Digital Photography - Aspect Ratios?

[Usarka]

Any gurus who can tell me what to set it for?

Just going to be used for travel shots etc. Nothing flash (bahahahaha) or too serious. Probably will print some out.

Yep I know that 3:2 = size of standard photo prints, and 4:3 is the size of a standard screen and 16:9 is the size of a widescreen telly...

but what is the best practical option?

Ta.

[Nordy]

it depends on the sensor of the camera, what camera do you have? or what the size of your biggest photos is? xxxx X xxxx?

[Big Dave]

The biggest pitchas - the most of them thar pixels - it can take. Every shot.
You can always crop and downsample - ya can't go the other way.

[Usarka]

What's bigger, 4:3 or 16:9?

dang maths gone done my head in....

[edit:] ah read the manual


4:3 10m 3648 x 2736

3:2 9m 3648 x 2432

16:9 7.5m 3648 x 2056

I guess 4:3 it is.....

[bungbung]

It's more about your most likely end use of your photos.

If you're going to view them onscreen, then 4:3 or 16:9 depending on your screen

If you're going to print them at the minilab on standard 6"x4" paper then 3:2.

I like to print my photos, and most of the time, it's only on 6 x 4, so I have my camera set to 3:2. This means I can frame my shots and not have bits cut off when I have them printed.

[Nordy]

If you can select it (sorry wasnt aware some cameras had that option) then I would also go for 3:2, you can always crop for desktop pictures (background) I personally prefer to crop for the computer but not for printing.

[Big Dave]

It's more about your most likely end use of your photos.

With respect your bungness - I disagree. That is what post-processing is for.

Get it as big as you can and as high res as you can at the start.

I used to shoot 'web shots' when memory was an issue - but then you get a 'killer' that you want printed and it's the size of a stamp. Now a stick is $10. Go crazy.

[FlangMasterJ]

As Dave said go as big as possible.

Then Photoshop to whatever ratios and sizes you want.

[bungbung]

With respect your bungness - I disagree. That is what post-processing is for.

Get it as big as you can and as high res as you can at the start.

I used to shoot 'web shots' when memory was an issue - but then you get a 'killer' that you want printed and it's the size of a stamp. Now a stick is $10. Go crazy.

You're confusing aspect ratio with number of pixels. There is no point framing to use the very edges of the sensor if it's going to be clipped off when you go to print. I agree with you about getting the most amount of information in each shot.

[bungbung]

As Dave said go as big as possible.

Then Photoshop to whatever ratios and sizes you want.

Only if you have the time and inclination to post process every shot.
For my minilab prints, I know I don't need to resize or crop as I have framed them to 3:2.

Of course for my Nikon DSLRs the sensor is already 3:2, but my little point and shoot has a 4:3 sensor which I leave switched to 3:2.

[FlangMasterJ]

Only if you have the time and inclination to post process every shot.

Batch processing my friend.

[Big Dave]

Batch processing my friend.

Aye - have my own set of PS actions too.

[Big Dave]

You're confusing aspect ratio with number of pixels. There is no point framing to use the very edges of the sensor if it's going to be clipped off when you go to print. I agree with you about getting the most amount of information in each shot.

Hmmm - Last time I looked on my cameras changing the aspect ratio meant not using the full pixel count in one direction. while since I've looked though.

[Nordy]

even if you lose a few in one direction you still get a fairly big shot, and one easier for those who dont use photoshop alot to get printed (as others have said) if the cameras got that function why not use it.

[Big Dave]

if the cameras got that function why not use it.

Because every now and then you just catch something unexpected in that part of the image that you considered unimportant.

[FlangMasterJ]

Because every now and then you just catch something unexpected in that part of the image that you considered unimportant.

A salt water Nessie?

[Big Dave]

A salt water Nessie?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Kl8SRrlbbN0&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Kl8SRrlbbN0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Pair of Dolphins.

[Max Preload]

Hmmm - Last time I looked on my cameras changing the aspect ratio meant not using the full pixel count in one direction. while since I've looked though.

That's correct. Native they're 3:2 - changing from that will reduce pixels in one direction.

[Usarka]

That's correct. Native they're 3:2 - changing from that will reduce pixels in one direction.

Nah bro (and I'm trying to work out who you are....lol at the max preload) check my earlier post, the counts on my camera are:


4:3 10m 3648 x 2736

3:2 9m 3648 x 2432

16:9 7.5m 3648 x 2056

Looks like 4:3 is the native these days...... after all its the bigger "square"...?

[Max Preload]

Arrrggh... sorry - I was distracted.

Right you are - 4:3 is native.

[Usarka]

Thanks all, interesting views (damn you i wanted one version of the truth:lol:)

So how I read it:

Predominantly printing and/or ease of framing what you print = 3:2

Power users, possible different uses or hunting for monsters = 4:3

Ta!