Aspect Ratios.

[Dave in Wales]

Just braved the cold and frosty and came back with frozen fingers and 43 images in 4:3 AR.

Vast majority would have been better suited to 3:2 AR, insomuch as the 'landscape' shots could have done with a bit off the top and bottom and a bit on each end to give a more panoramic type of effect. Vertical shots I found better suited to 3:2 AR.

I shot a couple of images of the same scene and was surprised to see the difference in the view, perspective looked different, the 3:2 is more open.

It's better seen in camera flicking from one image 4:3, to the next 3:2.

I was in the same position for both shots.

What also surprised me was, this is really basic stuff and here I am after 60 years'ish playing around AR's......Ho-Hum.

SOOC

4:3
P1200282-4,3 by Dave in Wales, on Flick

3:2
P1200281-3,2 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

[MJ224]

Never given these ratios much though. I can happily create 16:9 from the 4:3. I think the 4:3 uses more of the sensors pixels...…...Must check......…..

[Dave in Wales]

The best demonstration is to flick from one to the other in camera to see it properly Mark.

And you are correct about the pixels.

[Graham_of_Rainham]

Have to admit, I quite like square as it makes me think more about composition.

[MikeOxon]

A book about the Rolleiflex (6x6 cm) argued that the square format made best use of the circular image projected by the lens and, therefore, allowed the user to crop the result in the darkroom as required, with minimal loss of image quality.

[Dave in Wales]

A 1:1 AR would certainly put a stop to the contortions necessary to take a 'portrait'

[MikeOxon]

As I understand it, the 35mm 3:2 format arose almost by accident, when Oscar Barnack designed a 'stills' camera to use movie film stock. Each frame used the space normally occupied by two movie frames. Many commentators felt that the resulting 24x36 mm format was too wide and some cameras (e.g. Wrayflex) used a 24x32 mm format to 'correct' this.

The truth, of course, is that there is no 'catch all' format, as a visit to an art gallery will soon confirm. It took me a long time to break away from always printing in standard sizes - initially by cutting machine prints with scissors before laying them out 'artistically' on an album page.

Digital image processing now allows us to crop however we like and I would encourage anyone to think about doing so. I suggest that Dave's 3:2 photo could take a bit more cropping of the ceiling to result in something like the 16:9 TV wide-screen format.

[wanderer]

A friend used to use the Olympus Trip which was half frame on 35mm and shot portrait in the natural holding position, therefore contortions for landscape!
I do like cropping out excess but shoot 4:3 all the time and make the change in post processing.

[DerekW]

You have just proved that the best format is a square one - oe even a circular one so that the required image is selected at image editing time.

[MikeOxon]

Since silicon wafers start out as circular disks, there's an opportunity for someone to make their mark - Olympus, are you listening?

[OM USer]

Yes it looks better cropped - I always leave cropping to post... and mostly I just leave it.

[pdk42]

I crop almost every image I take, so the native aspect ratio really doesn't matter a lot for me. If I had to choose a native format, it would be square. A square m43 sensor using the longest side - 18mm x 18mm would be great. It would be the easiest way to get a higher resolution sensor without any new tech at all (take the 20Mp sensor and add some more of the same pixel stuff top and bottom and you'd get 27Mp). No need for new lenses - just a slightly larger body.

[Crazy Dave]

I do a lot of street portraiture on my EM 5 Mk 1. I resize many of my out-of-camera, portrait-oriented images making the width 28 cms wide. This gives a pro-rata height of 37.42 cms. I then crop the height from either top, bottom or both to a length of 35 cms which gives a powerful 5 x 4 aspect ratio. For photobooks, in my experience a square will usually suit both portrait and landscape images

David

[griffljg]

If I am posting on social media, I usually prefer using the 3:2 aspect ratio. In my personal opinion, it just looks better and makes the most efficient use of available space. If I want to look at landscapes on my computer monitor, then 16:9 is the best for me. How to solve this dilemma on an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mk II?

I set slot one (the fast slot) to save as "LSF + RAW" and slot two as "RAW". This lets me have a high resolution jpeg file available for immediate posting to social media at a 3:2 aspect ratio and the RAW file (and backup) for post processing (using Capture One PRO) when I get home, where I can crop and fiddle with exposures to my heart's content.

[DerekW]

I thought one needed a smart phone to take pictures for use on social media

[Jax]

I thought one needed a smart phone to take pictures for use on social media

Nope... you don't

Jax

[griffljg]

I thought one needed a smart phone to take pictures for use on social media

Take a look at the OI.Share app for iOS and Android.

[Tram]

Does it sound a bit naïve saying I don't really think about it much if at all.
Depending on what I do with the photo its easy enough to crop in Lightroom
Prefer to use whatever looks right for the particular subject, not that keen on square now I've thought about it

[MJ224]

Me too..:-)

[MJ224]

The aspect ration only effects the JPG's I think. With RAW you get the whole sensor's worth, like it or not......……….

[griffljg]

Correct! That is why I store jpeg images at the same aspect ratio at which I may want to upload immediately. I know that I have the raw images for "proper" post processing when I get home.