What is the correct aspect ratio for photography?
>>2757191
8x10 is the patrice ratio. runner up are 6x7 and 1:1. everything else is pleb as fuck.
>>2757194
>aspect ratios not even close to the aspect ratio of the human eye
for what purpose
>>2757191
""""""correct""""""
>>2757191
3:2 is master race.
4:3 if you want to make small lens.
>>2757206
I want to know what to crop to.
>>2757195
>aspect ratio of the human eye
And that is?
>>2757230
wide.
>>2757195
>>aspect ratios not even close to the aspect ratio of the human eye
>muh human scale
>what are cathedrals?
>what is the parthenon?
to achieve greatness, men had to go beyond the puny limitations of human scale.
is newton's sumo book human scaled? fuck no
is it great? its godly.
>>2757238
>I do not use eyes to view photos
ok champ
>>2757194
>8x10
Surely you mean 4x5 you pleb cunt
3:2
>>2757239
>I look at photos from such a distance that they completely fill my field of vision
ok anon
I like the look of 16:9, I think it makes interesting composition.
>>2757240
it's the same ratio you dolt
ITT: people show elitism towards certain aspect ratios instead of admitting it's a creative, subjective choice and certain shots call for certain aspect ratios
that said, 2:3 and Cinemascope look pretty good.
>>2757255
only when in movement.
>>2757255
>phone sensors are 16:9 now.
>awkwardly tall portrait mode
>>2757253
>too poor to print big
>>2757275
>>my field of vision changes when i move closer or further away
>alright
When you're further away what gives how much wall or whatever you see on each side of the picture?
>>2757279
Sorry couldn't really come up with a nice greentext for that.
1:sqrt(2)
It angers me every day that they didn't make this the standard for film/sensor sizes.
>>2757264
Filming vertically should be illegal.
Also why don't they equip phones with square sensors, and auto-rotate the image to horizontal when people are too retarded to hold their phone correctly?
>still no idea what to crop to
god damnit
>>2757297
>still no idea what to crop to
you cant plan that beforehand. you first have the vision, then you pick the right tool.
you dont say omg i want to build something, i dont know what, but should i get a hammer, a nailgun or a hacksaw?
>>2757191
So I'm a fucking noob, what's the difference between cropping in post and selecting a 3:2 mode in the camera settings? I mean I suppose I would lose less information but are there any cons?
I always thought digital photographers would shoot in 16:9 or similar and then crop in post.
>>2757318
Professional photographers often shoot with a specific aspect ratio in mind. becasue that's what the client demands.
For example if you're shooting for a magazine you'll need to include at least a couple shots that will fit on the cover, as well as a couple that would fit across two pages.
But you are right: the actual cropping generally happens in post, no point doing it in camera.
3:2
>implying it doesn't depend on the subject
fucking dumb plebs
>>2757293
because engineers does not cater to retarded users.
>>2757318
always shoot in the sensor's aspect ratio and crop in post.
APS-C and full frame it's 3:2, micro four thirds is 4:3
>>2757351
Always shoot for the aspect ratio you're going to end up with the the final photo. That way, you are framing and composing accordingly.
>>2757191
Your mum is
>>2757354
>aspect ratio you're going for
What if you don't know that and have to crop, either unexpectedly or unexpectedly?
>>2757191
Whatever the fuck you want.
There is no "correct" aspect ratio. It's whatever you choose to shoot/crop at for hte subject/photo you want.
>>2757356
Why would you not know what you're going for? Do you shoot randomly hoping to maybe find a photo in the file afterwards? Envisioning your photo before you take it is one of the very very basic steps to creating successful images... though NOT doing that would explain why there are so many completely empty images around here... Shooting a photo now hoping that you can make something interesting out of it later?
>>2757366
Things move, dipshit. Some of the most famous photos are cropped and some aren't. You usually can't tell, so it doesn't matter. It's totally possible that a picture you thought would look good in 4:3 looks better wider.
If your camera has a native aspect ratio and everything else is a crop from that, I would say it's definitely advantageous to shoot in the native ratio as you can just do the same crop later.
>>2757371
This. Besides, no fiddling around with crop settings.
>>2757371
>It's totally possible that a picture you thought would look good in 4:3 looks better wider.
If that was the case, what would be stopping you from seeing that on the scene?
Also, if you're planning to crop, and you frame accordingly, sure it doesn't really matter whether you crop in camera or in post, but to frame intelligently and correctly, I personally find it easier to frame for the correct ratio if the camera is set to it already. When you're looking through a 1 to 1 viewfinder, you arrange things differently in your scene than you do if you're looking through a normal 4:3 and thinking "Well, maybe I'll try to crop to save it later..."
>>2757406
>be you
>be shooting 2:3 street portraits
>see a group of friends walking down the streets
>oh shit it'd look perfectly at 1:1
>go to the settings menu
>miss muh decisive moment
what's next, an aspect ratio dial? just crop it in post like everyone
>>2757419
>if you're planning to crop, and you frame accordingly, sure it doesn't really matter whether you crop in camera or in post
√2
>>2757406
With digital cameras you can in theory use liveview and overlay a x:x frame on the display while still shooting natively. I used to do it all the time while shooting videos with 2.35:1 in mind
>>2757337
They do though, casual retard users always come first.
>>2757419
>what's next, an aspect ratio dial?
LX cameras have had this quite some time. The crop settings use different parts of the sensor for each aspect ratio. In this camera, it does actually matter which ratio you choose since 16:9 is not just a crop of 4:3 but uses a different portion of the sensor, so they have a switch for it.
If your camera doesn't do this though, it makes sense to just crop in post.
>>2757248
Don't be fucking stupid, 3:2 was a historical accident.
Square is good if your intended medium is a screen because it works on phones and computers
1.618 : 1
>>2757337
>engineers does not cater to retarded users.
Not even Apple engineers?
>>2757473
A square is too strong of a shape.
It distracts from the actual photo, as the eye is draw towards the frame.
Only use squares when it compliments your subject.
>>2757429
My optical viewfinder can show framelines for different crop modes.
But unfortunately I can't tell it to display a 5:4 frame but still record the entire 3:2. - that would have been perfect.
>>2757255
>new movies and series now bwing shot in 16:9
>soon the only available versions of classics will be "remasters" cropped to 16:9
>overly narrow 16:9 is now the dominant ratio for computer monitors because that's the panel the factories were making for TVs for the last 10 years
>16:9 isn't even a good aspect ratio for moving pictures. it was just adopted as a compromise between the 4:3 of TV and the widescreen cinema modes
16:9 is cancer in every single way it could possibly be
>>2757572
Don't worry.
21:9 screens are becoming more and more popular.
They will become the new standard, for large TV's at least.
completely depends on what you're trying to achieve.
most portraits i'm happier with a 6x7 though
I think 3:2 looks fine but not in portrait, it's way too narrow that way. I'm always a bit surprised because it seems horizontally narrower to me than a landscape oriented 3:2 pic is vertically narrow.
I kinda like 2:1 too for some things.
>>2757191
>What is the correct aspect ratio for photography?
Whatever your heart says you should crop your picture to. And fuck people who need to live by rules.
That said, if you are submitting work for publication in a magazine or somewhere, it is worth paying attention to the shape of the page
>>2757442
That is really fucking gay. Why does 4:3 on the LX100 not cover the full 4/3 sensor size but instead crops in? The red rectangle is a standard 4:3 sensor, but LX100 never uses all of it.
"Multiple aspect ratio" is pretty much cropping the shit out of everything. I'm sure Panny could have kept full res 4:3 as the red rectangle, but chose not to so they can say that their multiple aspect ratio doesn't crop.
>>2757722
I'm fairly certain the pic is wrong and overstates the amount of unused space (I know the 1:1 setting uses more vertical space on the sensor than 4:3).
That said, it is a bit weird. It does allow the camera and lens to be a bit smaller. It also allows for the same angle of view in all aspect ratios.
I will say this, it's actually kind of nice. You can shoot in any aspect ratio and get similar pixel counts for all of them. I think it gives you some creative flexibility from your shots without forcing you to pic one aspect ratio just because it gives you the max resolution. It's not for everyone, but I have an LX3 and Panny has been doing this on the LX cameras since then and I do enjoy it.
You give up a few megapixles, but if megapixels your main priority, you would probably just buy a Sony.
>>2757745
LX100 full sensor is 16MP. Max photo res at any aspect ratio is 12.8MP with 4:3. Picture isn't wrong.
The one you have with you.
>>2757752
> Max photo res at any aspect ratio is 12.8MP with 4:3. Picture isn't wrong.
That doesn't mean the picture isn't wrong though. I know it's a 16MP sensor which gives 12.8 at 4:3, but all the other diagrams I've seen have 1:1 using more vertical space in order to maintain roughly the same amount of pixles as 4:3. This shows 1:1 as a simple crop of 4:3, which I don't think it actually is in the LX100.
>>2757191
Which ever one you fucking feel like, unless someone is paying you to do something specific.
>>2757240
please be a troll and not legitimately this retarded
>>2757233
avoiding the question much
>>2757290
>1:sqrt(2)
whats wrong with just saying 1:1.4
>>2757848
>he can't fucking reduce a fraction
you are dumber than a gradeschooler
>>2757924
>not e:pi
>not cropping at zeta(3):1
>mfw people crop anything other than 1:TREE(3)
00110010:00110011
>>2757191
Why it would be
>Xpan
of course
still waiting on the correct answer here
