I always save raw files as 3 x 2 format in camera. But after processing they rarely end up with that aspect ratio. Usually, I crop quite freely until what I dont want around the edges has been removed. Very occasionally, I may deliberately end up with a 1:1 file, but generally I dont care about the numerical value of the aspect ratio.
What do others do?
David
I'm the same as you. I don't care about aspect ratios - unless I am printing. Then, I do.
Alan
I almost all the time crop with keeping the original aspect ratio (3-2 for 10x15 cm, 4x6 inch printing)
I suppose the point is that I hardly ever print anything on to paper. If I did, I would probably crop the print also! (It seems strange to me to restrict the aspect ratio to what is available commercially!)
David
As I tend to print or post pictures in a series of linked pictures, I generally crop to the original frame format, to keep the presentation coherent.
If images are in series then I'm trying to keep original ratio - as far as that works; for single images ratio is not important. I do not print images.
I crop according to the needs of the image. The camera’s “aspect ratio” is an irrelevant design reality, the result of engineering decisions necessary to manufacture the device. I have never understood the slavish attachment to particular format ratios which many hold as inviolable.
There are only two kinds of images. Those that have been printed, and those that have yet to be.
I print as large as possible.
Rich
The majority of mine are done in 16:9 as it simplifies viewing them on large screens and it's not too far from most phone sizing when I post something online. If a shot demands it, I will crop to suit and most likely this will be a custom fit or 1:1. Not much use for "fixed" ratios as an agenda. By and large, knowing I can go back and re-crop from the RAW anytime I like, means not really being fussed too much about "final" sizing.
Ron
My Panasonic Lumix LX-1 is interesting with it's native 16:9 aspect ratio sensor. For other ratios, the actual raw is cropped accordingly, none of which fit my WUXGA monitor.
I do not print and I only view on my monitor (1920x1200 px), so any old aspect ratio is OK ... but ...
... could it be that some aspect ratios are "better" than others? (my monitor at 1:1.6 is pretty close to the Golden Ratio 😀 ).
I wrote long ago about rectangular watch proportions which also have popular values:
tcktek.blogspot.com/2009/11/rectangular-watch-proportions.html.
I dont know about other cameras, but as far as my Canon EOS R6 and Leica Q3 are concerned, the selection of 16x9 for raw files means that the whole sensor, which is 3x2, is not used.
David
Another interesting Panasonic is the Lumix DMC-GH1 which has an oversize µ4/3 sensor from which all raw images have the same diagonal pixel dimension.
They call it "angle of view":
At first sight this may seem strange but the result is that the lens offers the same diagonal angle of view regardless of selected aspect ratio, making it much easier to get a feel for the behaviour of the lens. It also means you make the most of the sensor area, getting similar pixel counts in all modes.
Why does that upset you ?
Ron
Especially as any crop effectively does the same thing ...
