Stop shooting in 3:2 format! 

Exactly!

That is how I do it too. Make full use of all of your camera pixels and crop in post.

In the old days of 35mm film I used 2x3 (couldn't afford 4,5x6). Now, with my Oly M1ii, I'm happy to use 3x4 most of the time, because it is so well balanced and leaves roo m for vertical elements.

Not all cameras do that. For instans my Leica D-lux 6 got 4:3, 3:2, 1:1 and 16:9. The 4:3 is the standard and gives about 24mm eqv to fullframe. The 16:9 actually gives the most and about 21mm eqv. Even though it supposed to be 4:3 formated sensor. I’m not 100% sure, but I have a feeling that the 1:1 also gave more headroom than the 4:3 format. So that camera uses the lens streched to the max for different formats.

Cropping afterwards is a bit lazy. Make the thinking in the field when you see the subject, not adjusting at home in the computor.

Agree!

I was just thinking the same thing. The whole discussion seems rather irrelevant with digital images and editing software ?? Also, with some genres of photography it is not always possible to compose for the final image; sports, wildlife, street, etc.

If you shoot RAW, don’t all cameras capture the full sensor anyway? If you process to replicate the jpeg instead of use it SOOC, you have an opportunity to change your mind.

I doesn't work for me. Cropping in post in almost never as precise as composing in the format I want (usually 1:1). I like to think my images in the format I'll end using and frame them on location to be sure I have exactly what I want. Obviously it's just a personal preference. 😉

Re-framing to a non-traditional format is a bit of a cop-out in my opinion.

@@jamesburne3893 I suppose some said that about Frederick Church and his painting formats.

@@rayspencer5025 I just think it’s a bit messy to be too flexible with photo sizes these days. I like the discipline of framing the shot properly to start with and not risk losing resolution when cropping. With respect, my point was about aspect ratios in photography and traditional ones are more convenient when displaying your work on different digital platforms. If you are a successful fine art photographer, who works in a similar way to an 1800’s painter then congratulations. Chances are you are not. Happy to be proved wrong. Have a nice weekend

@@jamesburne3893 I am an old photographer that predates any electronics in cameras, not even a meter. Every shot used to cost serious money, and you only had a few, and whatever film you put in the camera was what you were forced to work with. Photographers have always cropped images either through their choice of lenses or later while processing. I tend to like non-traditional framing because it is it keeps things non-repetative, and some images are much more visually engaging. Plus, some uses require multiple formats. If you precisely frame shot for a client as a 3X2, but then he wants 4x5, and 8.5X11, and 9X16.....🤣.

@@rayspencer5025 It also depends whether you are taking pictures for fun, or ‘to order’. I have to admit I like to stick to a structure as it disciplines me to learn to shoot better. Although since this conversation I have picked up my camera and for fun I will try to shoot 4:3 in portrait mode and 16:9 landscape. I always found 3:2 a little oddly proportioned.

Totally agree!

disagree. 4:3 is superior

3:2 is horrible

Would be interesting to learn about the reasoning - why 3:2 was invented in photography - as the preferred choice for what we call "full frame" today, - why it became popular and dominant so quickly in modern times (already in film days). Whereas 4:3 seemed a temporary throwback introduced for technical reasons, the vacuum television tubes (and computer CRT monitor tubes) being safe and robust (and cheap) if their format was short, i.e. nearer to a square. As soon as these old vacuum tube technology became obsolete and replaced with LCD/LED/OLED, i.e. relieved from technical boundaries for the format choice, then the format became instantly wider again, even surpassing 3:2.

I’m not sure any of that is true.

@@tubularificationed3:2 came about because Ernst Leitz turned cinema film sideways when he invented the Leica. Which in turn helped invent photojournalism in the hands of Henri Cartier-Bresson. For decades 35mm wasn’t considered a serious format for photography, because you couldn’t do large prints with it. It was referred to as “miniature format”, only good for newspapers and small prints. When the Japanese companies started making mass-market compact cameras in the 50s, they went with 35mm because it made a much better travel format than 120: the cameras were smaller, and you could get more frames on a smaller roll, and the target market didn’t care about the lost image quality. And then CaNikon started making professionals quality cameras and lenses for sport and PJ work. In the mind of the public, this turned 35mm into the professional format, even though art and fashion were still using the largest cameras they could carry, per the advice of Ansel Adams. So that’s how 35mm became regarded as the profession format: an accident of history. There’s no special benefit to it, and in many ways it’s pretty awkward.

Yep, totally agree.

Totally agree

One of the reasons am looking to invest in GFX 100S II just released. I have always been dreaming of large format, I mean who wouldn’t want to own a Phaseone

I have a 100S and always shoot Raw and use the whole 4:3 frame and then crop in post, even when using an adapted FF lens. If I choose other formats, does the Raw file still include the whole 4:3 frame, so you can change your crop in post? If so, then the other formats mainly just help you visualize in the viewfinder.

@@steve-4045 Yes, you still have all 102 megapixels to work with. I just prefer to crop in the filed.

@@stevemckenzie4731 If you have trouble previsualizing the crop, then seeing what the JPEG would look like could be helpful in the viewfinder.

Agreed!! I like the idea of Micro4/3, smaller than my FF kit, something like the OM5 - but it's only 20mpix, and I would always have to crop to 3:2... So I don't go there.

Good choice!

I have the Lumix S1R with a Sigma 24mm F2 lens. It's my digital XPan. Or should that be PanPan? The image quality is fantastic, anyhow.

I like the idea of custom ratios 👍

Output can be a factor too though. Printing for example

@@e6Vlogs Of course, or when you'd want to make a magazine full page photo. I was talking about the composition. In a frame the passepartout can also be helpful to be able to have freedom in the aspect ratio of the photo.