How Many of Your 35mm Photos are Vertical?

How Many of Your 35mm Shots are Vertical?

  • 1-25%

    Votes: 141 52.6%

  • 26-50%

    Votes: 79 29.5%

  • 51-75%

    Votes: 37 13.8%

  • 76-100%

    Votes: 11 4.1%
  • Total voters
    268
NickTrop

NickTrop

Veteran
Local time
10:29 AM
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
3,077
As I continue to evolve (or devolve - depending who you ask) in my photgraphic hobby, I'm finding I'm shooting vertical more, and more, and more. This is especially true, since I've been turning to digital point and shoot (I know, I know... sacrilige...) for street photography as I'm rapid-fire shooting blind from the hip with the camera palmed below waist level.

Here are some excerpts from a little essay on vertical composition. (Bolding mine...)

Why Shoot Vertical?
Shooting the picture vertically provides better framing for the picture...A vertical frame gives better focus on the central subject. Although everyone’s idea of what exactly focus means is different, the key most beginning photographers should remember is: living things.

That’s right. The focus should be alive;... Most living things in nature are small enough to observe without turning the head. In practical situations, that would mean only shooting in vertical at all times, unless for some reason the subject requires a horizontal frame to fit inside the picture.

...a vertical image provides an ample view of the sky, the earth, the subject and nothing more. It is about visual impact. A tall, bold image is simply more powerful than a short, squatty image and if a horizontal shot can be substituted with a vertical shot, by all means, it should.

http://photography-techniques.suite...101-viewpoints-vertical-vs-horizontal-framing

I'm really, really, beginning to agree with this perspective... pardon the pun.
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

I wonder why then, movies aren't filmed in a "vertical perspective" (i.e. Portrait format)

Cheers,
Dave
 
Interesting. I'm probably around 20% or less, though I have streaks where I shoot vertical quite a bit. Do it more with my SLR than my rangefinders.
 
I do it when I think the composition will be improved by it. For example a tower, a tall tree, perhaps a person. It isn't the way I intuitively do it. We have two eyes, and see more horizontally than vertically. Soldiers have to be taught to look up in wooded areas.

Fox has just decided to go to an even more horizontal format for (USA) football games, and commented on the fact we see more horizontally. I think there is a reason most cameras (that aren't square), photograph in a horizonat format.

But to each his own.
 
Interesting to see. I think my keeper photos' orientation ratio is about v:h=75:25 or even 85:15. I like the isolation I can get from vertical shots, especially for candid street people shots, and because I like that kind of shots, there will be more keepers. But I tend to shoot vertically for many other subjects as well, and I don't crop photos, and don't shoot landscape stuff much.
 
I have been told by editors that the vertical shot is a crutch for me and that I need to shoot more in landscape. The truth is that for me, the vertical shot feels comfortable, easier, and safer.
 
He pretty much got it figured out. With vertical you get more sky and dirt. With horizontal you get more stuff to the left and right.

I go to a lot of shows and buy a lot of books and verticals seem to be a lot more popular than they used to be.

Cheers,
Gary
 
I don't think I shoot 50/50 horizontal v vertical, but I bet I am above average to the vertical.
 
I do it a lot... was in a class recently where the teacher pointed out that I do a lot of vertical shots... but she said it was working for me, so... I just go with what feels right.
 
Well, 10, 15, even 5 years ago my best pics were mostly vertical. 65 : 35 %. Recently I notice that my best pics are overwhelmingly horizontal. 70 : 30 %.

Explain that, someone. I cannot tell and do not know any reason for this flip.

And i do not own or wear flip flops, either.
 
Vertical seems more natural to me from a composition perspective of people. I'm doing it more often, and I like the results better most of the time with a 50mm or 35mm lens (especially). I think vertical is better (that is, more powerful, compositionally) but it's underutilized because of how cameras are made.

Cameras are designed - first and foremost, to be operated by creatures with arms on the left and the right side - not two arms that align vertically. Given the aspect ratio of 35mm film, that means means the vast majority of pictures taken are horizontal resulting in "short, squatty" pictures.

Now that I'm shooting a lot more with tiny cameras (in my case the Fuji Finepix F20) - that can be operated vertically more easily... and shooting blind from the hip without looking through/at anything to compose... I'm way drifting, subconsciously, more and more toward vertical composition with human subjects. In my opinion, my rank amateur street photos are getting better for it.
 
Interesting question. A quick unscientific review of my keepers indicates about 1/3 of the time. This seems to be more of a recent trend so I guess I'm very comfortable shooting my ZM vertical. I didn't do that as much with the Zorki or the Rollei 35rf. With my dSLR I also seem to shoot a lot more landscape.
 
Compared to most users in this thread, I tend to use the vertical orientation. Not sure why, but I think it comes from trying to fit the subject in context. This is an interesting notion that merits more thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom