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
Does your vertical to horizontal ratio change with:
1) subject distance?
2) lens length?

I put the following comment in Nick's thread along with some example images (thread is here: VERTICAL THREAD)

ederek said:
The stealth street shooting thread, discussing use of long lenses, had me thinking.. It was mid 2008 in Venice that I last used a long lens (>90mm) to shoot street. Took a look at images from one rainy morning, and all but a couple of the images uploaded to a gallery were vertical! Many were similarly composed (hopefully would be more diverse today).

I think with a long zoom, I have a natural a tendency to zoom to fill the subject, but not to crop them for the most part. When wider and closer, I tend to gravitate to a landscape format.
Click to expand...
 
About 50/50. This doesn't seem to be biased by camera (Leica viewfinder is landscape, Bronica portrait), but if I were to pick any trend it would be that my people shots tend to be more vertical. I don't shoot rapidly and rotating the camera to find the best orientation is all part of the process. I thought the Bronica would bias more shots to verticals; it's interesting that it doesn't.

Steve
 
For me it depends on the camera .... with the Ricoh GR1s I almost instinctively shoot vertical . Never thought about why until I saw this thread . It's seems that this particular camera is very easy to shoot in this position when bringing the cameras view finder up to the eye and it also gives a not so wide angle option to a wide angle lens ...
 
It depends on how I want to frame my photos. But I always took the liberty of shooting vertical whenever I thought it'd be best. Never had an ideology for it. Although stastically, around 25% of my photos are composed vertically. More or less.
 
3:2 is a funny aspect ratio

3:2 is a funny aspect ratio

After shooting 4:3 for a while now, 3:2 just feels like a really funny aspect ratio. The long and the short edge are just so different. So, for example, with a 50mm lens on 35mm film, it's like the long side is normal while the short side is telephoto; or with a 35mm lens, the short side is normal while the long one is wide angle.

How does this translate to shooting 3:2 verticals? In my experience, just like with wide-angle photography, you typically need to "layer" the composition with strong and distinct foreground, background and maybe midground to make it work without cropping. Examples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26665183@N00/5006982525/in/set-72157624323570435/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26665183@N00/5010128621/in/set-72157624323570435/
 
i think it depends. i find shooting landscape/seascape in vertical composition sometimes can add the impact and better object isolation. mines about 25-30% in vertical composition. have a good weekend, gentlemen : )
 
I shoot primarily in the horizontal, or have done as the subject matter I have been concentrating on has been that way. As the subject matter is primarily in the horizontal anything shot in the vertical looks out of place. If I had been shooting projects primarily based around the portrait then perhaps they would have been the other way round.
 
I've noted this elsewhere, but almost none of my shots--in any rectangular format--are vertical. My wife, however (when she takes photographs) is the opposite. She's much more into verticals. I do have a Pen D2 that takes vertical images "natively" and it's kinda fun, forces you to see a new way.
 
Just looked the roll I just developed, 1 out 20 is vertical... (I roll my own short rolls 😉) So this roll 5%

I average maybe 10% to 30%. It just depends on my subject.

My next to last roll of 21x, I had 5 verticals. So, 22.5%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom