Landscapes and aspect ratios

click photo to enlarge
After thirty odd years of shooting 35mm film with an aspect ratio of 3:2 I shot with Four Thirds cameras for a few years. These had an aspect ratio of 4:3. To my surprise I found I preferred it to 3:2, particularly for portrait format shots. When you turn a 3:2 camera so that the long side is vertical it seems to me that the aspect ratio doesn't work so well as when it is horizontal (landscape format) - it's simply too tall. There are a few subjects that benefit from a taller shape (and a very few where 16:9 is best) but not too many. I definitely preferred 4:3 in those circumstances. For landscapes, streetscapes and general photography 3:2 was, by and large, fine, but not better than 4:3 and sometimes too long.

Since I've returned to 3:2 with Canon, Nikon and Sony, the three makes I use now, I've generally shot 3:2 and where I've particularly felt it looked wrong (in horizontal or portrait format), I've cropped to 4:3. Today's photograph is a case in point. When I composed the shot I knew I wanted the verticals of the two medieval churches in the shot. However, I also wanted the full width of the street. On a wet day with an overcast sky 3:2 left too much boring grey cloud in the top half of the photograph. Consequently, I shot at 3:2 knowing I would crop to 4:3. Those of you who know the Sony RX100 might wonder why I didn't dive into the menu and set the camera to 4:3. The fact is I find it easier to stick with the same aspect ratio (3:2 is native and the highest resolution) across all the cameras to benefit from a consistent view and maximum pixel dimensions. To do otherwise would be for me, just too confusing, too tedious, and would deny me the best image where 3:2 is the ratio I want.

On the other hand, if Sony had done what Panasonic did with the LX3 (and other LX models), a camera that I owned until it died, and had put the aspect ratios round the lens barrel selected by a click stop switch, then I just might have set 4:3 before shooting.

photograph and text © Tony Boughen

Camera: Sony RX100
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 20mm (54mm - 35mm equiv.)
F No: f4.5
Shutter Speed: 1/100
ISO: 125
Exposure Compensation:  - EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Aspect ratios and indoor photography

click photo to enlarge

I was speaking to someone the other day about the four aspect ratios that the Lumix LX3 camera offers. They are 3:2, 4:3, 16:9 and 1:1. This person used a Canon camera and said he favoured the 3:2 format. In fact, he said, he couldn't imagine using any other aspect ratio. When I probed for the reason he said he'd got used to it when shooting 35mm film cameras. I suppose we all look at these things from our own perspective, but I too was a long-time 35mm film photographer, and I love the choice of different aspect ratios that cameras such as the LX3 offer today. In fact, I prefer most of their offerings over 3:2, which I find too much towards square without actually getting there. The reason for cameras using that particular size (36mm X 24mm) goes back to the adoption of movie film for still cameras, so isn't particularly grounded in aesthetics so much as necessity.

Our conversation then turned to the 16:9 ratio. My colleague was of the view that it might have an application for landscape photographs. It does, and I've posted a few on this blog. However, I find that it is also an excellent aspect ratio for indoor shots. On  a visit a while ago to Southwell Workhouse, an early nineteenth century answer to those unable or unwilling to make provision for themselves, I took several shots in this format. One was the subject of an earlier post. Today I've posted two more 16:9 images from that location to demonstrate how it lends itself not only to the great outdoors, but to the confines of indoors. The first shows a reconstruction of one of the dormitories for the inmates. The other was taken in the basement at the bottom of one of the flights of stairs that led down into the low subterranean rooms where food was prepared.

Photographs and text (c) T. Boughen

Photo 1 (Photo 2)
Camera: Lumix LX3
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 5.1mm (24mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f2.8 (2.0)
Shutter Speed: 1/320 (1/125)
ISO: 80 (400)
Exposure Compensation: -1.0 (-0.66) EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Aspect ratios and old stations

click photo to enlarge
When I used 35mm film cameras I never thought twice about the aspect ratio of the format: the fact that 36mm X 24mm is a ratio of 3:2 was something I just didn't consider. Processing my own black and white photographs I would sometimes crop the image (with a guillotine) to make a better composition, but doing this was very much the exception.

When I started to use a digital camera in 2000 it also had an aspect ratio of 3:2, and once again I thought little of it, perhaps because it was familiar to me. However, processing the images on a computer led me to crop many more images than I did when I used negatives and an enlarger. This may have been because it was so much easier. But, when I acquired an Olympus DSLR and found the aspect ratio was 3:4 then I did start to think more about these things. I find that I have a strong preference for 3:4 over 3:2 in landscape format, but occasionally prefer the latter in portrait format. It's purely a personal thing, and I don't believe there are any objective reasons (golden section included) to choose one over the other. The Panasonic LX3 offers an embarrassment of riches in this regard - 3:4, 3:2, 16:9 and 1:1 - all of which can be used at the time of composition. Looking back over my images made using this camera I find that I use 4:3 for about 75% of my shots, 16:9 for about 15%, 1:1 for almost all the others, and 3:2 rarely. I think I use 4:3 as the default because it is a rectangle that I prefer more than 3:2, and it suits many shots. 1:1 is a format I like to compose in (though I know many hate it), and I think it is perfect for some subjects. My reasonably heavy use of 16:9 is the one that surprises me. When I first got the camera I ignored it, but gradually I've come to use it quite a bit, especially for landscapes, but also for shots such as today's.

This image, taken at the preserved railway at Sheringham in Norfolk, reminds me of one of those Victorian paintings that shows an urban scene peopled by a group of contrasting characters: the sort of piece that the eye lingers over, searching out details. I looked at this scene with 3:4 selected, but immediately switched to 16:9 because it just seemed the obvious choice for filling the frame with interest.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Lumix LX3
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 8.8mm (41mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f4.5
Shutter Speed: 1/1000
ISO: 80
Exposure Compensation: -0.33 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Aspect ratios - to crop or not

click photo to enlarge
There is a school of thought that says the best photographs are achieved by composing within the confines of the viewfinder. Those who hold to this idea often also believe that composition that takes place after the shutter has been pressed, through cropping, lessens the worth of the image. This isn't a maxim to which I subscribe. I have nothing against composing photographs in the viewfinder: I do it all the time. However, I don't believe that it's the only way to compose, or that cropping necessarily makes for poorer images.

Photographic film and digital sensors are rectangular - either squares or oblongs - following the precedent of painting. It's interesting that the circles, ovals and other shapes that painters sometimes employ haven't found their way into photography. Perhaps one day! In some respects the aspect ratio of the oblongs used in photography are arbitrary. The 35mm size, and its so-called "full-frame" digital successor, derives from the shape settled on by the makers of movie film. Like painters before them camera manufacturers also paid some attention to the aspect ratio of the Golden Rectangle. But, the imperial and metric sizes of paper used for printing (which is now a complete mess, a point that no one would have aimed to be at) are also constraints that weighed on the designers' minds. My camera has a 4:3 aspect ratio which perfectly matched the shape of most CRT monitors, but is less of a fit for "widescreen" LCD panels. So, given that photography's different shaped viewfinders arose through the influence of a group of rather odd constraints, and that our subjects vary too in terms of the best way to compose them, why should we always shackle ourselves? Painters didn't do it: why should photographers?

I was reflecting on this as I processed today's photograph, taken during a walk near Grimsthorpe Castle in Lincolnshire. The image is cropped, with some sky and some of the foreground track removed. I took the shot knowing I'd do this, and I think it makes for a better image than the full frame offered. I've also added another shot of the cockerel's feathers that I posted yesterday. I rather wish I'd used this cropped image instead of the version I chose - I think the variety of colour and texture across the cropped "letterbox" frame is definitely superior.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Image 1
Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 83mm (166mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/250
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Image 2
Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 100mm (200mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/320
ISO: 400
Exposure Compensation: -1.0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On