Which format do you best see/compose in?

[jaredangle]

I started thinking about this because I've noticed that although I shoot both 35mm and 645 format equally, my shots with 645 are far better composed than those that I shoot with 35mm (with the exception of portraits).

Well for all you multi-format shooters out there... What format do you make your best shots in? (not looking for tonality, grain, sharpness, etc. Just your compositions)

 

[Tompas]

35mm cropped to a very wide/panoramic format. Strange, huh?

If I'd find a 'true' panorama camera suited for 'street photography' I'd use that.

 

[jsrockit]

Well, I'll just go with 2:3 ratio.

 

[kxl]

Well, I'll just go with 2:3 ratio.

Same here.

 

[lxmike]

ditto also

 

[Warren T.]

I did not vote on any one of your choices because it's mostly irrelevant to my ability (or lack of) to make a good composition. 🙂 I have and use equipment in different formats. These days, I frequently switch between full frame, aps-c and micro 4/3 depending on my mood and shooting situation. I also shoot 6x6 and 6x7 occasionally, but not often enough to matter.

 

[Ezzie]

I use 3:2, 1:1 and 2:1. Of these I prefer 1:1, i.e. 6x6.

 

[skibeerr]

Four thirds, 6x8 and 6x4.5 and 1:1 of course which I then crop to.....

I think I am consistent here 😀

 

[Brad Bireley]

For me it's square.

 

[Matus]

You actually have there more options than formats (if you do not count small differences)

1:1: 6x6
4x5: 6x7, 4x5", 8x10"
3x4: u4/3 (native), APS-C, 6x4.5, 6x8
2x3: 35mm, 6x9

 

[Roger Hicks]

2:3 (35mm, 6x9cm) because of sheer practice. For an inherently more attractive format, 5x7 inch/13x18 cm. Then whole-plate (6.5 x 8.5 inches, same as Linhof 56x72mm). I find 4x5/8x10 squat and ugly except for some portraits.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gumby]

I voted 6x6 but only because contrained by the poll to one selection.

1:1: 6x6
4x5: 6x7

 

[SteveM]

Same as the OP: 645, but I also like 35mm & 6x9 a lot. Can't get the hang of 6x6 and even 6x7 looks too squarish. Too many years of composing with rectangles.

Steve

 

[Matus]

2 I find 4x5/8x10 squat and ugly except for some portraits.

I often have the tendency to crop my 4x5 images to slightly more rectangular ones. 4x5 often feels a bit ... heavy. During stormy nights I dream about 7x11" ...

1:2 is also very interesting. But I think there is no film available in 1:2 format in LF.

 

[gekopaca]

Well, I'll just go with 2:3 ratio.

+1
and post-processing panoramics too.

 

[Roger Vadim]

One of the most beautifull aspect ratios i've shot is 9x12 (cm), the european "small" large format (4x5 is a bit larger). Just made the math and that equates 6x4.5 which I never used.
It seems like I should go for a new camera then...

 

[pvdhaar]

Even though I sold the 6x6 kit a couple of years back, I still like the aspect ratio a lot. Second best is 3:2. But I just can't get used to that format in the middle (4:3).. It's either here nor there for me.

Now that I've got a NEX, I'm going to have a stab at panoramas.. so easy to do now with the sweep mode. Maybe it won't be my cup of tea after a while, but it's worth a try at least.

 

[Arjay]

I use 35mm film and APS-C digital, but that isn't related with the aspect ratio of the pictures I publish.

I don't publish any pictures straight out-of-camera. Rather, I do a fair amount pf post-processing on practically every shot, and I crop my pictures to best suit the composition contained in them. The aspect ratios of the pictures I am publishing vary wildly from 1:1 (rarest) via 3:4 and 2:3 (most frequent) to 16:9 (one of my secret favorites).

So, I didn't vote.

 

[CSG123]

I said 35mm because that's what I'm most used to.

 

[ottluuk]

I've found that I'm consistently better at making a balanced composition in 3:4 rather than 2:3. 1:1 is cool but I couldn't live on square alone. I'm just not able to create enough variety and tension within a series of purely 1:1 photos. I think I would love 6x7 or 4x5.