Stop shooting in 3:2 format!

One of the great features of modern cameras is the ability to shoot different formats in camera. I can't understand why some photographers don't avail themselves of this capability. Personally, I find myself gravitating to 1:1, 4:3 and 16:9 and almost never 3:2 these days. Abstracts nature shots seem to work best in 1:1 format; 16:9 can work very well in woodland shots particularly when you are trying eliminate the sky and let's face it, this is closer to the way we actually see. The 4:3 format is just a good all rounder. I don't think 3:2 is bad and can clearly work in some situations, but too often I find myself framing up in 3:2 and it just doesn't sit right, even for landscapes. Other aspect ratios just seem more compelling.

Nice video, good content and well-presented. But I'll stick with 3:2 because I like it and never feel that my eyes are "forced" to scan left to right or down to up.

Personally, I shoot mostly 4:3 and 1:1, and very rarely use 3:2 at all - I think I am bored with it. On most digital cameras you can change your mind (if shooting Raw) in post unless you happen to shoot Nikon, where the actual Raw file is cropped to your chosen ratio and there's no way back.

It would have be useful for you to mention what the resulting reduction in mega-pixel resolution would be when shooting in a format other than 3:2. Although, I assume that with the higher mega-pixels in current cameras it is less of an issue than it used to be.

Nikon dslr 3:2 default aspect ratio and iPhone default aspect ratio
4:3 lovely. Tried out yesterday the 16:9 and 1:1 but not impressed for either landscapes or people portraits . Seems a bit quirky to me or for professional photographers indulgence !

Brought up on film in 3:2 and 1:1, but today I shoot on a M4/3 camera mostly 4:3 in both horizontal and vertical as well as 16:9 and 1:1 but rarely 3:2. I do a little Panorama also for scenery.

Forget about these rational aspect ratios! The true artist prefers 1.618:1.

New subscriber this evening. Great video, but my XT4 & XS20 are somewhat restricted in choices, but still enough to go out & experiment with.

Thank you for explaining😁

How about "no"

My fav format 6x7 or 6x6 square

I also prefer to shoot in 4:3 format, it's easier for me and looks more harmonious. Especially vertically 3:2 doesn't work for me at all. I started with MFT in 4:3 and now use Fujifilm X-T5 and some Canon cameras that also allow 4:3 format. Sometimes i also use 1:1, but i find it very difficult and a real challenge. People who say you can shoot in 3:2 format and then crop on the computer afterwards haven't understood that it's about deciding on the format and using it when shooting and composing the photo. That's the only way to deal with the format creatively. That's only possible if the camera allows the format in question. Photography happens on location and not afterwards on the computer.

Brilliant

4 by 3 as a standard - yes, being a rather lazy Oly user

Thought provoking as usual, Craig. Thanks. I wish cameras would add a 3:1 crop option to their menus. It would be nice to visualize the pano in the viewfinder vs other methods.

I'm really enjoying that music. Where'd that come from? I'm a former view camera person and I love medium format so I love 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5. I've never been a fan of 2:3, not panoramic enough and not square enough, just an awkward in between. Nice to see someone addressing the format question.

I shoot the following small format images:
micro 4/3
APS-C
24x36mm full-frame

I shoot images on 120 and 220 medium format film

I shoot images on 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch large format film.

I shoot images with the following aspect ratios:
1:1
6:7
4:5
3:4
2:3
1:2
1:3

It's a shame that the photographic paper makers don't take up the 3x2 aspect ratio as how long was this format used from film cameras and now mirrorless cameras today . Paper manufacturers are just born ignorant and lazy. Get a grip and make this paper size as a stranded

Another fine vlog. I like 4:3 and 1:1 and try to compose in camera rather in processing, and yes there are two reasons. 1 you and 2 my Olympus.

I tend to use 3:2 mostly but do like the 1:1 ratio, like The Police 😊.

I will not stop, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Very interesting and informative ! Have a Fuji film camera with aspect ratios also but have not really considered using them ! Will now .. thank you for pointing them out

Having used 6x6 film cameras for countless years, I frequently shoot these days with my Pentax K-1 set to 1x1 format. I love it particularly for B&W portraits.

I choose a format which allows 5x7 prints, 8x10 inch prints, and 11x14 inch prints WITHOUT any cropping necessary.
I love to essentially crop in camera, and get things right from the very start, rather than spending loads of time after the fact getting it right. A wise thing to do is just to NEVER put anything very near the edge of the frame which you don't want to be unavoidable cut out later on, such as a person's arm.

This was fascinating. Inspires me to go out and change my default 3:2 ratio on my Sony A7Sii.
When I use that camera for video, I have on the 2.35:1 aspect ratio guides, now I want to check what other guides it has and do some of the ones shown here. 1:1 looked really interesting to me to try and so does 4:3.
Great video, great examples.

Each camera should have software ability to choose/set a format that you can use. Simply you should be able to add your own proportions and set tick box [v] preserve in RAW files or only in JPEGs. All issues solved. But they wont give you that freedom in-camera, you need to buy next-gen camera for gazillion dollars and hope it has that what you need.

no

My favorite, hands down, is 3:2. I shoot almost everything in this aspect ratio. There are some images that really benefit from a different AR, though, and I will change to that when it is called for. I will sometimes crop to a non standard AR when the image requires it.

"Stop shooting in 3:2 format!" Rubbish instruction!

I'm a quadratic aficionado. 😉

Meaning I like to shoot mostly 1:1 pictures. Fell in love with the format when I got my first TLR a long time ago and never looked back really. I do mostly landscapes and some abstracts and even if most people find the square format "limiting", I find it's liberating exactly for its limits.

After far too many years of shooting film then digital at 3:2, I recently got a square framed (1:1) 120 based TLR, I actually find it quite challenging framing with it and it is taking some getting used too, very satisfying though! (oh any you get afr more people come up and ask you about your camera when shooting with something from the 1950s rather than something more modern)

I watched s8ne wudeos about a anamorphic lenses. Theyvare designed for shooting movies. It squeezes a wide picture of 2,39 on a 3:2 sensor. Instead of filming can use it for still shotts. In post you have to desqueese the frames. I Iike the cinematic look if this photos. You can shot snazing panoramas with one shot.

Great food for thought. I shoot both APS-C and 4/3 and will often end up using 16x10 and 1x1. Definitely subject driven. I shoot a lot of birds and wildlife and will shoot to have the subject fill the vertical and use the horizontal to display context something I find lacking in wildlife/bird photography. I particularly like 1x1 for insect macro work. It really punches up the small things becoming large concept while still providing enough context to verify the in the wild feel. I'm going to step outside my box and intentionally work with other formats to shake up my thinking. Thank you.

The Dartmouth College (USA) has a great web page on picture composition in art relative to aspect ratios. You can see it with a Google search of:
What Shape Frame? Dartmouth Math

Currently full frame,latterly MFT default and 16x9....................................................

Cropping while shooting is of minimal value; the crop, I believe, should be chosen to fit/complement/accentuate the subject of the photo. I’ve produced multiple photos from a single negative using different crops.

I completely DISagree with your contention that the crop should be chosen in camera rather than in postproduction; one may have a concept of that particular photo with a particular crop while shooting, but one has the time in postproduction to fully evaluate the “marriage “ of the subject with the crop. And there’s the question of “Is there really only one crop for any photo.” Something in me answers in the negative on this.

One should utilize all of the pixels available on the sensor while shooting; the decision to throw away digital information can easily be made subsequently in postproduction depending on the desired result.

Predominantly 5x4 for me…followed by 1x1.

I look at it this way. From an optical standpoint 1:1 is the best ratio. This is because a lens projects this image called an image circle.

The biggest rectangle you can fit in a circle is a square.

Optics for a square aspect ratio are smaller and lighter.

The wider the rectangle the bigger your lens has to be to fit the rectangle into a circle. This is why 3:2 was a dumb idea.

Now a bit of history of how 3:2 came about. 35mm film originated as motion picture stock. It ran (and still runs) vertically through the camera. This was originally an aspect ratio of 1.33:1 or 1.37:1. (4:3 actually came about due to television as it was generally easy to fit the standard cinema aspect ratio into it.)

3:2 came about because of Leitz, where the engineer Oskar Barnak took motion picture stock and had the brilliant idea of running the film horizontally through the camera, doubled the 24x18mm to 24x36mm gate aperture and voila 3:2 was born.

There is no practical reason today to keep 3:2 going other than historical reasons.

👏

nothing wrong with the aspect ratio of any camera

use your tool

Any format is OK, as long as it's visible in the VF; cropping in post doesn't work for me.

My favoiurite remains Ideal Format which works for me. So sad that when DSLRs appeared the manufacturers slavishly stuck to the Barnack format which was cobbled together from two 18x24 movie frames for better quality at the time rather than redesigning the camera for the new medium. The lenses would still work just as well whereas at present much of the image circle they project is wasted.

The main reason for buying a 61 Mp full frame camera was precisely to play with all of them 😅

Always all of my cameras record raw files in their native aspect ratio, regardless of the aspect ratio set. Two of them can be set to XPAN.

Always I crop later. I may choose to make two photos cropped differently, I may decide my original idea was wrong. I have made photos in portrait and landscape orientation from the same image.

Thank you

Great video. A very rare topic, although a very important one. Thank you!

Personally, it’s using all available pixels, 3:2, and then crop to suit (IF I have to). Mostly I move/compose, (I use primes) so I don’t have to crop. But then I do like the square crop also, so move/compose for that as well. Lovely black and whites in your upload, and I like the subject matter. Nice one 🫡

So I shoot with the Nikon Z6iii, and if you change the view area to say 1:1 in RAW, the image is cropped and you can't make any changes later to the cropping. I really don't like this, a bit frustrating. If I want to go out and shoot in 1:1, I would expect that the full 3:4 image is there to do either convert to another aspect ratio or to make minor adjustments. If I shoot RAW and in Black and White mode in camera, I still have the color version to use if I want. In today's cameras this should not be an issue, but for some reason Nikon wants to not give that option. Why?