Perhaps the best solution right now is to shoot with a high resolution camera with sharp glass and DONT fill the frame. Leave a lot of negative space around the subject and you can crop however you’d like.
Our guy wanted some shots for the photo club newsletter. I was flattered he picked my shot of the cougar at the zoo. I took 25 shots before I got the cat with his front paw raised while pacing his space(I got lucky no glass or fence). The newsletter comes out and he lopped off the bottom of the pic where the cats paw was. I guess I should have mentioned how I wanted it printed. I figured he'd get it.
As always, the best info is in the comments. Tony's getting wound about nothing, especially the vertical phone aspect ratio silliness (auto rotate is a thing, Tony). Modern sensors have an abundance of resolution, and it's trivially easy to keep your composition centered and protected for a variety of aspect ratios while still keeping a sharp and detailed image after you crop down. (also, Micro Four-Thirds is 4:3, Tony, not 4:5, it's right there in the name!)
I hate Hate HATE vertical format video. There are good reasons for shooting some stills in vertical format but NEVER a good reason for shooting video like that. Why are some (many) people so pin-headed that they can't turn their phones 90 degrees and shoot properly? Portrait video on landscape screens just looks awful and even if you just view it on a phone and don't rotate it to landscape, our eyes are built to see things in landscape mode and it just doesn't look right.
I just shoot natively and get the best shot I can. If it's a weird crop for a format then I either don't share it on that format or share it and say to hell with it. I don't have a boss telling me how to shoot and if I did I think it would take all of the passion right out of me.
I completely agree! It's my vision of the scene/final photo, not someone else. I actually print my photos and hang them in my home so I think what I want the final print to look like before I take the shot. For a client, I find what they want before I shoot. Even in that, if my view is to live on it will live on as I viewed the scene.
High mp cameras give us the opportunity to leave a little more space around our subjects for cropping. Usually it's worth leaving some room to crop later.
35mm (3:2) has been popular for well over a hundred years, and was still the most popular film size when digital full-frame and ASP-C (also both 3:2) took over. Yet try and buy a 3:2 photograph frame larger than 6"x4" and you just can't, unless you have them custom made. This has absolutely frustrated me for years, and I just don't understand why frame manufacturers don't make frames in the world's most popular aspect ratio, and it just doesn't make sense that they don't, so I'm really pleased to find I'm not frustrated on my own!
Funny you posted this video. I just did a family photo shoot and it turned out good. The problem was I didn’t plan for 8 x 10 and they can’t use the shots to hang on their wall. I’ll have to re-shoot again in spring so this was a good learning experience. Definitely not a boring video or topic because this is important information for new photographers like myself.
dragonfist25 why do they want an 8x10? Just print and frame them whatever aspect ratio the photo is. I just delivered a 12”x22” canvas of a wedding group shot because that is the shape of the image. We have our own printers and custom framing places, so I’m not sure what the big deal is about printing standard formats
No one seems to talk about aspect ratio, so I appreciate this video. Any photographer who starts printing their work runs into this issue immediately! I've learned to shoot wide so I have ample cropping flexibility for client photo sizes, and I crop everything myself to the clients print size desire inside Lightroom. I don't leave it up to the lab! This is just another piece of the puzzle to becoming a well rounded photographer.
This is a great video and brings up some important points that really aren't discussed enough. When I first got into photography I just shot everything in horizontal and cropped to 16:9 because it looked the best on computer screens, but as I started to get more popular on instagram I made the conscious choice to shoot more in vertical and square. Last year I got so caught up in shooting vertical 4:5 images that I prioritized it over horizontal wide crops. When it came time to putting together a calendar I was panicking because I needed to fill the page with horizontal images. I ended up doing some pretty cringe worthy horizontal 8.5:11 crops of the vertical images with a crap ton on content aware filling to expand the frame. As much as I'd like to say that I've learned, I still end up having to do this every couple months to fill the needs of a certain format. But I try to shoot wider and in multiple different orientations to meet as many formats as possible.
Why not think about why they do so? I guess the reason is that if the image would be higher than 4:5, it would be higher than the actual viewable area of the feed where you‘re scrolling, depending on the phone it is viewed on. So when scrolling through the feed, people wouldn‘t see the whole image at once. Would suck, right? It makes sense that they limit the aspect ration, in my opinion at least. Many people, like you, don‘t think far enough - so it‘s better to set limits.
Newer DSLR/Mirrorless need to be able to overlay an aspect ratio in the viewfinder or add it too the live view mode at least. If they don't want too go to an EVF yet (canon,nikon).
Em1 Mk II and other Oly models do this too........When I find I'm leaving too much dead space in the sky or foreground, I shoot 16x9.......saves film space and developer costs due to less "real estate" processing chemicals :-)
Many of us do not leave auto-rotate on, it messes with productivity apps like spreadsheets which usually work better vertically. If you are a content creator rather than content consumer, you quickly realize the difference. I probably get more productivity from a smartphone than most people can get from a desktop. On a desktop I can compete with NASA...I am a data analyst by the way.
That's it. I'm shooting everything in a square format and then opening in Photoshop, expanding the canvas and using content aware fill or AI to fill in any banding area of nothingness. No thinking required :-)
Now this may sound CRAZY, but try turning your phone sideways... Yes, yes. It doesn't fix all the other issues mentioned, but your were waving your phone around like there was no feasible way to show a horizontal panorama on it without it being a wide shot on a vertical surface
Well, every smartphone in the world has the autorotate feature enabled by default. If people choose NOT to use it, that's their decision, but they waive their right to complain about it. It'd be like complaining a book is difficult to read when it's upside down, instead of fixing the "problem".
Especially important for good stock photography, you have banners, buttons of a myriad of sizes and once you found a good image to carry your message, you fiddle with fills, crops etc. like mad. Hence best to shoot a series of different formats and angles that have different formats in mind. At least in ad space that gets your stuff sold better, assuming that the basic quality is alrihht as well.
Absolutely excellent! One of the best tutorials of any subject on any media ever. I can't possibly imagine anyone not understanding Tony's super clear, super fun explanation of aspect ratio. I am impressed with the perfect amount of dramatization, just enough to illustrate the concepts of aspect ratio - cutting the printed picture was ingenious. Thank you, Tony!
Got to agree with your thoughts here Tony. It's funny I'm still pretty amateur but in the last year or so after switching to Micro Four Thirds it's amazing how much the cropping affects pictures. I had this issue last night after doing a mini Christmas shoot at home with my toddler. We hung six 8x10 frames on the wall and then tried to pick out the best 6 pictures but found out that we only had 3 keeper horizontal. And even then to get them printed I had to crop them in Lightroom to fit the aspect ratio which worked out OK for some but for one it cut off a hand and is unusable. I wish I knew this before starting the shoot that I wanted to have six horizontal 8x10 when all was said and done.
3:32 you literally predicted the future because instagram is trying a new aspect ratio that fills the phones screen vertically that's insane almost five years ago
thank you so much for making these videos that talk about things you don't usually see in other videos. you're still literally the only channel i've ever seen discuss that crop factor has an effect on aperture as well as focal length! thanks again.
I think the best solution to cover all aspects is to shoot with a high megapixel camera and leave enough border to crop to most common formats. Taking many images of the same thing cropped differently just seems to ruin the moment in my opinion.
exactly what I was thinking. I mainly shoot portraits, shooting multiple versions of the a given pose is awkward, and then when even worst when you're trying to capture candid moments.
That is assuming that everyone is shooting with high megapixel cameras. Not everyone wants to, or can, afford the high megapixel cameras. The majority of photographers on the planet are not professionals The average enthusiast does not own 36/40/50 megapixel cameras.
Good point, i would love to see in the future circular sensor. Much better for circular lenses
7 років тому+1
Eugenio apparently sensors where too expensive to do that, at least that is what internet "experts" always reply to the round sensor suggestion. Personally I would consider it as a good feature in a camera.
Toda la razón Agustín, además tendríamos que cambiar muchas otras cosas hasta la manera de pensar... pero bueno quizás algún Chileno se nos ocurre invertir en este nicho ;) saludos
1:1 is the most ideal format for future for different kind of use. Just Like traditional Hasselblad 6x6 format we can crop the image in every ratio we need. Camera lens is circular, why camera factories wouldn’t put 1:1 square sensors on digital camera that can use maximum optical area of the lens?
agree a 100% ...... best Aspect Ratio ever for portraiture is 4:3 as there's no need later, to crop out the negative wastage space from the image. Classic 4:3 is evergreen. Fuji GFX & M43 Olympus/Panasonic can be a pleasure to use, just because of that solely. The no man's land of 3:2 is neither Wide enough for Cinema/Movie/Video work, nor Tall enough for portrait. For video, 2:1 (16:8) is even better than 16:9, or may be even slightly wider than that.
There's an old example of the aspect ratio issue -- movies and television. Movies started out at 1.37:1 (35 mm with "4-perf pulldown"). Along came television at 4:3, and the studios freaked that people would stop going to theaters. So Super-35, Widescreen, and CinemaScope became far more popular (they'd been introduced long before, but costs and other things hindered use. 70mm was in use in the 1890s!). With television, something interesting happened with filmmakers. Many started shooting for display on television, meaning you'll see that all the action and visual interest is contained in a 4:3 section of the widescreen original. Better directors and cinematographers used the whole frame, and that led to broadcasters making interesting (sometimes bizarre) framing choices when they cropped the film to show it on television. (That, in turn, was the principal argument for letterboxing in that transitional time when more people were getting widescreen televisions while significant numbers still had older, standard definition TVs.)
Movies started at 1:33:1. The 1.37:1 (which is basically identical) is the academy ratio established in the early 30s. It was made to compensate for the fact that the sound track has made the image narrower.
I have to turn my computer monitor vertically tall to see videos in *9x16 (1080x1920)* from Korean, Taiwan, China, Japan, and other Asian UA-cam different from videos in *16x9 (1920 x 1080)* ratio North America & European monitor or TV horizontally wide. Modern monitor for video for computer must be vertically or horizontally swivel so that we can watch videos on UA-cam by 9x16 or 16x9 aspect ratios.
Very enlightening. Thanks Tony. Personally, I'm going back to cave painting format: one wall wide by one wall high. It lets you get (wait for it), Mammoth sized prints.
One thing people never seem to think of. If you are capturing video of an event that might be newsworthy, hold your phone horizontally. All TV is landscape and your video will be used in preference to tall thin ones.
What I don't get is, if you have a MFT sensor like the GH5 and you can use the whole 4:3 ratio, why cant you shoot 4:3 on sony a7iii with a 2k-ish resolution? why do we have to crop it later? Is this a limitation on software from sony, or the way the pixels on the sensor are?
Well done Tony this is THE video to watch on aspect ratio. Right from the top you’ve driven the illustration home in terms of what we need to consider. Some may say “whatever” in terms of choosing the cameras aspect ratio for picture taking, but whatever we choose, this illustrative video cautions is to consider at least leaving room for future flexibility
Another cropping issue: I've noticed that even when I have a perfectly sized image for a print, the print shops (Walgreens, Costco, Walmart, etc) will always crop even further (on each edge) by 1/16 to 1/8th of an inch. Much like the Eagle wings in your picture, that is the sometimes the difference between a subject being inside the edge and outside. Yet another reason to always leave space on the edge.
Just bought the Art & Science Video Gift Bundle and look forward to watching it over the holidays. We love your work and the both of you are a huge source of inspiration and fun. Thanks for all of your hard work.
One thing worth looking at too is the framing world is built around the 4x5 ratio. With a few exceptions like 11x14 your framing prices will be skewed due to your glass being cut down from an 8x10 ratio.
I never mess with aspect ratios on my camera. I do like to adjust my zoom to were it's still a sharp picture but not super close. Once I edit on the computer then on my phone, I crop them. They come out great.
Thank you Dr. Northrup for circumcising the hell out of that picture! You've shown graphically what's been driving me nuts all these years...like getting prints in 8x12 only to realize finding a frame in that size is next to impossible...then being forced to crop to 8x10 for framing and realizing you have to sacrifice important detail on the left or right of the image!
The Intro was great, not saying anything an just cropping the picture, made it so much more interesting! I think circular sensors would make Sensors much more expensive, as they would produce much more waste during production. In addition, to be the same size as a full-frame sensor, much more material is needed. Then I'd rather have a larger rectangle Sensor with higher megapixels to comfortably crop in post.
Thank you for talking about this! I've always believed many current aspect ratios remain written in stone simply because "that's the way it's always been". Personally, I love the 16:9 ratio; however, you should see the eye-rolls I get at my local photo lab when I try to get one printed (much less, mounted). You would think I was asking them to violate some sacred oath. Again, thanks!
Why would anyone subject themselves to those "experts" over there? All they do is complain about gear they don't own or use, , argue about stupid stuff and quote spec sheets. If the "experts" ever actually took some pictures it would be a first.
I remember back when I upgraded from my Fujifilm S7000 to a Canon 350D, the DPREview forums were great, there was very little of today's internet childishness and the majority of people were quite helpful. Eventually things went downhill, but that can be said for a lot of internet forums and comment sections. People are less likely to be helpful and more likely to act superior or try and be a smart-ass. You still have those willing to help, but it gets muddled between trolls and their hateful or useless comments.
Tony, I love how you bring up about sensor shapes because I've been saying this for a while. Give us square image sensors on our smartphones so we don't have to rotate them. The difference in sensor area is tiny so it wouldn't result in a substantially more expensive sensor like it would for a larger format and it would allow for loads of smart functionality, such as... banishing vertical video from the face of the Earth.
Three to four years ago I bought your eBook and joined your Photo Stunners Facebook group. The people there at that time had this insane idea that you wanted "super tight crop" all the time. My explaining to them that I left space to account for aspect ratio fell on deaf ears as they still shouted that super tight crop is how you wanted it. I left the group with their silly notions before they ridiculed me any further. Finally I have video that proves you agree that there must be room for different crops.
I had a similar problem just this holiday season. Wanted to buy a frame with space for one 4×6 and two 1×1 and give away as present this christmas pictures of my children. Never printed with a frame in mind before and I had to give up... I definetly will have this kind of thing in mind for the future. Not just snapping photos but actually think about the final product as I'm shooting.
I try to first shoot high resolution and wider than ideal. This allows me to reframe the photo pretty much any way that is needed, even if it is not the best composition. I then try to shoot more specific compositions and formats.
Good video, and an important thing to keep in mind. Anyone who has shot for publication in mags, books or newspapers has had to think about this for many, many years. I recently sold a print, and the customer saw the image in 16:9, but wanted a 16x24 print. Fortunately with a little Photoshop content aware fill I was able to get what he wanted. :)
My photographer friend always asks why I don't fill the frame when I take my photographs. That's why. I don't always know what aspect ratio I'm going to print so I leave room. Then I can crop accordingly and not lose anything of the main subject. For a 24 or 36 mega pixel sensor I still have plenty mega pixels to spare. When shooting on film the mega pixels are determined by how big I scan the slide or negative, 6x7 or 35mm, so plenty mega pixels. Finally, I'm clearly not a professional so I take photographs for me. On the rare occasion I sell a print, then I use matting in the frame to give the aspect ratio requested by the buyer, with full understanding of the buyer. Great videos guys, thanks!
Thanks for this info - I've been so frustrated getting photos ready for shows because I was losing part of the photos - now I know to leave a lot of dead space in anticipation of cropping for a 8x10 print.
Why do iPhone users always look or film or photograph things vertically? I share pictures on my phone and iPhone users always look at them vertically but android users always rotate the phone so the pictures are in a more natural aspect.
And....the latest curved monitors are 28:9... (example: Dell UltraSharp 34 Curved Ultrawide Monitor: U3415W). Time to get good at stitching panoramas for pretty wallpapers.....
The video makes a great point about how important aspect ratio is, but I think it's a mistake to let the multitude of viewing mediums rule your choice. It should be down to what creates the best composition in any situation. It's impossible to look into the future and predict how your pictures will be viewed; just shoot them how you want them to look.
This is definitely an important aspect (ha ha) of photography today that very few people ever talk about. I've been shooting with crops in mind for a long time now and it's helped a ton in so many situations. Really good video Tony.
Ever since picking up my first camera, I've always thought that 3:2 was "too wide" for me. Yes, you can argue that I could crop but, it's a bit more difficult to crop when the viewfinder only shows 3:2. Oftentimes I find myself shooting more center-weighted compositions, or compositions with lots of negative space, so that I could post the squares on Instagram. For a long time I've been wanting something like 4:3, or 5:4 sensors. I didn't know that there were 4:3 options on the market; those being micro 4/3, and digital medium format cameras. However, well, I spent a lot of money on my Nikon gear, and switching systems doesn't seem like a hot idea because I'm not rich. Even with selling off my current equipment, it seems like a gamble.
gameshoes the 1:1 format works well for center weighted or even symmetrical stuff. Though you can try rotating your camera 90 degrees. A lot of the time this can help that out as well.
Thank you. I just made a decision to shoot only black and white. That is what I was trained in sense I was 10 years old. I love to shoot in 1:1 however, I am going to take your advice and shoot in other aspect ratios. I also like 8 X 10. Guess I am old fashion. I do have your book, and it is wonderful. I highly recommended it. Hi from Hurley Dean, Sandpoint, Idaho USA.
Given that the pixels are squares, you're ultimately going to have a "squaring the circle" type issue at the edges. If pixels were hexagons, you'd be able to get reasonably close to a circular sensor, but then cropping to the formats we're used to like 1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, etc., becomes difficult as we'd end up with jagged edges. Plus we'd really have to change our monitors and screens to use hexagonal pixels as well. Until the futuristic advent of triangular or hexagonal pixels, the best scheme for camera designers would be to use 1:1 sensors with the diagonal as close as practicable to the diameter of the lens' light cone. Unfortunately, all the lens mounts in existence stuff electrical contacts and the like in the space above/below the rectangular sensor, and even many lenses cut off the light cone in those areas, so even *that* change is unlikely any time soon.
I KNEW IT, 9:16 IS THE FUTURE FOR SHOTS AND VIDEOS Now insta is crazy with reels and tiktok is just another head of big 9:16 leading sharing videos app and this is just what id be expected and Im so glad that i learn so hard to do it in 9:16 or portrait this is just my dream
Not just aspect ratio, but keeping in mind what your end product will be, is important. I went on vacation to Peru, took a lot of pictures, that I’ll make a printed photo album of. I want to use a picture of Machu Picchu as the cover around the book, but all my pictures have Machu Picchu on the left side of the frame, which would cover the backside of my album... Didn’t think about that, when I shot all those pictures...
What am I missing here? - It seems like since full frame sensors are basically 36x24, that the best format setup for the camera would also be that (3:2). That would use every part of the sensor, and allow more leeway for cropping later. It seems so obvious that I can't help but think I am missing something.
I shoot with Nikon Fx and Nikon Dx (film shooter from the 1970's, 35mm, 6x4.5cm, 4x5 inch, etc.), and wonder why it is difficult to find 8x12 frames (matches the aspect ratio of these Nikon DLSRs), and when you find them, you must pay a premium for an "odd size", which matches MANY DLSR's out in "the wild". I often end up printing at 13x19 inches to avoid excessive cropping, or I cut my own custom mats to avoid cropping such as putting a 6x10 print into an 11x14 frame.
Watching this in 2024 where Tik Tok is most popular social app with vertical aspect and Apple just released VR headset, this guy was so ahead of its time it is crazy!
User agent string detection for your portfolio ;) Load collection of images based on device. Vertical for phones, 3:2 ipad, horizontal for desktop, etc. Be right back. Writing an npm package for this...
A bit late to comment, having focus point not going all the way to the edges can help leaving room around for future resize. I know a leave headroom when Using the D3 since the focus doesn't go all the way to the top.
For smartphones and tablets get 645 Pro MK III for any aspect ratio you want, plus lots of other cool features. The same developers have a couple more fun apps for for phones and tablets, Field Cam and Pure.
I see most instagram photographers using 4:5 to get the most real estate on a newsfeed. it still looks good on the square profile feed and normally they can make their photo fit on a vertical story. So i dont really agree with the 1:1 comment for IG.. Also i was kinda hoping for a video describing which aspect ratio you should use for different applications. aspect ratios and cropping can dramatically change the mood of a photo. This video basically just is saying to be mindful of the different ratios..
I don't understand why there are not aspect ratio grid overlay options in cameras. The D850 has a square option, but I don't want the camera to actually take a square picture, I just want to see a square overlay so that I can keep in mind what the crop would be later. There is no reason why we couldn't have all of the most popular aspect ratio's available as grid overlays.
Very interesting. So why did they make the original format 4x5? I've heard that the ideal ratio is the golden ratio (1.618:1), but you rarely see that. Why not? Where did the 16:9 ratio come from? If it were 15:9, that would be very close to the golden ratio, so why go to 16:9?
this is something I have found my self thinking a lot about lately. I have noticed that when I shoot for the correct social media platform (instagram:square) (facebok: portrait) the photos get more attention. Now when shooting or even in post i think about the final product more and more
Oh.... I was wondering was it good idea to buy canon BG-E18 battery grip. After watching this, yes it was good idea. Now I only have to get used to use it.
I wish so much that we had circular sensors, The would cost more as they would waste chip space, but cmon, we would pay more for such a revolution. Or even square, a big square would give us more cropping options, nor waste any chip space, and be a greater total surface area than any rectangular sensor. And no more need for vertical grips
Um, it doesn't really make sense to say a square sensor has a greater surface area than any rectangular sensor. A particular square can have a greater area than a particular rectangle but a rectangle can be bigger than a square or vice versa. If you're mostly shooting squarish images, then you're throwing away less pixels with a square sensor, but if you're mostly shooting 4:3, say, then whatever number of pixels you have is most usefully spread across a 4:3 rectangle.
James Birtwhistle a square is the most efficient 4 sided shape inside a circle. I just meant it is the most surface area for the image circle, only second to adding more sides or making it a circle. Yeah a 2:3 crop of the square would be a smaller area than a native 2:3, but they could just out in a massive square sensor that purposely wastes the 4 corners to use the entire image circle and not wasting silicon in the sensor factory.
I get you, but if you have a square that fills the entire image circle then the corners are still going to waste - they're just sitting in your camera receiving no light rather than sitting in a pile of waste on the factory floor. I agree that's it's more practical than producing a circular sensor though.
Commenting from the future where TikTok wth vertical screen is most popular social app and Apple just released VR headset this guy was so ahead of its time it's crazy!
I often shoot in 6x7 aspect ratio (medium format film) and print in 8x10. In the darkroom I once in a while have to print a tightly composed image, and trying to make it work on 8x10 paper (even if ratio is close) can be a pain.
I have to crop for different size prints for all my customers, this is why I like high MP cameras! I also leave enough room to crop how I want with no issues.
I wish my camera had like aspect ratio grid, it just the regular Rules of third grid, which is usual, but having an option for different popular aspect ratio grid would be cool. Also more aspect ratio would be cool, the option of just 3:2 and 16:9 are a bit limiting.
Love this! It’s heartbreaking when a client uses one of my photos I deliver to a different format and recomposes it themselves. Completely destroys the picture. Then they tag me on socialmedia 🤮
D Mac not sure understand what you’re saying. I actually deliver the photo in three or more compositions at times. Business card, Instagram, facebook and banner. They still don’t get it..
That's the worst right. Half the time we argue for not getting the credit in posts and then when we do get it, it's with posts cropped by the client. Lol it's a tragedy
I don’t like Instagram because of the square format, but I don’t like Hasselblad 500s for the same reason. If I had to choose the ultimate analogue digital camera it would be the Mamiya RZ 67. I tend to print 4x5 as a baseline so I can marry my digital and analogue darkroom prints up to the same size. Because I can’t darkroom print colour or medium format this makes for problems with my 645 camera, and I have to take the fact I will be scanning and cropping the images in post if I wish to print at home. I have practically zero online presence and my images are all sold to raise money for a local charity, so cropping for online presence doesn’t impact on me. But this isn’t a new phenomenon though and has always been a problem for medium format where you have 6:4.5 (half medium format) 6:6, 6:7, 6:86:9 (full medium format), 6:11, 6:14 and even bigger.
I don't give a crap .. I shoot wide aspect ratio .. typically 16:9. Screw Instagram or any for-the-moment social media formats. Our eyes are wide, let the future mutant humans with their vertical eyes enjoy Instagram and Snapchat. They'll have a mystery to solve with unicorn, dog or cat people...
No music, no intro, no usual UA-cam setup, yet it's very thorough to the point. Thank you for the clean and clear content
Perhaps the best solution right now is to shoot with a high resolution camera with sharp glass and DONT fill the frame. Leave a lot of negative space around the subject and you can crop however you’d like.
That's just what I do most of the time....
Dustin Dilworth Tony didn’t cover going to print on canvas. You lose soooo much real estate wrapping around the frame!
Our guy wanted some shots for the photo club newsletter. I was flattered he picked my shot of the cougar at the zoo. I took 25 shots before I got the cat with his front paw raised while pacing his space(I got lucky no glass or fence). The newsletter comes out and he lopped off the bottom of the pic where the cats paw was. I guess I should have mentioned how I wanted it printed. I figured he'd get it.
As always, the best info is in the comments. Tony's getting wound about nothing, especially the vertical phone aspect ratio silliness (auto rotate is a thing, Tony). Modern sensors have an abundance of resolution, and it's trivially easy to keep your composition centered and protected for a variety of aspect ratios while still keeping a sharp and detailed image after you crop down. (also, Micro Four-Thirds is 4:3, Tony, not 4:5, it's right there in the name!)
In my opinion the best solution. We don't have time and patients to shoot in multiple aspect ratios most of the time.
Why are you cutting my stuff? Rude.
hahah
Mark Stronge of course not 😉
It's my photo. She's joking.
Don’t listen to Tony this is not a joke. That photo has been in my family for 1000s of years and he cut it without asking.
0 chill
those scissor skills though
I noticed that too. Straight lines from behind both horizontal and vertical, looking into a monitor while talking.
Why am I so stressed about aspect ratios now? I don't even own a camera.
I just laughed then questioned reality.
LOL
3:43 ...oh i hate that - I know how you feel. Ok so it became a grand vision that turned into a postage stamp design? (sigh...) ...hmmm...
LOL
Lmbo....u made me laugh. OMG I needed that laugh becuase this video just gave me a headache! Geeeeeeeeeeeeeesh......
I hate Hate HATE vertical format video. There are good reasons for shooting some stills in vertical format but NEVER a good reason for shooting video like that. Why are some (many) people so pin-headed that they can't turn their phones 90 degrees and shoot properly? Portrait video on landscape screens just looks awful and even if you just view it on a phone and don't rotate it to landscape, our eyes are built to see things in landscape mode and it just doesn't look right.
Western Australia Now and Then one word: Snapchat
Except if you're going to share it on Snapchat or Instagram, imo
Follow what the consumer want.
I've finally got my friends sharing my mantra: "Friends don't let friends vertical video"
@@jordanfranck .. Snapchat is ruining video and Instagram is ruining photos. Simple minds fail to understand the future consequences...
6:21 Tony casually tossing away that magazine, like my ex with my happiness.
😂
Seeing this in 2021 .... He predicted future of photography
I just shoot natively and get the best shot I can. If it's a weird crop for a format then I either don't share it on that format or share it and say to hell with it. I don't have a boss telling me how to shoot and if I did I think it would take all of the passion right out of me.
I completely agree! It's my vision of the scene/final photo, not someone else. I actually print my photos and hang them in my home so I think what I want the final print to look like before I take the shot.
For a client, I find what they want before I shoot. Even in that, if my view is to live on it will live on as I viewed the scene.
High mp cameras give us the opportunity to leave a little more space around our subjects for cropping. Usually it's worth leaving some room to crop later.
35mm (3:2) has been popular for well over a hundred years, and was still the most popular film size when digital full-frame and ASP-C (also both 3:2) took over. Yet try and buy a 3:2 photograph frame larger than 6"x4" and you just can't, unless you have them custom made. This has absolutely frustrated me for years, and I just don't understand why frame manufacturers don't make frames in the world's most popular aspect ratio, and it just doesn't make sense that they don't, so I'm really pleased to find I'm not frustrated on my own!
Funny you posted this video. I just did a family photo shoot and it turned out good. The problem was I didn’t plan for 8 x 10 and they can’t use the shots to hang on their wall. I’ll have to re-shoot again in spring so this was a good learning experience. Definitely not a boring video or topic because this is important information for new photographers like myself.
dragonfist25 why do they want an 8x10?
Just print and frame them whatever aspect ratio the photo is.
I just delivered a 12”x22” canvas of a wedding group shot because that is the shape of the image. We have our own printers and custom framing places, so I’m not sure what the big deal is about printing standard formats
Christopher O'Grady I think they already had the frames and just wanted to print them. I'll pass along your suggestion.
Uppercut Athletics oh, I never have clients print my photos, they have to buy the prints/frames from me
Christopher O'Grady Makes sense. This is dragonfist25 by the way. I forgot to switch accounts.
Same issue with me but I just printed the image out as a 8x13
I use many different aspect-ratios. I use 3:2, 6:4, 8:12, 4:6, 12:8 and 2:3 and sometimes, when I feel like doing something cool, I use 15:10!
What, no √2:1 ?
@@davidjames4915 cause that's just not exactly right. It's really close to also being a perfect crop, but it's not quite as good as 21:14 for example
No one seems to talk about aspect ratio, so I appreciate this video. Any photographer who starts printing their work runs into this issue immediately! I've learned to shoot wide so I have ample cropping flexibility for client photo sizes, and I crop everything myself to the clients print size desire inside Lightroom. I don't leave it up to the lab! This is just another piece of the puzzle to becoming a well rounded photographer.
This is a great video and brings up some important points that really aren't discussed enough. When I first got into photography I just shot everything in horizontal and cropped to 16:9 because it looked the best on computer screens, but as I started to get more popular on instagram I made the conscious choice to shoot more in vertical and square. Last year I got so caught up in shooting vertical 4:5 images that I prioritized it over horizontal wide crops. When it came time to putting together a calendar I was panicking because I needed to fill the page with horizontal images. I ended up doing some pretty cringe worthy horizontal 8.5:11 crops of the vertical images with a crap ton on content aware filling to expand the frame. As much as I'd like to say that I've learned, I still end up having to do this every couple months to fill the needs of a certain format. But I try to shoot wider and in multiple different orientations to meet as many formats as possible.
I hate that instagram force-crops my vertical 2:3, unless I apply white boarders in 3rd party apps...
Why not think about why they do so? I guess the reason is that if the image would be higher than 4:5, it would be higher than the actual viewable area of the feed where you‘re scrolling, depending on the phone it is viewed on. So when scrolling through the feed, people wouldn‘t see the whole image at once. Would suck, right? It makes sense that they limit the aspect ration, in my opinion at least. Many people, like you, don‘t think far enough - so it‘s better to set limits.
I use 3rd party white borders as well. I don't want to compromise. If a scene is best presented in a certain aspect ratio just do it.
Newer DSLR/Mirrorless need to be able to overlay an aspect ratio in the viewfinder or add it too the live view mode at least. If they don't want too go to an EVF yet (canon,nikon).
The D850 does this REALLY WELL. It can draw a box or dim the unused part of the OVF.
Em1 Mk II and other Oly models do this too........When I find I'm leaving too much dead space in the sky or foreground, I shoot 16x9.......saves film space and developer costs due to less "real estate" processing chemicals :-)
Who the hell holds their phone vertically to look at a horizontal photo? Just turn the phone 90°.
Many of us do not leave auto-rotate on, it messes with productivity apps like spreadsheets which usually work better vertically. If you are a content creator rather than content consumer, you quickly realize the difference. I probably get more productivity from a smartphone than most people can get from a desktop. On a desktop I can compete with NASA...I am a data analyst by the way.
@@craigknapp6318 That's a helluva excuse lol.
This aged well. Good job Tony.
Great video. Changing aspect ratios during dialogue made all the difference.
That's it. I'm shooting everything in a square format and then opening in Photoshop, expanding the canvas and using content aware fill or AI to fill in any banding area of nothingness. No thinking required :-)
lol
Craig Pickles the struggle
Now this may sound CRAZY, but try turning your phone sideways...
Yes, yes. It doesn't fix all the other issues mentioned, but your were waving your phone around like there was no feasible way to show a horizontal panorama on it without it being a wide shot on a vertical surface
Well, every smartphone in the world has the autorotate feature enabled by default. If people choose NOT to use it, that's their decision, but they waive their right to complain about it. It'd be like complaining a book is difficult to read when it's upside down, instead of fixing the "problem".
Autorotate doesn't work in Instagram.
Every advise Tony gives translates into more storage space. More photos for aspect ratios, more photos for better luck, etc etc.
That’s kind of the vibe I’m getting to.
Especially important for good stock photography, you have banners, buttons of a myriad of sizes and once you found a good image to carry your message, you fiddle with fills, crops etc. like mad. Hence best to shoot a series of different formats and angles that have different formats in mind. At least in ad space that gets your stuff sold better, assuming that the basic quality is alrihht as well.
Absolutely excellent! One of the best tutorials of any subject on any media ever. I can't possibly imagine anyone not understanding Tony's super clear, super fun explanation of aspect ratio. I am impressed with the perfect amount of dramatization, just enough to illustrate the concepts of aspect ratio - cutting the printed picture was ingenious. Thank you, Tony!
Got to agree with your thoughts here Tony. It's funny I'm still pretty amateur but in the last year or so after switching to Micro Four Thirds it's amazing how much the cropping affects pictures. I had this issue last night after doing a mini Christmas shoot at home with my toddler. We hung six 8x10 frames on the wall and then tried to pick out the best 6 pictures but found out that we only had 3 keeper horizontal. And even then to get them printed I had to crop them in Lightroom to fit the aspect ratio which worked out OK for some but for one it cut off a hand and is unusable. I wish I knew this before starting the shoot that I wanted to have six horizontal 8x10 when all was said and done.
3:32 you literally predicted the future because instagram is trying a new aspect ratio that fills the phones screen vertically that's insane almost five years ago
I searched by recent to see if anyone else noticed this
Yes
thank you so much for making these videos that talk about things you don't usually see in other videos. you're still literally the only channel i've ever seen discuss that crop factor has an effect on aperture as well as focal length! thanks again.
I think the best solution to cover all aspects is to shoot with a high megapixel camera and leave enough border to crop to most common formats. Taking many images of the same thing cropped differently just seems to ruin the moment in my opinion.
exactly what I was thinking. I mainly shoot portraits, shooting multiple versions of the a given pose is awkward, and then when even worst when you're trying to capture candid moments.
That is assuming that everyone is shooting with high megapixel cameras. Not everyone wants to, or can, afford the high megapixel cameras. The majority of photographers on the planet are not professionals The average enthusiast does not own 36/40/50 megapixel cameras.
Used D800E is cheaper than a Fujifilm APS-C right now lol
Good point, i would love to see in the future circular sensor. Much better for circular lenses
Eugenio apparently sensors where too expensive to do that, at least that is what internet "experts" always reply to the round sensor suggestion.
Personally I would consider it as a good feature in a camera.
Toda la razón Agustín, además tendríamos que cambiar muchas otras cosas hasta la manera de pensar... pero bueno quizás algún Chileno se nos ocurre invertir en este nicho ;) saludos
1:1 is the most ideal format for future for different kind of use. Just Like traditional Hasselblad 6x6 format we can crop the image in every ratio we need. Camera lens is circular, why camera factories wouldn’t put 1:1 square sensors on digital camera that can use maximum optical area of the lens?
Always preferred 4:3 to compose even on a 3:2 camera I tend to compose so I can crop in 4:3 later since I prefer to print in that ratio.
agree a 100% ...... best Aspect Ratio ever for portraiture is 4:3 as there's no need later, to crop out the negative wastage space from the image. Classic 4:3 is evergreen. Fuji GFX & M43 Olympus/Panasonic can be a pleasure to use, just because of that solely. The no man's land of 3:2 is neither Wide enough for Cinema/Movie/Video work, nor Tall enough for portrait. For video, 2:1 (16:8) is even better than 16:9, or may be even slightly wider than that.
There's an old example of the aspect ratio issue -- movies and television. Movies started out at 1.37:1 (35 mm with "4-perf pulldown"). Along came television at 4:3, and the studios freaked that people would stop going to theaters. So Super-35, Widescreen, and CinemaScope became far more popular (they'd been introduced long before, but costs and other things hindered use. 70mm was in use in the 1890s!).
With television, something interesting happened with filmmakers. Many started shooting for display on television, meaning you'll see that all the action and visual interest is contained in a 4:3 section of the widescreen original. Better directors and cinematographers used the whole frame, and that led to broadcasters making interesting (sometimes bizarre) framing choices when they cropped the film to show it on television. (That, in turn, was the principal argument for letterboxing in that transitional time when more people were getting widescreen televisions while significant numbers still had older, standard definition TVs.)
Doesn't the D850 provide the photographer with various aspect ratios?
Movies started at 1:33:1. The 1.37:1 (which is basically identical) is the academy ratio established in the early 30s. It was made to compensate for the fact that the sound track has made the image narrower.
I have to turn my computer monitor vertically tall to see videos in *9x16 (1080x1920)* from Korean, Taiwan, China, Japan, and other Asian UA-cam different from videos in *16x9 (1920 x 1080)* ratio North America & European monitor or TV horizontally wide. Modern monitor for video for computer must be vertically or horizontally swivel so that we can watch videos on UA-cam by 9x16 or 16x9 aspect ratios.
Very enlightening. Thanks Tony. Personally, I'm going back to cave painting format: one wall wide by one wall high. It lets you get (wait for it), Mammoth sized prints.
One thing people never seem to think of. If you are capturing video of an event that might be newsworthy, hold your phone horizontally. All TV is landscape and your video will be used in preference to tall thin ones.
What I don't get is, if you have a MFT sensor like the GH5 and you can use the whole 4:3 ratio, why cant you shoot 4:3 on sony a7iii with a 2k-ish resolution? why do we have to crop it later? Is this a limitation on software from sony, or the way the pixels on the sensor are?
Software. Fujifilm has every aspect ratio option in their menus.
Well done Tony this is THE video to watch on aspect ratio. Right from the top you’ve driven the illustration home in terms of what we need to consider. Some may say “whatever” in terms of choosing the cameras aspect ratio for picture taking, but whatever we choose, this illustrative video cautions is to consider at least leaving room for future flexibility
Another cropping issue: I've noticed that even when I have a perfectly sized image for a print, the print shops (Walgreens, Costco, Walmart, etc) will always crop even further (on each edge) by 1/16 to 1/8th of an inch. Much like the Eagle wings in your picture, that is the sometimes the difference between a subject being inside the edge and outside. Yet another reason to always leave space on the edge.
Just bought the Art & Science Video Gift Bundle and look forward to watching it over the holidays. We love your work and the both of you are a huge source of inspiration and fun. Thanks for all of your hard work.
Love this, Tony. Can't believe you made this in 2017! More relevant than ever. Thank you.
One thing worth looking at too is the framing world is built around the 4x5 ratio. With a few exceptions like 11x14 your framing prices will be skewed due to your glass being cut down from an 8x10 ratio.
I never mess with aspect ratios on my camera. I do like to adjust my zoom to were it's still a sharp picture but not super close. Once I edit on the computer then on my phone, I crop them. They come out great.
Thank you Dr. Northrup for circumcising the hell out of that picture! You've shown graphically what's been driving me nuts all these years...like getting prints in 8x12 only to realize finding a frame in that size is next to impossible...then being forced to crop to 8x10 for framing and realizing you have to sacrifice important detail on the left or right of the image!
The Intro was great, not saying anything an just cropping the picture, made it so much more interesting!
I think circular sensors would make Sensors much more expensive, as they would produce much more waste during production. In addition, to be the same size as a full-frame sensor, much more material is needed. Then I'd rather have a larger rectangle Sensor with higher megapixels to comfortably crop in post.
You predicted the future. We now use vertical photos and videos for instagram and other apps.
Best advice Tony! Shoot in all types of aspect ratios for the ever changing way we share our photos!!
Your vertical format prediction 🙌🙌
Thank you for talking about this! I've always believed many current aspect ratios remain written in stone simply because "that's the way it's always been". Personally, I love the 16:9 ratio; however, you should see the eye-rolls I get at my local photo lab when I try to get one printed (much less, mounted). You would think I was asking them to violate some sacred oath. Again, thanks!
i wish someone would have told me not to get into arguments with people at DPReview. lol. i posed this question on one of the forums, big mistake.
note5 camera What were the kinds of responses that you received?
Why would anyone subject themselves to those "experts" over there? All they do is complain about gear they don't own or use, , argue about stupid stuff and quote spec sheets. If the "experts" ever actually took some pictures it would be a first.
I remember back when I upgraded from my Fujifilm S7000 to a Canon 350D, the DPREview forums were great, there was very little of today's internet childishness and the majority of people were quite helpful. Eventually things went downhill, but that can be said for a lot of internet forums and comment sections. People are less likely to be helpful and more likely to act superior or try and be a smart-ass. You still have those willing to help, but it gets muddled between trolls and their hateful or useless comments.
I shoot 4:5, left over from my medium format film days. Works nicely for 8:10 prints though 😆
Tony, I love how you bring up about sensor shapes because I've been saying this for a while. Give us square image sensors on our smartphones so we don't have to rotate them. The difference in sensor area is tiny so it wouldn't result in a substantially more expensive sensor like it would for a larger format and it would allow for loads of smart functionality, such as... banishing vertical video from the face of the Earth.
What horrors! They must end!!
For those are horrors no man has ever seen
Three to four years ago I bought your eBook and joined your Photo Stunners Facebook group. The people there at that time had this insane idea that you wanted "super tight crop" all the time. My explaining to them that I left space to account for aspect ratio fell on deaf ears as they still shouted that super tight crop is how you wanted it. I left the group with their silly notions before they ridiculed me any further. Finally I have video that proves you agree that there must be room for different crops.
I had a similar problem just this holiday season. Wanted to buy a frame with space for one 4×6 and two 1×1 and give away as present this christmas pictures of my children. Never printed with a frame in mind before and I had to give up... I definetly will have this kind of thing in mind for the future. Not just snapping photos but actually think about the final product as I'm shooting.
Sometimes as I'm taking the picture, I know it's going to be my next phone wallpaper, etc. It's great composition practice.
This issue has been on my mind a lot more lately. Thanks for the discussion!
I try to first shoot high resolution and wider than ideal. This allows me to reframe the photo pretty much any way that is needed, even if it is not the best composition. I then try to shoot more specific compositions and formats.
Good video, and an important thing to keep in mind. Anyone who has shot for publication in mags, books or newspapers has had to think about this for many, many years. I recently sold a print, and the customer saw the image in 16:9, but wanted a 16x24 print. Fortunately with a little Photoshop content aware fill I was able to get what he wanted. :)
My photographer friend always asks why I don't fill the frame when I take my photographs. That's why. I don't always know what aspect ratio I'm going to print so I leave room. Then I can crop accordingly and not lose anything of the main subject.
For a 24 or 36 mega pixel sensor I still have plenty mega pixels to spare. When shooting on film the mega pixels are determined by how big I scan the slide or negative, 6x7 or 35mm, so plenty mega pixels.
Finally, I'm clearly not a professional so I take photographs for me. On the rare occasion I sell a print, then I use matting in the frame to give the aspect ratio requested by the buyer, with full understanding of the buyer.
Great videos guys, thanks!
Thanks for this info - I've been so frustrated getting photos ready for shows because I was losing part of the photos - now I know to leave a lot of dead space in anticipation of cropping for a 8x10 print.
HOW TO TAKE 16.9 IMAGE? ON 200D CAMERA...Please show me a video about it
Why do iPhone users always look or film or photograph things vertically? I share pictures on my phone and iPhone users always look at them vertically but android users always rotate the phone so the pictures are in a more natural aspect.
And....the latest curved monitors are 28:9... (example: Dell UltraSharp 34 Curved Ultrawide Monitor: U3415W). Time to get good at stitching panoramas for pretty wallpapers.....
The video makes a great point about how important aspect ratio is, but I think it's a mistake to let the multitude of viewing mediums rule your choice. It should be down to what creates the best composition in any situation. It's impossible to look into the future and predict how your pictures will be viewed; just shoot them how you want them to look.
This is definitely an important aspect (ha ha) of photography today that very few people ever talk about. I've been shooting with crops in mind for a long time now and it's helped a ton in so many situations. Really good video Tony.
Ever since picking up my first camera, I've always thought that 3:2 was "too wide" for me. Yes, you can argue that I could crop but, it's a bit more difficult to crop when the viewfinder only shows 3:2. Oftentimes I find myself shooting more center-weighted compositions, or compositions with lots of negative space, so that I could post the squares on Instagram.
For a long time I've been wanting something like 4:3, or 5:4 sensors. I didn't know that there were 4:3 options on the market; those being micro 4/3, and digital medium format cameras. However, well, I spent a lot of money on my Nikon gear, and switching systems doesn't seem like a hot idea because I'm not rich. Even with selling off my current equipment, it seems like a gamble.
gameshoes the 1:1 format works well for center weighted or even symmetrical stuff. Though you can try rotating your camera 90 degrees. A lot of the time this can help that out as well.
Very late to the party but did you realise the Nikon D850 supports various aspect ratios in camera?
I really want this channel to hit 1M subscribers. You have few more to go Tony.
You and me both bro! :D
Thank you. I just made a decision to shoot only black and white. That is what I was trained in sense I was 10 years old. I love to shoot in 1:1 however, I am going to take your advice and shoot in other aspect ratios. I also like 8 X 10. Guess I am old fashion.
I do have your book, and it is wonderful. I highly recommended it. Hi from Hurley Dean, Sandpoint, Idaho USA.
I've often wondered why sensors are not a circle, if they were then we wouldn't have to worry about the camera being level.
That's a great point!
Given that the pixels are squares, you're ultimately going to have a "squaring the circle" type issue at the edges. If pixels were hexagons, you'd be able to get reasonably close to a circular sensor, but then cropping to the formats we're used to like 1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, etc., becomes difficult as we'd end up with jagged edges. Plus we'd really have to change our monitors and screens to use hexagonal pixels as well.
Until the futuristic advent of triangular or hexagonal pixels, the best scheme for camera designers would be to use 1:1 sensors with the diagonal as close as practicable to the diameter of the lens' light cone. Unfortunately, all the lens mounts in existence stuff electrical contacts and the like in the space above/below the rectangular sensor, and even many lenses cut off the light cone in those areas, so even *that* change is unlikely any time soon.
David James I had a Fuji bridge camera with Hexagonal pixels years ago. I can’t remember which one it was though.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD
I KNEW IT, 9:16 IS THE FUTURE FOR SHOTS AND VIDEOS
Now insta is crazy with reels and tiktok is just another head of big 9:16 leading sharing videos app and this is just what id be expected and Im so glad that i learn so hard to do it in 9:16 or portrait this is just my dream
Not just aspect ratio, but keeping in mind what your end product will be, is important.
I went on vacation to Peru, took a lot of pictures, that I’ll make a printed photo album of. I want to use a picture of Machu Picchu as the cover around the book, but all my pictures have Machu Picchu on the left side of the frame, which would cover the backside of my album...
Didn’t think about that, when I shot all those pictures...
Wait old film was 4:5 And is an 8:10? But new cameras are 3:2? Wuutt?
What made them choose 3:2 with no crop options? On new sensors.
What am I missing here? - It seems like since full frame sensors are basically 36x24, that the best format setup for the camera would also be that (3:2). That would use every part of the sensor, and allow more leeway for cropping later. It seems so obvious that I can't help but think I am missing something.
I put a screen protector on my lcd and then drew a fine black sharpy line at the 8x10 ratio. If I need an 8x10 format I use Tha line for composing.
I shoot with Nikon Fx and Nikon Dx (film shooter from the 1970's, 35mm, 6x4.5cm, 4x5 inch, etc.), and wonder why it is difficult to find 8x12 frames (matches the aspect ratio of these Nikon DLSRs), and when you find them, you must pay a premium for an "odd size", which matches MANY DLSR's out in "the wild". I often end up printing at 13x19 inches to avoid excessive cropping, or I cut my own custom mats to avoid cropping such as putting a 6x10 print into an 11x14 frame.
Watching this in 2024 where Tik Tok is most popular social app with vertical aspect and Apple just released VR headset, this guy was so ahead of its time it is crazy!
User agent string detection for your portfolio ;) Load collection of images based on device. Vertical for phones, 3:2 ipad, horizontal for desktop, etc. Be right back. Writing an npm package for this...
A bit late to comment, having focus point not going all the way to the edges can help leaving room around for future resize. I know a leave headroom when Using the D3 since the focus doesn't go all the way to the top.
For smartphones and tablets get 645 Pro MK III for any aspect ratio you want, plus lots of other cool features. The same developers have a couple more fun apps for for phones and tablets, Field Cam and Pure.
So glad I clicked this video. Someone told me one way was better then another, this makes more sense.
This is one of the most important videos ever for aspiring photographers
I see most instagram photographers using 4:5 to get the most real estate on a newsfeed. it still looks good on the square profile feed and normally they can make their photo fit on a vertical story. So i dont really agree with the 1:1 comment for IG.. Also i was kinda hoping for a video describing which aspect ratio you should use for different applications. aspect ratios and cropping can dramatically change the mood of a photo. This video basically just is saying to be mindful of the different ratios..
I don't understand why there are not aspect ratio grid overlay options in cameras. The D850 has a square option, but I don't want the camera to actually take a square picture, I just want to see a square overlay so that I can keep in mind what the crop would be later. There is no reason why we couldn't have all of the most popular aspect ratio's available as grid overlays.
Nice video Tony!
The D850 does actually have a 1:1 (Square) Aspect Ratio setting. No tape necessary :p
But then it's no longer 45MP
That is correct Sir, but you still have +30 Megapixels to work with, which I personally find to be great enough :)
Very interesting. So why did they make the original format 4x5? I've heard that the ideal ratio is the golden ratio (1.618:1), but you rarely see that. Why not? Where did the 16:9 ratio come from? If it were 15:9, that would be very close to the golden ratio, so why go to 16:9?
4x5 came by way of cut down 8x10 view cameras...4 shots from one sheet of film that a photogragher would have cut down.
3:52 Just turn your phone so the picture goes landscape
this is something I have found my self thinking a lot about lately. I have noticed that when I shoot for the correct social media platform (instagram:square) (facebok: portrait) the photos get more attention. Now when shooting or even in post i think about the final product more and more
Oh.... I was wondering was it good idea to buy canon BG-E18 battery grip. After watching this, yes it was good idea. Now I only have to get used to use it.
As for lansdscape orientation i only shoot 16:9. Composition and cropping are done in my head before picture is taken.
I wish so much that we had circular sensors, The would cost more as they would waste chip space, but cmon, we would pay more for such a revolution. Or even square, a big square would give us more cropping options, nor waste any chip space, and be a greater total surface area than any rectangular sensor. And no more need for vertical grips
Um, it doesn't really make sense to say a square sensor has a greater surface area than any rectangular sensor. A particular square can have a greater area than a particular rectangle but a rectangle can be bigger than a square or vice versa.
If you're mostly shooting squarish images, then you're throwing away less pixels with a square sensor, but if you're mostly shooting 4:3, say, then whatever number of pixels you have is most usefully spread across a 4:3 rectangle.
James Birtwhistle a square is the most efficient 4 sided shape inside a circle. I just meant it is the most surface area for the image circle, only second to adding more sides or making it a circle. Yeah a 2:3 crop of the square would be a smaller area than a native 2:3, but they could just out in a massive square sensor that purposely wastes the 4 corners to use the entire image circle and not wasting silicon in the sensor factory.
I get you, but if you have a square that fills the entire image circle then the corners are still going to waste - they're just sitting in your camera receiving no light rather than sitting in a pile of waste on the factory floor. I agree that's it's more practical than producing a circular sensor though.
James Birtwhistle adds extra options for sensor stabilisation and tilt shift lenses too though, having normally unactive areas of the sensor
this is why I stick to the golden ratio - 3:2. it's rarely perfect, but to make it perfect you almost always can get it with just a slight adjustment.
The golden ratio is 1.6:1 not 1.5:1
Commenting from the future where TikTok wth vertical screen is most popular social app and Apple just released VR headset this guy was so ahead of its time it's crazy!
I often shoot in 6x7 aspect ratio (medium format film) and print in 8x10. In the darkroom I once in a while have to print a tightly composed image, and trying to make it work on 8x10 paper (even if ratio is close) can be a pain.
I have to crop for different size prints for all my customers, this is why I like high MP cameras! I also leave enough room to crop how I want with no issues.
I wish my camera had like aspect ratio grid, it just the regular Rules of third grid, which is usual, but having an option for different popular aspect ratio grid would be cool. Also more aspect ratio would be cool, the option of just 3:2 and 16:9 are a bit limiting.
Great idea!
Love this! It’s heartbreaking when a client uses one of my photos I deliver to a different format and recomposes it themselves. Completely destroys the picture. Then they tag me on socialmedia 🤮
It's so heartbreaking you do nothing to stop it from happening other than commenting on Tony's video? lol
D Mac not sure understand what you’re saying. I actually deliver the photo in three or more compositions at times.
Business card, Instagram, facebook and banner. They still don’t get it..
That's the worst right. Half the time we argue for not getting the credit in posts and then when we do get it, it's with posts cropped by the client. Lol it's a tragedy
Aspect ratio is everything in photography.
I don’t like Instagram because of the square format, but I don’t like Hasselblad 500s for the same reason. If I had to choose the ultimate analogue digital camera it would be the Mamiya RZ 67. I tend to print 4x5 as a baseline so I can marry my digital and analogue darkroom prints up to the same size. Because I can’t darkroom print colour or medium format this makes for problems with my 645 camera, and I have to take the fact I will be scanning and cropping the images in post if I wish to print at home. I have practically zero online presence and my images are all sold to raise money for a local charity, so cropping for online presence doesn’t impact on me. But this isn’t a new phenomenon though and has always been a problem for medium format where you have 6:4.5 (half medium format) 6:6, 6:7, 6:8 6:9 (full medium format), 6:11, 6:14 and even bigger.
This was a solid video but also hilarious because you have a sort of urgency that makes you seem crazed. 11/10
I don't give a crap .. I shoot wide aspect ratio .. typically 16:9. Screw Instagram or any for-the-moment social media formats. Our eyes are wide, let the future mutant humans with their vertical eyes enjoy Instagram and Snapchat. They'll have a mystery to solve with unicorn, dog or cat people...