Photgraph Aspect Ratios

[X1Glider]

For me, I don't actually print anything I photograph.  I look at all my new pics on the computer.  I have a 16:9 display for the laptop and desktop but I generally do not look at pictures on these unless I'm organizing them so everything is chronologically correct.  Instead I have a 10" digital picture frame at work that is a 4:3 aspect ratio.  Basically it's an 8x10.  So my 4:3 camera pics look best on it.  It fills the screen so there's no black bars.  Plus, if I do ever want to print something like an 8x10, I'm good to go with no unwanted cropping issues.  Besides, I've found that the widescreen picture frames on the market just don't seem big enough height-wise to fully enjoy the glory of my photographs.  The 4:3 frames give me the height I like and it just seems bugger that way.  Perception?

But am I missing out by not using my camera's 16:9 aspect raio?

I could conceivably capture more imagery.  And it would fill up the sceen on my laptop and desktop monitors which are bigger.  But on the picture frame, there would be black bars across the top and bottom.  If I ever wanted to print though, there would be severe cropping issues unless I didn't photograph the subject as close tha way I could crop it manually later.

Just can't have it both ways, can I?

What does everyone else do and why?

I'm going through a massive re-organization and re-naming of pics right now and am rethinking this for future pics.

[garry]

I take them as 4:3 (my camera doesn't have a 16:9 option), but end up cropping many of them to 16:9 when tweaking them in Photoshop.

[JReazor]

3:2 on my DSLR. I don't know if I have another option. Even if I did, I'm going to use the entire sensor at time of capture. If I want a different aspect ratio, I'll crop later.

Shooting a different aspect ratio is kind of like the digital zoom feature on some point and shoot cameras. You're effectively cropping in camera and sacrificing some of your sensor in the process. I suppose that's fine if you know how you're going to crop. I would rather bring home as many pixels as possible and crop on the computer.

[kendenton]

^^^

What he said

[X1Glider]

3:2 on my DSLR. I don't know if I have another option. Even if I did, I'm going to use the entire sensor at time of capture. If I want a different aspect ratio, I'll crop later.

Shooting a different aspect ratio is kind of like the digital zoom feature on some point and shoot cameras. You're effectively cropping in camera and sacrificing some of your sensor in the process. I suppose that's fine if you know how you're going to crop. I would rather bring home as many pixels as possible and crop on the computer.

Isn't cropping "in camera" and "cropping later" the same in the end?  Only difference is you're spending "your" time doing what the camera could've done for you at the moment you snapped the pic.  I don't know about your DSLR's settings, but the viewer on my point and shoot is WYSIWYG.  If I select 10MP @ 4:3, I just frame the shot like I want to see it later.  The viewfinder shows it like it will be seen.  If I choose the MP @ 16:9, I see the black bars in the viewfinder.  Once again, I just frame the shot as I want to see it later.  Why spend the extra time manually cropping?  Unless you want to simply zoom in on a very far away subject.

If you always do 3:2 and crop later, you have to plan ahead and be conscious of framing the subject matter before snapping the shutter or you just wasted a moment in time.  Nothing like getting home then saying "aww crap!"  Can't get that moment back.  But 3:2 is good for those who like to print 4x6 regularly.

Perhaps if I had a piece of software that makes photo editing easy for cropping to standard picture sizes, I'd see the value in cropping after the fact.

[JReazor]

Isn't cropping "in camera" and "cropping later" the same in the end?  Only difference is you're spending "your" time doing what the camera could've done for you at the moment you snapped the pic.  I don't know about your DSLR's settings, but the viewer on my point and shoot is WYSIWYG.  If I select 10MP @ 4:3, I just frame the shot like I want to see it later.  The viewfinder shows it like it will be seen.  If I choose the MP @ 16:9, I see the black bars in the viewfinder.  Once again, I just frame the shot as I want to see it later.  Why spend the extra time manually cropping?  Unless you want to simply zoom in on a very far away subject.

If you always do 3:2 and crop later, you have to plan ahead and be conscious of framing the subject matter before snapping the shutter or you just wasted a moment in time.  Nothing like getting home then saying "aww crap!"  Can't get that moment back.  But 3:2 is good for those who like to print 4x6 regularly.

Perhaps if I had a piece of software that makes photo editing easy for cropping to standard picture sizes, I'd see the value in cropping after the fact.

Yep, if that makes more sense for your workflow, go for it.

Everything I shoot gets processed through Aperture anyway. Cropping takes maybe 15 seconds in the application. It's also non-destructive. I can remove that crop any time I want if I want to do something else with the Image.

[X1Glider]

What software do you use?

[JReazor]

What software do you use?

Aperture.

[Kneescrubber]

Isn't cropping "in camera" and "cropping later" the same in the end?  Only difference is you're spending "your" time doing what the camera could've done for you at the moment you snapped the pic.  I don't know about your DSLR's settings, but the viewer on my point and shoot is WYSIWYG.  If I select 10MP @ 4:3, I just frame the shot like I want to see it later.  The viewfinder shows it like it will be seen.  If I choose the MP @ 16:9, I see the black bars in the viewfinder.  Once again, I just frame the shot as I want to see it later.  Why spend the extra time manually cropping?  Unless you want to simply zoom in on a very far away subject.

The only issue with this train of thought is once you've limited the image to such an extreme aspect ratio when your camera is capable of gathering more information then you can't go back and say hey, I'd like to have a print of that. Or hey, I'd like to submit this to the calendar. Why limit the image based on your initial idea of usage?

[Grainbelt]

My disdain for 4x3 images is one of the reasons I bailed on Olympus.

I shoot at the 3:2 ratio of my Fuji and Pentax cameras, make any minor edits in photoshop and upload to smugmug that way. I can order prints from smugmug in any size and crop at time of checkout (family pics for relatives that aren't real internet savvy).

I do have a few cropped to 16x9 for wallpaper backgrounds, but for things like facebook and internet forums, the frame/username areas chew up most of that space, and a decent sized 3:2 is easier to see detail on, IMO.