Which one do you use: 3:2 or 4:3?

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Remember, 3:2 is the same as 6:4 (a standard 4x6 print), but it is NOT the same as 16:9

But 16:9 can be a good ratio too if you're not printing (or you're prepared for white borders). I like 16:9, 5:4 and 3:2 ratios for most of my pictures, with the occasional 1:1 The only time I use 4:3 is with my P&S, but only if I'm not cropping since that usually gets a more frequently used ratio.

[Cuchulainn]

Nikon D80 as with the D700 are a 2:3 ratio. I think the D3 is the only Nikon model that has the option for 5:4.

I use SmugMug and post them up in their native size. I don't advertise/sell them only in that size, but if they choose a different size there is a warning that the photo will have to be cropped in checkout.

So, that means all the multiples of that size they offer in 2:3 which is 4X6 through I think 24X36 can be purchased without cropping required.

Other size/aspect ratios can be ordered such as 5X7, 8.5X11 etc. up to 30X40 and 36X36, but those options all warn the photo will have to be cropped in checkout to fit that aspect. That is the buyers choice if they want to crop to an aspect that suites them.

Checkout allows the buyer to move the crop around left to right within the native aspect ratio, or alternately shrink it down even further and create a smaller crop of the larger photo within their chosen aspect ratio. It allows the purchaser to more or less create the photo they want from what you have photographed.

But to address one of your earlier posts, I would never just leave it to the lab to crop it as they see fit. If I wanted to print an 8X10 from a 2:3 ration I would crop it myself or alternately place a 6X9 image on an 8X10 white space and use custom matting to frame.

Originally Posted by candleman

hmm.. good reply, thanks Cuchulainn.

i think i see a way through now.
are you saying using the "SOOC" aspect ratio, advertise/sell the prints only within that ratio.
they can have it cropped their way if they want.
all i need to find out is what the standard sizes are within my camera ratio.

:? i guess this deserves a bit of research on my behalf.

[rediguana]

I'd pick the 3:2 as I think it is a more natural aspect ratio for our eyes - we can see wider than we can high. The 4:3 aspect ratio really came about because of TV and computer screens.

I've got a P&S that allows me to select 16:9, 3:2 and 4:3 - I don't think I've taken any photos in 4:3 except to test that it works. Actually, I lie, I used it to take some photos of a whiteboard at a workshop to capture the notes on the board.

Both 16:9 (1.78) and 3:2 (1.5) are also closer to the Golden Ratio (1.618...) than 4:3 (1.33). This can make them more pleasing for composition.

[Spike]

I've just had an idea that is soooo good.... that somebody else has probably already thunk of it and made piles of money..or lost piles of money.

Somebody should make something like a set of UV-type lens filters that have very faint guides to help photographers compose through the viewfinder for the different ratios. It'd save on cropping and maybe promote better composition.

BTW I turned my Rebel inside-out looking for a choose-ration function. Haven't found it yet, but I found the glow-in-the-dark compass and coffeemaker functions.

[rediguana]

Originally Posted by Spike

I've just had an idea that is soooo good.... that somebody else has probably already thunk of it and made piles of money..or lost piles of money.

Ah you mean Katz Eye and the focusing screens they make. Check out the grid crop line mods that you can have made to them

[newPerspective]

Originally Posted by Cuchulainn

I am not sure what the monitor ratios have to do with anything in the OP though. My camera has a 2:3 ratio, I sometimes use a 4:5 ratio for 8X10's or 16X20 for crops and my monitor is listed as a 16:10 aspect ratio. I guess I don't know enough about ratios to know why it is listed 16:10 and not 8:5 hehe.

In the days of 35mm film only, your only option was 3:2. All film roles are at the ratio of 3:2. Then came the age of digital cameras. And the very nature of pictures taken by Digital Cameras is to give the capabilty of loading them into the computer and storing/mainupulating them as digital files. Typically monitors display at 4:3 ratio. Soon followed the HD TVs and Plasma screens which display at 16:10 ratio

[Cuchulainn]

Actually I believe medium format film is 4"X5" film, which is why the D3 has the 4:5 option. So 3:2 wasn't the only option back in the film days, but it definitely does linger on from the 35mm days.

I don't know that monitors still typically display at 4:3 any more though. Most monitors and laptops I see sold these days are wide screen format and that appears to be the future. I haven't owned a 4:3 aspect monitor in years.

I am not sure that I agree with the idea that the "very nature of pictures take by Digital Cameras.... etc." I think that was true of many point and shoot models where people typically upload them to share sites, email them etc. rather than print them. But 3:2 is still the most common ratio for DSLR cameras. My point and shoot does 4:3 or a Widescreen 16:9, which is most definitely aimed at HDTV and Widescreen monitors. Both my DSLR's are 3:2 aspect however.

Canon, Nikon, Sony and other DSLR cameras still use 3:2 tied to the 35mm days as you state. There are some exceptions (Canon 1DS Mark III and Nikon D3), where they have masking for other aspect ratios. I believe Panasonic and Olympus use the four thirds format as a whole. There may be others I am not aware of.

But that being said I don't think the DSLR market is currently aimed at the the 4:3 aspect ratio of the older monitors or the 16:9 ratio of HDTV or other widescreen monitors. I think they are still designed primarily for print and consistency with the 35mm aspect ratio that has been in use on SLR's since the 30's.

Maybe I am missing the point of what you are trying to suggest. If so I apologize. It is late and I should be in bed

Originally Posted by newPerspective

In the days of 35mm film only, your only option was 3:2. All film roles are at the ratio of 3:2. Then came the age of digital cameras. And the very nature of pictures taken by Digital Cameras is to give the capabilty of loading them into the computer and storing/mainupulating them as digital files. Typically monitors display at 4:3 ratio. Soon followed the HD TVs and Plasma screens which display at 16:10 ratio

[OsmosisStudios]

Cuchulainn: I havent used a 4:3 monitor in ages either. I've had my laptop for a good 3 years now and it's widescreen. To be honest, using a 4:3 monitor feels constricting. Like there isnt enough screen to show what I want.

newPerspective: the nature of digital cameras was to offer a modern alternative to film and the associated pain-in-the-ass business of using it.

[wulf]

It varies with the shot. 3:2 (or 2:3) has a good balance - it is quite close to the "golden ratio", long established as a harmonious set of proportions. If I'm producing desktop wallpaper or a background, I'll have 4:3 in mind as that is still the ratio used by the output systems I am used to. Sometimes I will feel that 16:9 works, for a cinematic feel, or 1:1 (square).

To be honest, I rarely stray outside those proportions (I also normally try to crop to a neat pair of dimensions, like 2400x1800... that probably says a lot about me! ). It frustrates me that my D40 outputs images at 3008x2000 - if I decide to edit the image, I will invariably trim off the extra 8 pixels even if the overall framing is fine!

Wulf

[sk66]

Originally Posted by newPerspective

It doesnt bother you that when you crop for printing that you lose part of your image - your original composition? When I take a shot, I give a lot of importance to composition. So I would hate to chop of those precious pixels which had a lot of thought put into it. A well balanced shot may end up imbalanced when cropped and printed.

Why do yo have to loose anything? Often the picture "I see" doesn't fit the frame. If what I'm seeing is square I'll crop the image to square; if it's a panoramic it may be cropped wide and short.
I don't loose any pixels, but I may waste paper or pay extra for prints. It also may require custom framing, but I prefer it to everything being in a "standard format"