playing with photo aspect ratios
When I first began in photography the square format was intriguing. My Nikon FE used 35mm film (a 3:2 ratio) but many of the admired professionals were shooting with Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes, capturing square images (1:1 ratio) on 120 film. Eventually I worked up to a Yashicamat 124G, a twin lens Japanese cousin of the Rolleiflex. The big negatives would yield beautifully smooth tonal gradations and greater detail than my little 35mm negs. Plus I really liked shooting with the square format, looking at the world in a different way.
Over the years I’ve used different camera systems that have captured at 1:1, 3:2, 4:3, 4:5 and 6:7 aspect ratios. Many of these cameras have been used for commercial work and the native aspect ratio hasn’t mattered much since cropping for a layout is almost always inevitable. For personal work, though, I generally prefer to shoot tight, without cropping. For that reason I like to see through the viewfinder just what will appear in the final image. That’s been one of the deciding factors in how I would choose a camera system. Many prophotolife readers have commented that they feel the same way, preferring to not crop their images.
Well, I’ve wanted to gear up for shooting more personal work and the thought of the square format has been calling. I can think of a few ways to accomplish capturing a square image digitally. Purchasing a nice new medium format back to carry around for personal work is one thought. That solution is too expensive and cumbersome for my needs, though. Canon makes a focusing screen for the 5D with the square format marked on it. That’s a cool option. And Nikon’s point and shoot P6000 apparently has a 1:1 ratio choice built in (good on ya, Nikon!). The point and shoot option sounds appealing.
I could also use something like my current little Panasonic DMC-TZ3 and, since it doesn‘t have a viewfinder, tape off the sides of the LCD screen to form a square for framing. No, it doesn’t have a 1:1 choice built-in but it does offer 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 (widescreen movie format) as user selectable settings. That means the square crop would have to be created in post-production, something I’d admittedly prefer not to do, if possible, preferring to capture in the final format. I decided to grab the TZ3 and shoot some square images just to see what it would be like.
Family members had just finished fixing up an older house to sell and I stopped by to shoot photos just for fun, for both them and myself. The plan was to spend about an hour shooting square images with the point and shoot. The plan lasted about five minutes before it went off the rails.
I found something out: when the subject and camera offer so many options it was hard for me not to use them. Before long I was seeing things as not only 1:1 but also as 3:2, 4:3 and 16:9. The original plan was abandoned and, instead, I decided to exercise all of the camera’s options, in addition to the square.
Trying something new always involves this “discovery process”. It’s great to go into a situation with a good plan. It’s also valuable to realize when it’s time to be flexible. I just wasn’t ready to commit to one format, instead deciding to shoot freely, instinctively, and then making decisions after viewing the photos. But I did want to come out of the day with a clearer picture of an aspect ratio to pursue in future work.
It can easily be argued that most any image can be cropped a number of ways. And that leads us right into the fact that this is all subjective. It has to do with the individual taking the photographs and, certainly, different subjects can lend themselves to different formats. So what did I feel after seeing the photos?
 |
1:1 – imagine this, it didn’t have the intended effect at all. While it worked well it wasn’t something I felt as strongly about after pursuing it. You just never know till you try. |
 |
3:2 – this is the standard DSLR format and I’ve been shooting it off and on for 20+ years. It’s just time to do something a little different. |
 |
16:9 – this is a cool ratio, the widescreen movie format. It’s what we’re shooting all of our studio video work at so part of my week is spent working in 16:9 already. It feels a little extreme for this personal photography, though. |
|
|
4:3 – I wouldn’t have guessed it but this format appealed to me as soon as the images were reviewed. I did say this is all subjective, right? Such a conservative ratio and what I would consider the least distinctive of all. |
Giving it a minute of thought, maybe it’s because 4:3 is close to 5:4, a ratio associated with large format view cameras. Maybe this subject lends itself well to a kind of methodical “view camera” approach and that’s why it appeals. Thinking further, that’s kind of how I like to shoot.
So, after all the playing around, 4:3 has gained my favor as a result of this experiment. The Panasonic is now set to 4:3 to stay for awhile. Interestingly enough, that’s what makes maximum use of the sensor area on the camera with no cropping, unlike 3:2 or 16:9. That’s a bonus. The only time I’ve really shot 4:3 before was when using a 120 roll film back on my 4” x 5” camera that shot 6 cm x 8 cm images. I shot hundreds of rolls of transparency film through that back.
That was a long time ago but I’ve always looked back at that time fondly. It just goes to show you that what goes around comes around.
Great article. It actually inspired me to do my Picture of the Day (A Windy Sunday Afternoon in Autumn) in square format. I really want to get a 6×6 camera. I really miss film but 35mm doesn’t really give me any advantage over digital anymore.
Great. Now you’ve got me wanting to pull out my Yashica D and go pick up a couple of rolls.
Good stuff. I to like varied ratios, but you got me thinking to spend more time with it. I notices the LC3 I just got has ratios, but I think I like the idea of shooting full frame, and then cropping down.
I have a 5D MK2 on order, and like the idea of a square marked screen. Sounds like a good way to get in the groove of a format.
I much more love the 1:1 or the square format. Thanks Jim and more power!
Beautiful shot, admiller…and thanks for the link back! I’ve never seen swirling leaves captured like that.
Rick, I wish I still had a Yashica twin lens. They’ve come and gone over the years. I do have a ‘fridge full of 120, though.
It sounds like the 5D Mark II’s are shipping, let me know if you go for the square focusing screen, PPS. I need to get one of those cameras, too…such a deal for what you get.
Thanks, Jamir, I checked out your galleries… looking good!
What a great experiment. Although it doesn’t relate so much to commercial work, I’ve recently had a conversation about aspect ratios with some of my fellow pet photographers.
For portraiture, I think square is an easy (some might say lazy) format. This really kicks in when one presents nicely composed proofs in a 5:4 ratio only to have the client ask “Can I have some of that one in 4×6?” What’s worse is that they expect the composition to remain the same.
Yes, you could shoot loose and crop. but the composition will still change even if it is just relative to subject size.
A square format would make things a whole lot easier. Bigger or smaller, and the composition stays the same. That said, I’ll keep my D3 set to use the full frame. If I choose to go square, I can take the square from the center, or either end or a myriad of other spots right or left of center, composing to use the full height of the sensor.
I’m not sure the John Q. public will buy into the square prints so readily though.
Great post Jim, I’ve been asking myself about formats lately, since I’m enjoying shooting more and more with my Hasselblad (film), 1:1 feels so right that when I go to 3:2 feels cumbersome and somehow less descriptive, perhaps the compression of the image in a square (6×6) have this effect on me. Anyway this post has been really inspiring.
I wish my camera had a 5:4 viewing option. I tend to fill my frame when I shoot, and then realize later that what worked in 4:3 is not going to work in 5:4. And my clients, bless ‘em, seem to like the 8×10/11×14/16×20 prints. But suggest that they find an 8×12 frame at the local Frames R Us? Forget it! Just a little mask to block out the offending area in the viewfinder would be nice. I wouldn’t mind cropping the extra in post…just so I don’t compose with the extra area.
Ah well. Life can be so hard sometimes.
First of all, great site, and really appreciate the information you have posted, very educational, and helpful. And your videos are great!
I am always very frustrated with the issue of aspect ratio. Most of the pictures I take is just for viewing on monitors. But when I do print, the smallest size I go for is 5×7, the next size up is 8×10, most I’ll print at home, a small photo printer that can handle 8.5×11 size paper. To lower cost, I typically purchase pre-made frames and matts, these are usually done in certain sizes, reserving the “custom” frames for very special shots, since they can go up expoentially. Shooting 2×3 ratio, I will have to consider cropping, which some times affect my original composition.
BTW, how did you post process the sample pictures? I really like the “mood” they possess.
Regards,
dave
Anyone consider using a screen protector on the LCD (on-camera or studio display) and use modelling trim to “detail” in some aspect ratios? You could use these stickers to draw lines representing 3 or 4 different aspect ratios in different colors to keep it easy to work out in your head what you are looking at, and you’d have the visual cues to work in more than one aspect ratio for composition.
I don’t know if it’s a good idea or not, but seems like it might be useful. Any way to easily make a note of which you had in mind as you shoot each frame?
I wonder how hard it be be to DIY a custom reticle for different aspect ratios in the view-finder?
Forgive the brainstorming.
Chad
Wow, all of those photos look great. As was mentioned earlier by David Wong, your processing of those photos was great. Do you mind sharing what you used?
Taping the LCD works great for Live View, for sure.
The post-processing was all done in my new favorite program, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom!
. It makes a look like this pretty darn easy by using the Sepia Tone preset and adjusting the curves. I was really happy with them, considering they started life as point-n-shoot jpegs.
Leave your response!
Search Prophotolife.com
Recent Articles
Most Popular Posts
Further Reading
Pages
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
Most Commented
Tags