Aspect ratios

[wanderer]

Wornish is right. Crop to whatever you want. I like square for certain things e.g. flowers. For panoramas I shoot each shot in portrait with a 30% overlap and don't go more than 11 shots. 6 or 7 is ideal. Interestingly the proportion of A4 is halfway between 4:3 & 3:2!

In the examples shown at the start of this thread I feel the 65:24 one looks weighed down by not enough sky, but that is just my taste.

[pdk42]

I have, in storage, a complete X-pan kit. I loved the format and used it for about half my transparencies. It is not just for landscapes, even e.g. detail of traction engines respond well.

Panoramic specialists tend to prefer 3:1.

Harold

Do you have any example photos from the Xpan Harold? Would be interesting to see them.

[MikeOxon]

I often ‘stitch’ landscape shots to reach a wide format. It suits a lot of subjects. Shots taken with ultrawide lenses also often benefit from top/bottom crops. It sometimes works in vertical format too, with trees or church spires, etc. I frequently crop during post- processing to suit each individual image. There’s no one size that suits all.

[pdk42]

I agree with all that Mike. My interest in 65:24 really was sparked by reading about the Xpan. It's interesting to go looking for subjects that might suit this sort of wide format. There are surprisingly many subjects that suit it.

[Harold Gough]

Do you have any example photos from the Xpan Harold? Would be interesting to see them.

Nothing digitised but maybe during the winter months...

Harold

[Ross the fiddler]

Just noticed this thread today & we went back to Scenic World (Blue Mountains) & so I tried the 65:24 crop on this photo that I took today from the Cableway car riding back up out of the valley. I think it works OK for this scene, but does change the mood of the photo.


JC128799(CO22)-adj-cr by Ross, on Flickr

This is the full photo.


JC128799(CO22)-adj by Ross, on Flickr

[Ian]

Yes, they are almost completely different pictures.