks

Great video!

thanks man, i will be trying something different

This is a very interesting topic . For me 3/2 is dynamic, 4/3 is balanced and 1/1 is very stable. 4/3 is the easiest ( a bit boring sometimes) . I tend to prefer the 3/2 and 1/1 images of this video. You need a challenge…

2:32 topic starts

As someone who lives quite locally, was good seeing Rochester castle pop up on my screen. Food for thought regarding the formats.. cool and educational video

Thank you for explaining😁

Excellent and informative. I tend to use 3:2 and 1:1; I have the X-T5 so will try the others you suggest. Thanks.

Great food for thought. I shoot both APS-C and 4/3 and will often end up using 16x10 and 1x1. Definitely subject driven. I shoot a lot of birds and wildlife and will shoot to have the subject fill the vertical and use the horizontal to display context something I find lacking in wildlife/bird photography. I particularly like 1x1 for insect macro work. It really punches up the small things becoming large concept while still providing enough context to verify the in the wild feel. I'm going to step outside my box and intentionally work with other formats to shake up my thinking. Thank you.

Putting aside my 35mm film, medium and large format days, I shot 4x3 for so long on my micro four thirds kit it became my default for anything else I shot with. I also liked that it was the same as my iPhone, so my eye was always 'in' whichever device I used. I also shoot 1x1 whenever the scene tells me it works, possibly my favourite format. I'm also guilty of shooting some 16x9 when I fancy a shot for the desktop screen. Thanks for posting.

Two points: 1. I finally recognize an album cover used in your backgrounds. 2. I agree with you Craig, 1X1 is my favorite aspect ratio, 4x5 a close second.

Another fine vlog. I like 4:3 and 1:1 and try to compose in camera rather in processing, and yes there are two reasons. 1 you and 2 my Olympus.

Very interesting and informative ! Have a Fuji film camera with aspect ratios also but have not really considered using them ! Will now .. thank you for pointing them out

I definitely gravitate to the 4:3 aspect ratio, mainly because i like the proportions when shooting in portrait. My most used alternate aspects would be 1:1 and 16:9 (seldom 3:2) I will have to try some 16:9 portrait shots. Thanks for the non-camera specific photo talk.

Having used 6x6 film cameras for countless years, I frequently shoot these days with my Pentax K-1 set to 1x1 format. I love it particularly for B&W portraits.

I too love the 1:1, for me it is a natural format where images look perfect. I use it for street work as well. I agree it does take a bit more work at times to compose but I've found it to be automatic ALSO your opening images of the castle were not only excellent, but a great reminder on how to use the scene completely and remember that streets, signs and such can work

This was fascinating. Inspires me to go out and change my default 3:2 ratio on my Sony A7Sii. When I use that camera for video, I have on the 2.35:1 aspect ratio guides, now I want to check what other guides it has and do some of the ones shown here. 1:1 looked really interesting to me to try and so does 4:3. Great video, great examples.

Great stuff! Now I’m thinking how to easily change my crop. Seems like a bit of a tedious thing in searching the menu quickly. I guess I might set up a button ….. thanks again, and thanks for the history lesson!

I like 3:2 and will stick to it.

Brilliant

Hi Craig, thanks for presenting us with the different Format Aspect Ratios, my favourite one is 4.3. It was nice to see the old PHOTOGRAPHY MONTHLY MAGAZINE from 2009, a blast from the past. And to see the Nikon D3X on the front cover brings back memories. The Police Album is the best Album you've displayed. Nice romantic music you had in the opening few minutes 🤣Ha Ha. Thanks Craig. 😊

Good video. I struggled a bit when switching from M43 to full frame.

This was so so informative and I’ve been shooting for over 20 years

After far too many years of shooting film then digital at 3:2, I recently got a square framed (1:1) 120 based TLR, I actually find it quite challenging framing with it and it is taking some getting used too, very satisfying though! (oh any you get afr more people come up and ask you about your camera when shooting with something from the 1950s rather than something more modern)

Love 1:1 once in a while. Takes me back to my Mamiya C330 days. But,, sure had fun with 127 film back when too.

I've never gone really wide, 16:9 was the maximum so far. I should try these 2:1 / 3:1 too. Thanks for very informative video. The part on MF 6x6 / 6x4.5 and magazines was very interesting.

I love 1:1, I mainly shoot 3:2 (film) and 4:3 (digital), I love panoramas and either stitch or use a Horizon. I like the 110 film which is also roughly 4:3 I do not crop mauch in post as I do not print at home. Thanks for an informative video!

Years ago I started producing photo books. By now the book is the product, the single image just a step on the way to it. My books are square format so 4x5 allows still some destinct orientation in the single frame and makes most out of the real estate on the page. (I am not so fond of 6x7) 1x1 obviously works even better and 65x24 (GFX) is great for double pages.

Thanks for this overview! I will never understand why modern digital cameras re not equipped with square sensors by default to make the most of the lens' image circle, and then offer in-camera previews for different aspect ratios.

@e6Vlogs

Ай бұрын

Yep, totally agree.

Strictly speaking, there are an infinite number of aspect ratios available via cropping! Stretching, shrinking, moving, and even rotating the image area to make a composition most suitable for the subject and your intent in capture is one of the greatest challenges, and has no right answer. Different people will gravitate to different solutions, but the visual principles you covered will apply nonetheless. This was a very nice exploration delivered pleasantly as always.

Thought provoking as usual, Craig. Thanks. I wish cameras would add a 3:1 crop option to their menus. It would be nice to visualize the pano in the viewfinder vs other methods.

@e6Vlogs

29 күн бұрын

Totally agree

As usual a very nice and informative. For me it’s 6X6, 4x5 and 6X17 on film

@e6Vlogs

Ай бұрын

Good choice!

I shoot photo in 16:9 only. If I decide to keep some of them to view on big screen 4K TV, I would reduce the size of them to 3840*2160 so that the photo can be displayed with most clear and sharp image due to the match of point to point between the photo and monitor resolution. BTW, I love your true color photo and video very much.

Aspect ratio changes the rythm of the image collection, like music and different rythms. Square and center subjects for slow and peaceful, rectangle and off center for more dynamic expressions. Extended panorama for wide and somewhat boring (but still fascinating). And so on... 😊

I choose a format which allows 5x7 prints, 8x10 inch prints, and 11x14 inch prints WITHOUT any cropping necessary. I love to essentially crop in camera, and get things right from the very start, rather than spending loads of time after the fact getting it right. A wise thing to do is just to NEVER put anything very near the edge of the frame which you don't want to be unavoidable cut out later on, such as a person's arm.

I tend to use 3:2 mostly but do like the 1:1 ratio, like The Police 😊.

New subscriber this evening. Great video, but my XT4 & XS20 are somewhat restricted in choices, but still enough to go out & experiment with.

I also prefer to shoot in 4:3 format, it's easier for me and looks more harmonious. Especially vertically 3:2 doesn't work for me at all. I started with MFT in 4:3 and now use Fujifilm X-T5 and some Canon cameras that also allow 4:3 format. Sometimes i also use 1:1, but i find it very difficult and a real challenge. People who say you can shoot in 3:2 format and then crop on the computer afterwards haven't understood that it's about deciding on the format and using it when shooting and composing the photo. That's the only way to deal with the format creatively. That's only possible if the camera allows the format in question. Photography happens on location and not afterwards on the computer.

Hi Craig, following your channel since a while now and always find it interesting and entertaining. Anyhow, for when in landscape format I have a preference for 3:2 but for the portrait orientation I prefer the 3:4.

My favorite, hands down, is 3:2. I shoot almost everything in this aspect ratio. There are some images that really benefit from a different AR, though, and I will change to that when it is called for. I will sometimes crop to a non standard AR when the image requires it.

Taking photos is just a hobby for me, and the end destination is my computer screen, usually as desktop backgrounds. That leads to 16:9 as the default format. I'm shooting in both raw and jpg, and the raw files captures the whole sensor anyway.

Best attribute of the GFX is the native 4x3 aspect ratio and the ability to change to multiple aspect ratios with the push of a button. The wide panoramic aspect (65x24) is a favourite and still delivers 50 megapixels. Funny, never used 3x2 on the GFX.

@atogweoghieaga2205

Ай бұрын

One of the reasons am looking to invest in GFX 100S II just released. I have always been dreaming of large format, I mean who wouldn’t want to own a Phaseone

@steve-4045

19 күн бұрын

I have a 100S and always shoot Raw and use the whole 4:3 frame and then crop in post, even when using an adapted FF lens. If I choose other formats, does the Raw file still include the whole 4:3 frame, so you can change your crop in post? If so, then the other formats mainly just help you visualize in the viewfinder.

@stevemckenzie4731

19 күн бұрын

@@steve-4045 Yes, you still have all 102 megapixels to work with. I just prefer to crop in the filed.

@steve-4045

12 күн бұрын

@@stevemckenzie4731 If you have trouble previsualizing the crop, then seeing what the JPEG would look like could be helpful in the viewfinder.

interesting video at the start, i nearly turned off. looking back it seems to be quite wide angle showing off skies which then were not in the castle prints ( with the wonky street light. ) i think the format is fun. Thanks

I shoot street art and often in a narrow alley 3.2 work well.

Love 3:2, by far my favourite. Undoubtably the best for (horizontal) landscapes IMHO, although panoramic I love too. It best matches our own vision, 4:3 doesn't and whilst well suited for some portraits and architecture and such, I always find 3:2 tops it for natural landscapes. The one I just don't get for landscape is square 1:1, whilst it's OK for intimate, minimal or natural abstracts, for scenic landscape shots 3:2 always wins for me. I've been shooting for over 20 years and the number of square crops in my library is probably less than 20. Believe me I've tried square, but almost always revert to 3:2 or something near. Square is just, well, square.

@simonmaney3438

Ай бұрын

Agreed!! I like the idea of Micro4/3, smaller than my FF kit, something like the OM5 - but it's only 20mpix, and I would always have to crop to 3:2... So I don't go there.

My fav format 6x7 or 6x6 square

Brought up on film in 3:2 and 1:1, but today I shoot on a M4/3 camera mostly 4:3 in both horizontal and vertical as well as 16:9 and 1:1 but rarely 3:2. I do a little Panorama also for scenery.

I'm really enjoying that music. Where'd that come from? I'm a former view camera person and I love medium format so I love 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5. I've never been a fan of 2:3, not panoramic enough and not square enough, just an awkward in between. Nice to see someone addressing the format question.

Good shout-out for Charlie Waite - who I know you've mentioned before! May I also add Fay Godwin - another C500 user - 6x6 B&W photographer. As for my favourite format - it changes all the time. I used 1x1 (6x6 !) quite a bit. And 4x3. And occasionally I will do a super wide crop in post. I like to chop and change.

I think 4:5 is probably my favourite but I also like 4:3, 1:1, 16:9 and 5:7 a lot more but I occasionally use 3:2 - it seems to work better when there are two subjects in the frame but generally it is either too wide or not wide enough.

Nice video, good content and well-presented. But I'll stick with 3:2 because I like it and never feel that my eyes are "forced" to scan left to right or down to up.

I find myself gravitating more and more to 4:3, 5:4 and 1:1 …. Finding myself tired of 3:2.

one little mistake there: fuji did have a lot of cameras that offer 3:4 before the XT5 my X30 for example actually shoots 3:4 as the default. the XH2 shoots 4:3, as well as the XT100 and XT200 too. plus, the GFX cameras also shoot 4:3 although they're medium format.

I shoot the following small format images: micro 4/3 APS-C 24x36mm full-frame I shoot images on 120 and 220 medium format film I shoot images on 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch large format film. I shoot images with the following aspect ratios: 1:1 6:7 4:5 3:4 2:3 1:2 1:3

I prefer 3:2 because it’s easiest to make 4x6 prints. 4:3 is great too with vertical shots but have to watch subject placement in the corners when going to print.

It would have be useful for you to mention what the resulting reduction in mega-pixel resolution would be when shooting in a format other than 3:2. Although, I assume that with the higher mega-pixels in current cameras it is less of an issue than it used to be.

If i had chance in camera i would shoot more in 5:4 and in 3:1. Whilst in post sometimes i turn in the first one, the second one is pretty much difficult to obtain o simply to find the possibility to crop correctly!

Must admit up to very recently where I am now trying different ratios in camera, I have shot default in MFT and cropped in post if I think an alternate ratio adds impact. I guess square and 16x9 have been the ones used mostly if I crop in post. It has always confounded me that standard print sizes, 6x4, 7x5, 8x6, 10x8, 12x10 etc are different ratios, so inevitably cropping is required to print, not forgetting A4, A2 etc.🤔

Hi Craig all my shots are in the 1 : 1 format nowadays and all in black & white suits me but probably not for everyone

I’ve been looking at LUMIX S-series cameras, which have a good choice of formats including 65:24 (XPAN). Not sure it’s enough reason to buy one but it does allow you to crop in camera. The other thing is thinking about presentation format. Most computers are 16:9 but my iPad is 4:3 (2000x1500) which is great for photos in that format.

@Zobeid

Ай бұрын

I have the Lumix S1R with a Sigma 24mm F2 lens. It's my digital XPan. Or should that be PanPan? The image quality is fantastic, anyhow.

I think the most practical aspect ratio would be 1: √2. That would allow for printing on A series paper without margins or crops.

Lately, I've been fond of 16:9 (my camera only shoots in 3:2). However, being a lover of spherical panoramas (360x180) myself, it is a 2:1 by default (specially if VR is to be created from that). However, these panoramas can be fit into 1:1 or other ratios depending on the projection style of the stitch (e.g. little planet or stereographic projection would typically fit into 1:1). All in all, I would probably say that it is seldom for me now to keep an image as shot without cropping it in post-process.

One of the great features of modern cameras is the ability to shoot different formats in camera. I can't understand why some photographers don't avail themselves of this capability. Personally, I find myself gravitating to 1:1, 4:3 and 16:9 and almost never 3:2 these days. Abstracts nature shots seem to work best in 1:1 format; 16:9 can work very well in woodland shots particularly when you are trying eliminate the sky and let's face it, this is closer to the way we actually see. The 4:3 format is just a good all rounder. I don't think 3:2 is bad and can clearly work in some situations, but too often I find myself framing up in 3:2 and it just doesn't sit right, even for landscapes. Other aspect ratios just seem more compelling.

I still shoot with 6x9 cameras ocassionally. Well, I also liked that format (instead of 6x7). In some cases, a panoramic composition (like Hassy XPan/Fuji 617) gives stronger effect instead of using wide angle. Fortunately Fuji GFX provides a 65:24 mode. Hey, also more cost effective than shooting film :D

Just the video for me 😂 I never ever change the format in camera and I also never change the format in post. As I only shoot FF, crop, and 35mm it’s all the same and I like that. But to rectify myself I will get a different formatted medium format film camera someday (if it will become a 6x9 forget that comment). Lastly, definitely the worst picture format to exist is 16:9. I don’t know why but it disgusts me. And also I can’t decide if 1:1 is the second worst or the second best format.

I use 3 formats all based on film cameras from my past. 5x7" negs were more pleasing than 4x5", yet 1:1 can be very strong. Thete is no single format that best

I do portrait & fashion mainly & I post & my clients post on instagram ...so now phones are getting taller & taller , so a tough one depends if I shoot horizontal or portrait , I like wide shots but Instagram does not ...so 3:2 as a rule

The decision needs to take when you press the shutter, I like so much it should write in capital and repeat again and again. I think is more natural in who start shooting film in past and less in the new generation.

Nikon dslr 3:2 default aspect ratio and iPhone default aspect ratio 4:3 lovely. Tried out yesterday the 16:9 and 1:1 but not impressed for either landscapes or people portraits . Seems a bit quirky to me or for professional photographers indulgence !

Personally, I shoot mostly 4:3 and 1:1, and very rarely use 3:2 at all - I think I am bored with it. On most digital cameras you can change your mind (if shooting Raw) in post unless you happen to shoot Nikon, where the actual Raw file is cropped to your chosen ratio and there's no way back.

Different aspect ratios are exactly why I shoot fujis gfx system, I mostly use 1:1, but being able to do xpan aspect ratio shots with a single shot and no aurochs g is Incredible, I so wish you could enter custom aspect ratios.

@e6Vlogs

Ай бұрын

I like the idea of custom ratios 👍

I tend to use what my camera offers natively - as I shoot mostly on film (4x5, 1:1, sometimes 6x9 or 3:2) or with an Olympus m43 camera (thus 4:3). I find 4:3 to be the most "universal" format, and 1:1 to be the easiest to compose with (contrary to "common belief"). 4x5 has become my favorite, as it has some "compactness", and it can be easily cropped to any format for printing. Same with 4:3, though. 1:1 is a bit tricky in this regard, as I tend to "fill the frame" and compose into it, so cropping only rarely works. 3:2 is actually my least favorite, 6x12 and 6x17 I haven't used so far (only the odd in-camera panoramic or stitched afterwards, but it's not "my thing").

I am a total hooligan and will not conform to boxes designed by people who can't use a decimal point. So I shoot 3:2 format and crop in post, yes it may end up a spurious size but I don't care because it's my photo. The photo will be printed, a mount and frame made to order. All part of the creative process, thinking outside the box.

I watched s8ne wudeos about a anamorphic lenses. Theyvare designed for shooting movies. It squeezes a wide picture of 2,39 on a 3:2 sensor. Instead of filming can use it for still shotts. In post you have to desqueese the frames. I Iike the cinematic look if this photos. You can shot snazing panoramas with one shot.

As a landscape photographer, 2.2:1 is my sweet spot, but can be problematic for subjects and resolution / stitching etc. So, 3:2 is my go-to. I feel it approximates my 'landscape vision'. Never liked 4:3, confirmed when I look at my smartphone images. They look 'fat', with too much sky or foreground, probably because of my inherent 3:2 compositional style.

Hi Craig Walked out this morning, I don't believe what I saw...... Hundred billion bottles washed up on the shore. Seems I'm not alone at being alone..... Hundred billion castaways, looking for a home. Ive sent you a message....... in a bottle. (Most wont have a clue what the heck Im on about) 😃

4:3 for me, simply because my cameras are all m43. I've played around with 1:1, 9:16 (portrait!) and even 3:2, but not enough to get a handle on them.

Sadly my Leica M11-P only shoots in 3:2. I do miss the option to change.

1:1 is really challenging and I feel it is also less satisfying for the viewer. any other format automatically guides the view in one particular direction. making the subject more obvious. in 1:1 it may not be clear what the image is all about. i very rarely use 1:1. i don't find it perfect but lacking dynamic and therefore often boring

Oddly enough the question about best format has been answered more than 2000 years ago: it should be (1+5^0.5)/2 =1.618... From the current formata the 3:2 is the closest to it but being overused looks too casual.

definitely food for thought. Will be experimenting today! :)

Forget about these rational aspect ratios! The true artist prefers 1.618:1.

Besides square, no fixed format makes sense. Choose the framing based on the content, simple as that.

@e6Vlogs

Ай бұрын

Output can be a factor too though. Printing for example

@nickgoogle4525

Ай бұрын

@@e6Vlogs Of course, or when you'd want to make a magazine full page photo. I was talking about the composition. In a frame the passepartout can also be helpful to be able to have freedom in the aspect ratio of the photo.

For me, it’s either 16:9 or 1:1

Currently full frame,latterly MFT default and 16x9....................................................

Landscapes

How about "no"

2:3 is a close approximation of a golden ratio. Artists have used it for centuries, so I'm afraid I have to disagree with your premise. However, any artist can choose whatever they choose.

@e6Vlogs

Ай бұрын

I've never ever used the golden ratio!