What's your favorite aspect ratio?

JJJPhoto

Regular
I'm curious what most shooters out there prefer in terms of aspect ratios. Many cameras out there let you choose from a wide range of aspect ratios while shooting and I've been wondering what people actually use.

I personally prefer the 4/3 (3:4) ratio because it's close to what I need for 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 inch prints (my most common print sizes) and it's perfect for the iPad (which has a 3:4 ratio screen).

If I owned a camera that had the option of selecting a 4:5 ratio then I might choose that since it's perfect for 8x10 and 16x20.

I know some people like the 3:2 ratio since it's the exact ratio needed for 4X6 inch prints (the most popular print size in the US).

Of course, back in my medium format film days I loved the 1:1 ratio.
 
4:3

The interesting thing is that I've found that cameras that default to 4:3 offer the 3:2 format whereas cameras that default to 3:2 don't offer 4:3. I see a certain bias going on :mad:
 
I'm a fan of the extremes. I don't print so I'm not constrained by print sizes. I love widescreen 16:9 (or even 2.35:1), but I also really love 1:1. I usually shoot in whatever is native for the camera and crop in post, but occasionally enjoy shooting in square format and composing for it.
 
For portrait orientation shots, I really like 4:3. That's also my preferred option for diagonally oriented shots (something I'm growing quite fond of), although 1:1 might be even better for that.
For landscape orientation shots, I prefer wider: 16:9 or, if I still want some height, 3:2. I'd love to have the option of 2.4:1 (the same aspect ratio as most movies in cinemas) without having to crop so much, but I suppose I'll just have to make panoramas to achieve that.
 
I also really love 1:1. I usually shoot in whatever is native for the camera and crop in post, but occasionally enjoy shooting in square format and composing for it.

I also enjoy shooting with the camera set to 1:1. However, I still find myself reflexively switching my grip from landscape to portrait...even though it doesn't make any difference.... :)
 
What Luke said. Either 2.5:1 or 1:1. 4:3 is the hardest for me to visualize easily. I shot my 4:3 cameras in 3:2 and the ratio is the only reason I haven't jumped on an OMD.

Gordon
 
I always shoot 4:3 on the Olympus because of Lightroom's quirk of not registering the whole 4:3 frame (which means that if I shoot 1:1 or whatever else, I can't recover the original 4:3 aspect in LR ... though I have to say I haven't checked if this is still the case in 4.1, I'll check it when I have a moment).
Mostly I leave it at 4:3 but sometimes I'll visualise a scene as 5:4 or 3:2 and shoot with the intention to crop to that ratio in PP.
I have noticed that I do crop to 5:4 reasonably often in PP even when I haven't pre-visualised that aspect. Dunno what that's all about ...

The Bessa I always leave set at 3:2 ... :)
 
I shoot raw on OMDS / Olympus and Canon, which gives me 4:3 on the Olys and 3:2 on the Canon. In post processing I usually crop to 3:2, except for landscapes (usually 16:9) and portrait mode (usually 3:4). I have recently been introduced to the 65:24 / XSPAN ultra wide aspect ratio and am playing around with it for landscape, or seascape shots.
 
Old thread, but still a topic of interest. I am weird, in that I really hate cropping from whatever the native format of the camera is - when I compose I usually compose with the camera's native aspect ratio in mind, that informs the photo I take. For me, changing the aspect ratio later on equates to an artistic edit that I usually just don't feel confident doing. If a photo needs cropping I usually maintain the same aspect ratio unless it really spoils some element of the image. So the odd needed crop is usually the only reason I change from the default.
 
Having used 4:3 since 2008 I feel really stucked with that. Great for portrait orientation. But for landscape orientation I use to crop to something like 16:9 anyway. This year I got a 3:2 (native) system so now I am slowly adapting to that. Great for landscape orientation which I use most. Very narrow in portrait though, so now I have to crop away much here instead :) matter of taste but I think 4:3 is still my favorite. Ask me again in a few years and there might another answer :)
 
Old thread, but still a topic of interest. I am weird, in that I really hate cropping from whatever the native format of the camera is - when I compose I usually compose with the camera's native aspect ratio in mind, that informs the photo I take. For me, changing the aspect ratio later on equates to an artistic edit that I usually just don't feel confident doing. If a photo needs cropping I usually maintain the same aspect ratio unless it really spoils some element of the image. So the odd needed crop is usually the only reason I change from the default.
Cropping while maintaining aspect ratio is basically using digital zoom. How is that less of an artistic edit than changing the aspect ratio? Especially as, assuming you're using a zoom lens at something other than its long end, you could've zoomed in while taking the shot, chose not to at the time of shooting, and then choose to do so digitally after all? At least the aspect ratio is not something you could've changed at the time of shooting, so changing if after the fact is inevitable if you feel a certain aspect ratio suits the shot best.

More than 10 years after the original post, I still find 4:3 a more wholesome, less prescriptive aspect ratio than 3:2, and especially for vertically oriented shots I still tend to prefer squarer aspect ratios to thinner ones. But I'll use whatever I think suits an image best. Given that I'm a prime only shooter, I sometimes turn the camera to vertical orientation for a horizontal shot or vice versa, if I want to visualize what a 1.5x crop would look like (i just crop "sideways" and ignore the long ends, much easier than visualizing a crop on all sides). 24mp is plenty for a 1.5x crop top anyway.
 
2:3, 3:2, and 2.35:1 must be my top faves. The cinemascope is for my cinemaphile tendencies and I tend to letterbox it to 16:9 so that the intent of the crop is communicated straightforward.
 
I don't know whether I've a real favourite. It depends. I rarely do taller than 3:4 on portrait orientation, any taller and it usually just looks too thin to my eyes. Otherwise I use anyting from 2:3 to 1:1. Recently I found the 5:7 quite nice on many of my landscape images, it kinda cuts just nicely in between the 4:3 that's often too narrow and 3:2 that can be a bit too wide.

I don't do much anything wider than 3:2. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that it's not easy to find readymade matting and frames for anything wider, and I basically shoot for print, not screen. The Xpan format does look interesting though, I usually like it when I see it.
 
Back
Top