Prefered Aspect ratio

[dondecastro]

I've never really thought about it much until I got the gxr, but what is your preferred aspect ratio when shooting stills with your gxr.

I'm using 4:3 right now and am curious what reasons others have when choosing the different aspect ratios

 

[gavinlg]

I like 3:2 with digital, and 645-6x7 with film.

For some reason, I really DON'T like 4:3 with digital. It always seems to me like it's too squat or something...

 

[krötenblender]

I use a Oly DSLR and so I'm used to 4:3, which I like very much. I also have a preference for 1:1, and often find myself cropping to 1:1, when developing raws, no matter what camera I use. But it depends on the contents of the picture and how you look at things, I guess. I also did images which are thin horizontal stripes, cropped from a 4:3.

But 1:1 really has something for me.

 

[jsrockit]

Whatever aspect ratio is native to the sensor...

 

[luuca]

2:3 with my leicas, nex5 and lx3
1:1 with my hassy

 

[shadowfox]

Whatever ration fits the scene/subjects.
I pay zero attention to 'native' sensor image ratio.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Depends on: the actual image / film or sensor format.

Yay for options!

 

[ChrisP]

Depends on whether its landscape or portrait.

3:2 or 16:9 landscape
4:3 or 5:4 for portrait

1:1 for special things

 

[Adanac]

Just an FYI, the 3:2 aspect ratio has the most pixels in both dimensions - the raw files are not simply tagged as such and handled differently in post. Visually I prefer to look at the 4:3 or 1:1 in the viewfinder but that does crop in-camera; often as not I'd like to have a little wiggle room to allow for post crops, straightening and such, so most of the time I'm leaving my GXR on 3:2.

I shot 6x6 for many years and still find I see square even in the rectangle but it is nice to drop to 1:1 on screen/EVF from time to time.

 

[willie_901]

I prefer 1:1, but I can't afford it.

 

[shadowfox]

I like 3:2 with digital, and 645-6x7 with film.

For some reason, I really DON'T like 4:3 with digital. It always seems to me like it's too squat or something...

Gavin,
4:3 in landscape often feels awkward, 3:2 is most of the time better.
But in portraits 4:3 is just fine, that's close to what 8x10 or 11x14 prints looks like.

 

[semilog]

On 35mm film, I usually print full-bleed (3:2).

When I shoot digital (4:3) I crop to 5:4 whenever possible, which is most of the time.

This distinction helps to reinforce the differences between my digital and analog systems.

I love the results with square format, but I only have one camera that natively shoots square, a Yashica 44, and film for it is hard to obtain and expensive.

I'd love to get an xpan.

 

[__--]

If you're doing a book, an interesting possibility is 2:3 for landscape and 4:3 for portrait orientation. This will allow full-bleed landscape orientation on a two-page spread and full-bleed portrait orientation on a single page because two 4:3 pages portrait orientation pages will give a double-page spread of 4:6, which is, of course, 2:3. I've seen several Japanese photo books laid out in this way — including some by Moriyama Daido — and I like the full bleed pages and don't mind the double-page spreads for the 2:3 landscape orientation, although I've seen a lot of pontification against pringing photograph across the gutter, whivj doedn't bother me.

Ricoh cameras (GXR and GRDx) make it easy to assign the aspect ratio as one of choices you get by pressing the ADJ lever. The makes it fast and easy to change between 2:3 and 4:3.

—Mitch/Chiang Mai
Tristes Tropiques? No, They Have a Strip Mall in Chiang Mai Too

 

[semilog]

Gavin,
4:3 in landscape often feels awkward, 3:2 is most of the time better.

Sorry to be a bit harsh, but this really is nonsense.

Go to a great museum, like the National Gallery in Washington, D.C. or the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam.

You will find that most of the great horizontal landscape paintings and still lifes are in formats closer to 4:3 or 5:4. Relatively few of them are in 3:2 or wider. And some of the great vertical portraits (e.g., by Picasso) are 3:2.

 

[Sparrow]

I always think phi (Φ) is really elegant, but I seem to end up working with the 24x36 leica standard most of the time ... take a look at Stanley Spencer's work at the Sandham Chapel if you want to see great art filling available space

 

[krötenblender]

I often find myself when cropping images, I crop to 1:1 or 4:3. The latter can be explained by my Olympus DSLRs, which I prefer over other brands, and 1:1... I guess I simply see that way, because I don't have a camera with that native aspect ration.

 

[igi]

Uhmm... I think the OP is asking you all for your preferred aspect ratio on a Ricoh GXR...

 

[shadowfox]

Sorry to be a bit harsh, but this really is nonsense.

Go to a great museum, like the National Gallery in Washington, D.C. or the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam.

You will find that most of the great horizontal landscape paintings and still lifes are in formats closer to 4:3 or 5:4. Relatively few of them are in 3:2 or wider. And some of the great vertical portraits (e.g., by Picasso) are 3:2.

Irrelevant, I was talking about my personal preference.

 

[M4streetshooter]

3:2 because it's a more dynamic rectangle then 4:3.
I feel portraits work well in 4:3 for me but I'm pretty much a 3:2 guy.
1:1 is to stagnant for me and when I used my Blad, I often did diamonds instead of squares. Very interesting.
I'm working on some 16:9 stuff but I'm not comfortable yet.
Hopefully by spring I'll get a handle on it.

The advantage of 3:2 is that it is native to the GXR.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Uhmm... I think the OP is asking you all for your preferred aspect ratio on a Ricoh GXR...

Ah. That's what happens when the question isn't framed properly.

To be fair, the name of the thread is, generally, "Preferred Aspect ratio".