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 LX1 is interesting with it's native 16:9 aspect ratio sensor. For other ratios, the actual raw data is cropped horizontally, none of which other rarios fit my WUXGA monitor.
I do not print and I only view on my monitor (1920x1200 px), so any old aspect ratio is OK for me ... 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 😀 ).
OT, but 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 in post does the same thing effectively ...
Yes, but my ideological mind says get all you can out of the native format of the sensor and then crop as one wishes later.
Oh. A bit vague, Bryan, sorry.
Upset me? Not a bit.
But it doesnt seem sensible to pay for n MP and not have them all available in the raw file. This is even truer if one were to start off with an image of 16x9 and crop to 3x2.
David
By using a non-native format you are losing some pixels along either pair of parallel edges.
At capture / composition time you don't necessarily know how you are going to crop. Get your subject plus a bit more and adjust in pp.
To get back to the OP, certainly the image determines the crop - I am not printing yet so that may impact decisions down the track.
As my laptop monitor is 1366 x 768 (HD) I find myself tending to crop more towards 16:9 if the image allows.
I follow the same principle.
" The world just does not fit conveniently into the format of a 35mm camera,” W. Eugene Smith
My final image presentation is a print. I tend to not like the 2x3 aspect ratio for prints preferring, 4x5 or 3x4. For portraits I often use the classical 5x7. For some shots I use a square format. By limiting the aspect ratios to a set of predefined values, I only have to keep around a limited subset of precut mats. I also tend to know the aspect ratio of the final print at the time I visualize the scene prior to taking the capture. In the case I end up with an oddball aspect ratio, I will have to order a custom precut mat. That not a big deal but it adds to the timeline of producing the print.
I’ve always cut my own mats. I used several “professional” Logan mat cutters for a number of years. They were always a PIA although they were a kind of standard in framing shops.
Then I got an Esterly wall mounted mat cutter. Essentially a manual CNC machine. I can have any size mat in seconds almost effortlessly, accurate to a few thousandths of an inch.
It’s so enjoyable to be able to crop just as I want and to be able to mat the image exactly that way. Only a few standard frame sizes are needed but I make custom sized frames occasionally.
Rich
While I am not full on Henri Cartier-Bresson - thou shall not crop - type of guy, I do prefer to do my cropping in the camera and not in the processing. I spent most of my film days with a 3x4 aspect ratio (645), 6x6, 6x7 (very close to 4x5) and 4x5 and 5x7 view cameras. I never liked the 2x3 aspect ratio of 35 mm. I aways cropped away the edges but made the maximal use of the short side of the film. It is a habit I picked up back when one cropped on the enlarger. It may be 55 years of printing but more often than not my preferred aspect ration is 5x7 for portraits, 3x4 or 4x5 for landscape, square for some unique compositions and 4x5 for most everything else. Every once in awhile I will crop to a long narrow aspect ratio. For those cases I will have a custom mat cut.
I played around with cutting my own mats for awhile. I found that I could better spend my time out taking images and in the dark room rather than cutting mats. Today, I find it is just as easy to drop an order at Frame Destination or some other shop and get the size I want in the aspect ratio I want. For a 16x20 frame I normally use a mat with a 12x15 opening.
