Do you shoot in 3:2 format by default?

[pake]

I always shoot in 3:2 but sometimes I crop portraits to 4:3. And some landscape photos just look better in 16:10 - or even 16:9.

 

[tkbslc]

I've found that 4:3 crops more easily to 5x7, 8x10, Letter, 11x14, and 16x20. Those are very common medium print sizes. I thought I would miss 3:2, but I always hated destroying my composition to crop heavily to these common sizes.

 

[T N Args]

135 format is a bit unnatural IMHO. Goodness knows why they chose it way back when. It's way wrong for vertical aspect shooting. No other camera formats are so wide. Why would they? So much wasted space (calling it wasted resolution is wrong, it's space. Resolution applies only within a predefined frame).

Go to your national or state art museum, and check out what proportions were chosen by the visually sophisticated masters. 4 to 3 or squarer is dominant.

Video has different needs. Early movies were 4 to 3 also, but cinema audiences enjoy the widescreen effect, plus the rise of the action movie meant a lot of side ways movement of both camera and subject. Widescreen accommodates this.

Personally I am very flexible. I take the photo first and then consider the proportion later. I think my widescreen monitor is influencing my choice of frame. I sometimes think that I should have a square monitor so the subject stays the same size no matter which edge I trim (from square).

 

[woof]

Hmm, fit the format to the use.

Long ago standardized on 6x8 for headshots/portraits framed for hanging on the wall. Have many, many of these. That's 4:3 of course. I use 3:2 for landscape as I love 8x12 photos matted in 16x20 and framed. More recently I am also matting 16:9 as 8x14 in 16x20 mats. I am doing more and more with video and 16:9 HD displays, and I like using the entire screen. Landscapes tend to look great this way, either matted or displayed on HD displays.

So I use all three of 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9. 1:1 I do not like that much. Perhaps that is because I grew up with instamatics/polaroids and saw too much of this format. It has never been synonomous to m wih quality. I acknowledge this is a prejudice.

 

[jyndi]

Given my (low) ability level, I stick to the maximum the camera can record and crop on the pc. Maybe this will change as I get better at composition.

 

[Jfrader]

135 format is a bit unnatural IMHO. Goodness knows why they chose it way back when. It's way wrong for vertical aspect shooting. ...

It came originally from 35mm motion picture film. There was no vertical shooting in movies.

 

[ttomino1980]

I shot raw+jpg ...mainly use raw only...and use 3:2 ratio and then in LR you still have option to see 4:3 full size picture

 

[T N Args]

I don't think you can do that with Lumix (warning).

 

[wjiang]

I shot raw+jpg ...mainly use raw only...and use 3:2 ratio and then in LR you still have option to see 4:3 full size picture

Also can't do that with any bodies from before they made that change in LR/ACR, e.g. E-M5 Mk1, unless you hack the EXIF.

 

[pellicle]

How is it losing resolution?

My GH1 gives me a few mor pixels and my GF1 the same width ...

 

[DaveEP]

As a video shooter I love 16:9 but shoot 4:3 for all photos and crop as needed in post. Not all subjects fit in to any one aspect ratio.

 

[ttomino1980]

Also can't do that with any bodies from before they made that change in LR/ACR, e.g. E-M5 Mk1, unless you hack the EXIF.

i have em10...if i shoot raw in 3:2 format and then go inLR 5.4 into development and press crop icon and change the aspect either to 4:3 or custom or default i can see extra stripes to 4:3 full size photo

 

[wjiang]

i have em10...if i shoot raw in 3:2 format and then go inLR 5.4 into development and press crop icon and change the aspect either to 4:3 or custom or default i can see extra stripes to 4:3 full size photo

Yes EM-10 is supported, E-M5 is too old and is not.