Working within or ignoring native aspect ratio in composition

[Max von MeiselMaus]

This is one that is beginning to bug me.

When I first started this photography lark in earnest, someone told me that I should compose to the native aspect ratio of my camera, and that this would be a good discipline. The implication was that ignoring this would be sloppy photography, or cheating in some way.

However, a scene won't always fit neatly into the native aspect ratio and a different one might better suit the composition. So, it seems unnecessarily restrictive and could potentially compromise the shot. I come from an arts background and if someone had said to me "Here is a sheet of paper, straight off the shelf. Every piece of work you produce must conform to this shape" I probably would have laughed in their face. And yet, I can't shift the feeling that running roughshod over the native aspect ratio would be wrong in some way.

So, what are the arguments for and against? Is there any good reason to at least try to compose within the aspect ratio, or should I just let the scene dictate its own proportions? At the moment, I can only thinking of printing paper size as being a possible reason, and I am fairly adept with a scalpel and a steel ruler. So, what am I missing, if anything? I would be very interested to hear your thoughts.

[Donald]

I think this is a question that could generate a great deal of discussion.

Is there any good reason to at least try to compose within the aspect ratio,

From my point of view - none whatsoever. I very, very rarely do. I prefer my images to be either:- 1:1 (square); 4:5; 7:5 or 16:9, none of which is the native aspect ratio of my camera.

And, of course, many people do not restrict themselves to 'standard' aspect ratios such as I do, but choose ratios that they feel meets the needs of the composition they wish to create.

Now let the discussion begin!!

[jcuknz]

Having worked with various formats over the years I have always worked to the format as long as it didn't compromise the result. The basic reason in my case being that for best image quality you use as much of the negative material, sensor area, as possible.
A minor reason in my case having done quite a bit of film/video where the freedom to crop doesn't exist

[Geoff F]

I often consider the intended use of a photo when composing scenes. For example whether I expect to be using the resulting image at 3 x 2 or 5 x 4 ratio and make sure I have sufficient cropping space when required. With some scenes it is obvious before shooting that they need a particular size ratio.

But I suppose that unless a different size is obvious at the time of shooting I do tend to work with the 'native' ratio most of the time.

[NorthernFocus]

Whoever told you that must have a lot of influence in your life. Perhaps in a bygone Era it saved time in the lab.

[Manfred M]

Max - the correct answer is "it depends".

The correct follow up is, of course, "depends on what?". What you are planning to do with the shot; the end use will likely be the determining factor.

If all you ever plan to do is display the images on a computer screen or post them on a website, you have the most flexibility. A current computer screen likely has a native resolution of something like 1920 x 1080 or so, so somewhere around a 2MB image. The 4k screens are becoming more popular, and I expect somewhat higher resolution images might be desirable, somewhere around 8MB. Regardless, anyone using a reasonably modern camera is going to have the bulk of the image data thrown away (downsampled), so you can really do anything you want and get away with it.

The display routines are also nice enough to put a frame around your image, so pretty well any size goes there too.

Things get a bit trickier if you are planning to print your image as the resolution in photo printing is far higher. I believe book and magazine publishing quality is pretty low end, quality wise, but I have no first-hand knowledge here, so can't really comment so lets stay with photo printers / images that will be printed for display purposes.

The considerations here get to be a lot trickier. The first issue is printer resolution; most photo printers have a native resolution of 300 dots per inch (dpi); with Epson being the exception here, with a native resolution of 360 dpi. So, the resolution of a printer is far higher than a computer screen (usually a bit over 100 pixels per inch (ppi)), so even a moderately sized image needs to be "upsampled", which is a nice way of saying the making up data where none exists. When I get an image out of my 36MP D800 and print on my Epson 3880 at maximum print size of 17" x 22", the image needs to be upsampled.

I don't know the UK paper sizes as the papers we use here in North America have a different standard; a standard paper size for us is 8-1/2" x 11", which is shorter and wider than A4. I'll write about North American issues, and you should be able to translate this to UK / European terms.

1. Paper size - if you want to print full size on paper, your camera image will be different. In horizontal format, I'll have to crop off the ends to make it fit. If I plan to do this, I have to shoot in a way that I have enough material to crop off the sides and still get a decent image; so I will ensure that the narrow size of the image fills the frame. but I will have "throw away" material at the left and / or right side in landscape format or off the top and / or bottom in portrait format.

Alternatively, I could print full size and use a paper cutter to trim the paper.

Either of these two approaches work if I plan to either use a custom size frame or mount the image on a board or canvas.


2. If you are looking at a commercial frame (with matts), this is often the least expensive solution for framing, they you need to ensure that your print is the appropriate size for the frame. Historically, in North America, these would be a 4:5 ratio; 8" x 10"; 16" x 20", etc.

3. Custom size - anything goes as you can make the image any size you want. As an example I have a pano that I shot in the Himalayas that would be around 18" x 120" (10ft) if I printed it at full resolution.

Bottom line; if you shoot for prints, you do have to keep this in mind when figuring out your in-camera shot framing.





As you have figured out, there is NO link between printed images and camera sensor size. Prints te

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Dan, yes. This was when I first picked up a camera for many years and really had no idea what I was doing. This person was a professional photographer, so someone to look for for pearls of wisdom. Howeverm I have subsequently found that a lot of what they said that I have adhered to with almost religious vigour I just don't agree with. So it is now a matter of unpicking all this received wisdom and deciding what is actually useful. And, yes, this was a film photographer who strongly distrusted digital work (I managed to shift the belief that post-processing is cheating fairly early on).

So, it sounds as though most would at least start with either the native ratio or some sort of predetermined ratio, and would have to have a very good reason to stray from it. But, apart from wasting a few hundred pixels, what is the reason for that? What are the advantages? Is it for printing? Is a compositional reason? Is it convention? What would be the disadvantages of just cropping the picture whatever sort of random way that would optimise the composition?

[NorthernFocus]

...What are the advantages? Is it for printing? Is a compositional reason? Is it convention? What would be the disadvantages of just cropping the picture whatever sort of random way that would optimise the composition?

The only advantage that I have personally identified is printing. And that only to avoid custom matts, frames, etc. in order to minimize cost. If cost is not an issue, then I say let the artist in you run wild

[James G]

Max,
I'm not sure there is an argument which justifies sticking rigorously to specific aspect ratio's, although I can envisage scenario's where the photographer is imposing a visualising discipline as part of their style.

I also think that when starting in photography, it is important to learn/understand how to see and frame a subject in the context of what is visible through the viewfinder. Once this discipline is mastered, it becomes easier to envisage captures which do not conform to the cameras native aspect ratio.

These days I do not restrict myself to a particular aspect ratio when considering how I want to present an image i.e' the end product'. I print my own images and for me the only aspect ratio criteria I 'consider' relate to creating a balanced harmonious presentation that does justice to the image. ( kind of obvious I suppose)
That said, I'm conscious that like Donald, I favour certain aspect ratio's more than others. I tend to 'start' from these as a standard.

Extreme crops generally means a restriction on the effective size (maximum) that can be printed before enlargement artefacts become visible in the print, so maximising the number of processed pixels for the print phase is an imperative.

On a number of occasions I have wanted to capture panorama's which would be an extreme letterbox crop when printed. Realistically I could not expect a single frame (regardless of native aspect) to provide me with sufficient pixels to generate a satisfactory final cropped image.
In these instances, I shoot multiple frames, and stitch them later to give myself the pixel count I need.

For this type of capture, the native aspect of the camera is more or less irrelevant.

So, as Manfred, Donald and others have said.... It really depends on what your artistic eye dictates .

[rpcrowe]

I have a Matt Cutter and can therefore compose my final print to just about any ratio I desire.

That said, I have recently begun to primarily crop my dog portraits in a formats applicable to Facebook. What size is that? It depends on how you want the layout done. Here is some information regarding Facebook image sizes.

http://havecamerawilltravel.com/phot...mensions-types

[jcuknz]

Max ... I think your Guru of days past was influenced by his work pattern ... as indeed I am sure most of us are ... though I am pretty sure whatever format you use as you work you will find compositions which suit what you are using ... change your camera and other solutions become available to you* ....as I suggested to a much more skilled photographer than I am when he complained about taking his long lens with him "Why not simply take the long lens and see what you find with it".
I enjoy working with a longer zoom, despite its lack of absolute IQ, because the one lens gives me the options I may need for each subject.
*In this I am probably a 'reactive' rather than a 'constructive' photographer that you may well be with your art training, something I missed on despite going to an art school as a first step to learning photography. Photo and Art departments didn't mix as part of the curriculum in my day, as I found with my local polytechnic these days.

[xpatUSA]

This is one that is beginning to bug me.

When I first started this photography lark in earnest, someone told me that I should compose to the native aspect ratio of my camera, and that this would be a good discipline. The implication was that ignoring this would be sloppy photography, or cheating in some way.

Over here we would call that "hogwash". I am fortunate to own a Panasonic camera with an over-sized sensor that can produce raw files and jpegs at 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 or 16:9 all with the same diagonal for that's worth. So I can just select the aspect ratio to the scene and there is no "native" (I hate that word) aspect ratio.

With my other cameras of the traditional 3:2, I'll "shoot to crop" - composing to include the throw-away bits.

I am, however no Pro and I don't print - so others' advice might make more sense.

[Saorsa]

I seldom consider the native aspect ratio or any other standard ratio. It is what it is when I take the image and then I crop to suit what I want to show.

I almost invariably end up close to square or a panorama format.

Most of what I shoot will end up displayed on a screen of one form or another. All of them have different aspect ratios and few will be the same as the sensor.

[Mike Buckley]

I haven't read any of the posts in this thread other than the first one, so perhaps take that into account when reading this one.

I saw a presentation at National Geographic Headquarters by Nat Geo photographer Sam Abell. During the Q&A session, a member of the audience asked him why every photo was the same 2:3 aspect ratio. Abell explained that that is simply his choice and that everyone should make their own choice about that. That seems reasonable to me; it's not a topic that requires a lot of discussion in my mind.

[JR1]

Personally I prefer 6x6 and 6x4.5

[DanK]

Max,

I'd make this simple: ignore that advice. It may be useful as for a compositional exercise, but as a general guideline, I think it is nonsense. The aspect ratio of your particular camera is essentially happenstance. Ask yourself this. Suppose you had two cameras with different aspect ratios. You have both along with you and decide to use camera A. You view a scene for some time and decide how you would like to compose the shot, including the aspect ratio. Then you find that camera A is broken, and you have to use camera B. Would you change what you wanted the image to look like? Of course not.

I pay no attention to the aspect ratio of the camera per se. I do pay attention to something related to it, which is maximizing coverage of the sensor. That is, given whatever aspect ratio I want, I try to get the image large enough to come close to filling the sensor. That just gives me more detail and better image quality.

When posting on the web, you can use any aspect ratio you want. When printing, you can do the same, although it will sometimes require custom matting. A mat cutter takes care of that, and if you are paying for framing, the framer will cut mats and won't care. Once in a while there is a requirement for a specific aspect ratio, say, for a print, but in that case, it is the output aspect ratio that should govern what you do, not the camera's.

In general, I find most but not all fixed rules that people give learners in photography to be exaggerations or worse. Instead of following that rule, I would ask yourself this question when you look at a scene: what composition would I find most appealing? One of many aspects of that question is the aspect ratio.

I'll post below a few shots of mine that are not close to the aspect ratio of my camera (35mm aspect ratio--I should APS-C and full frame). See whether you think they would be improved by forcing them to fit that aspect ratio.

[NorthernFocus]

...In general, I find most but not all fixed rules that people give learners in photography to be exaggerations or worse...

That applies well beyond photography. Most thing in life should be taken in context. Unfortunately that is often lost on both teacher and student.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

So many interesting points being made here. Thank you all for your contributions.

Yes, agreeing with everyone who says that rules can be, at best, restrictive and, at worst, simply wrong. This is why I have recently taken a step back with my photography and gone right back to basics, questioning all the assumptions and "rules" that I have used to far. It is hard work, but feels like a useful piece of reflection, particularly as I am pretty much self taught, so learned from some pretty dubious sources, and in the wrong order, and with huge gaps. Yup. Time to get things in order.

I am not entirely convinced with the lost-pixels-in-printing argument. If you crop a 2:3 image to 1:1, you still have the same resolution and height (or width), but have just lost the ends of the paper. The quality therefore doesn't suffer.

I can see the argument for staying with conventional aspect ratios for the sake of easy framing. However, with painting and drawing, custom frames and mounts are an accepted part of presenting the work,. That one doesn't phase me much.

One thing that I did think of is what a set of images might look like if presented together, either online or printed. Odd shapes and sizes might look less coherent than a set of images produced a limited set of aspect ratios.

Another thing that struck me is the use of harmonious proportions. So, an aspect ratio according to the golden mean, for example. However, as I am going back and scrutinising things, there is no conclusive evidence that the things in the proportion of the golden mean are any more aesthetically pleasing than any other, even in Western culture, where it is most prevalent. So, perhaps that is not so compelling.

Lots of food for thought in here. I will need time to digest it all.

[xpatUSA]

Another thing that struck me is the use of harmonious proportions. So, an aspect ratio according to the golden mean, for example. However, as I am going back and scrutinising things, there is no conclusive evidence that the things in the proportion of the golden mean are any more aesthetically pleasing than any other, even in Western culture, where it is most prevalent. So, perhaps that is not so compelling.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. That last paragraph bothered me a little. What, for you, would constitute "conclusive evidence"?

[Manfred M]

Max - I'm not sure if you quite got the point.

To me the issue has little to do with the so called "lost pixels" that you are discussing: indeed they are not going to cost you anything from an image quality standpoint.

BUT you have to take the pixels you plan to throw away when you do your capture. If you don't allow enough "headroom", for lack of a better term, you might have to throw away pixels that contribute to the image you want to present / print. If not, your crop might be too tight and you will have to throw away part of the composition you really want in your final image. This can a compositional choice. In portraiture, I like positioning the subjects eyes about 1/3 of the way down from the top of any print I'm doing. If I place the head too close to the top of the frame when I am shooting, I have to throw away part of the capture I want in the print or else I have to use a more awkward framing / composition in the end product.