# What's your favorite aspect ratio?



## nerwin (Aug 15, 2015)

I'm wonder what are everyone's favorite aspect ratio is. I've shot 35mm film cameras and DSLRs for most of my life and so I am very use to the 3:2 aspect ratio. Cameras that I use that are 4:3 such as my phone, I will crop to 3:2. The only reason I might keep it original aspect ratio if the crop cuts of a vital part of the image.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 15, 2015)

Whatever best fits the image.


----------



## snowbear (Aug 15, 2015)

3:2:0.5
Why limit yourself to two dimensions?


----------



## AceCo55 (Aug 15, 2015)

1:1.41428 ... that's the ratio of the International "A" paper sizes (so my standard prints are A5, A4, A3 or A2)


----------



## Designer (Aug 15, 2015)

nerwin said:


> I'm wonder what are everyone's favorite aspect ratio is. I've shot 35mm film cameras and DSLRs for most of my life and so I am very use to the 3:2 aspect ratio. Cameras that I use that are 4:3 such as my phone, I will crop to 3:2. The only reason I might keep it original aspect ratio if the crop cuts of a vital part of the image.


I'm partial to this:

1:1.618

Phi 1.618 The Golden Ratio - Golden Ratio Phi 1.618 and Fibonacci in Math Nature Art Design Beauty and the Face

Although when cropping photographs I may choose something entirely different.


----------



## limr (Aug 15, 2015)

I quite like a square myself, but as Sparky said, whatever fits the image.


----------



## jaomul (Aug 15, 2015)

90% of my prints are 5x7


----------



## OrionsByte (Aug 15, 2015)

I picked 16x9 in the poll because I tend to crop most of my photos to that for viewing on my phone or TV, but when printing I'll pick whatever aspect best fits the image or the size I'm aiming for. So really it's just a matter of how it's going to be used, more than what I have a specific preference for.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 15, 2015)

I often crop 16x10


----------



## TheUniverse (Aug 15, 2015)

Like limr, I was quite into the square. I did a lot of work with musicians (and bands) and of course, LP covers are square. But it also worked very well with promo shots, concert posters and such.

Imagine a 8x10 promo sheet with 7x7 photo on it. It leaves you about 2" at the bottom for all the contact info.

Of course, being a dinosaur, this was before the computer in every home and the ease of creating funkier designs that are also affordable to print


----------



## otherprof (Aug 15, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Whatever best fits the image.


I once read that the Mona Lisa had been trimmed on left and right edges to fit a frame the owner had available.  I generally go for 8x10 or 10x8, and honestly that is because I can use precut mats.  But if the image demands something else, it gets it . . . even if it doesn't get matted and framed.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 15, 2015)

snowbear said:


> 3:2:0.5
> Why limit yourself to two dimensions?



Brick : Admonishment : Phonograph : Banana.  

Why limit yourself to three numbers?


----------



## jsecordphoto (Aug 15, 2015)

most of my images are 2x3, but I'm really partial to 3x1. Love me a nice pano


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 15, 2015)

36x24x34


----------



## weepete (Aug 15, 2015)

2x1 is my favorite but I'm also partial to 16:10 or a 3x1 for landscapes


----------



## KmH (Aug 15, 2015)

I crop for content, not a specific aspect ratio.

I then print on standard size papers larger than the image.
Consequently, I often have my print lab trim away some amount of the excess paper.
By the same token I often leave the excess paper because it aids mounting, matting, and framing the print.


----------



## TheUniverse (Aug 15, 2015)

otherprof said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever best fits the image.
> ...



I love the story of the Mona Lisa but this is one aspect I've never heard of until now. However, I'm more than willing to believe it having done a similar thing. I used to buy frames (most often with "art" in them) at auctions. Everybody wondered why but I got myself $100, $200 or more frames for a couple bucks. Then I would strech a canvas to fit the frame...  


But, back to the Mona Lisa for a second. Did you know that she only became famous because of getting stolen from Le Louvre?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 15, 2015)

What...no love for 4:5, aka 8x10, aka 16x 20??? lol

I find that 3:2 can be very tricky many times...it's often not "tall enough" when shooting horizontal images, or it's "too skinny" when shooting vertical shots, like portraits.

4:3 sure looks good for computer screen shots...kinda wish I had a camera that offered 4:3 as a native capture aspect ratio. I've owned a number of square-shooters, TLR and SLR over the decades. The nice thing with square aspect shooting is how the camera itself never needs to be rotated on a tripod, nor in the hands!


----------



## nerwin (Aug 15, 2015)

Derrel said:


> What...no love for 4:5, aka 8x10, aka 16x 20??? lol
> 
> I find that 3:2 can be very tricky many times...it's often not "tall enough" when shooting horizontal images, or it's "too skinny" when shooting vertical shots, like portraits.
> 
> 4:3 sure looks good for computer screen shots...kinda wish I had a camera that offered 4:3 as a native capture aspect ratio. I've owned a number of square-shooters, TLR and SLR over the decades. The nice thing with square aspect shooting is how the camera itself never needs to be rotated on a tripod, nor in the hands!



The aspect ratios I picked I think are some of the most common ones. According to lightroom anyways! Haha


----------



## ak_ (Aug 15, 2015)

5:4 (10x8), 14x11, 65:24 (Xpan).


----------



## Th0r4z1n3 (Aug 17, 2015)

If it's just something I'm putting up on my blog I tend to be partial to 16:9 so it will fill the whole screen, but generally whatever I find visualllly appealing.

If it's something I'm printing out I generally go with 14x11 just because it's relatively big/affordable.


----------



## wanderer86 (Aug 17, 2015)

I prefer the 6x6 square of my Hassy, there is just something so classic about it 

Sent from my LG-E980 using Tapatalk


----------



## KenC (Aug 18, 2015)

Whatever works, as many here have said.  I do find myself gravitating towards square images or those intermediate between square and the native 3:2 of DSLR's.  Sometimes I go in the other direction, sort of panoramic, or at least narrower than 3:2.  I don't know why, but I think I have relatively few images that are close to 3:2.


----------

