Am I the only one hooked on 16 x 9 composition.

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

pochito

Active member
Supporting Member
I feel that one shouldn't feel constrained by the aspect ratios offered by the cameras.
I personally crop my pictures so that IMO they look at its best for my purposes.
Be it 2x3, 2.5x3, 13x9, 4x5, 16.25x9 ... whatever. It is YOUR vision.
Nature was not created in Leica Format :)

Just MHO
 

Neil Laubenthal

Well-known member
Supporting Member
16x10 for me…because anything I post to the blog also gets exported as a desktop picture and my MBP takes that size and it goes into an every 15 minute rotation. I rarely shoot portrait.
 

jeffnles1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I like 16X9 for some compositions and crop to that or close to it aspect ration frequently. However, it really depends. If I'm going to be printing a photo, I usually crop to 5X4. This lets me print 8X10, 16X20, 32X40, etc. These aspects seem to be what people want who buy my prints. Maybe it's what they know or maybe they're thinking about off the shelf frames or who knows. For displaying on computer I do like the longer thin ratios like 16X9
 

Niels.hr.Hansen

Active member
I uses 16:9 sometimes, but i varies 16:10 for desktop backgrounds, 2:3 as the camera provides, square and sometimes even completely custom format.
 

Imtiaz

Member
The topic of aspect ratio has haunted me for a long time. Specially when I think of printing. I really wonder if there is any rational behind the aspect ratios our cameras provide; other than reasons related to manufacturing. Over last couple of years I am stuck to 1:1 and 2:1. My prints are almost always 10X10 inches albums or coffee table books. If I want to spread my images (over the lay-flat type) across the two faces it will be 2:1 or generally 1:1. The latter also go well for my instagram posts.

So for me it is 1:1 and 2:1


_DSC2956.jpg
_DSC3028.jpg
 

NorthernFocus

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I can't help myself. It seems like all my shots look best to me at 16 x 9. Is this normal.
Maybe you're just on a roll shooting subjects that lend themselves to that format. This one certainly does.

I do tend to like it for wildlife because it makes it easier to leave plenty of space in front of the subject and still be able to minimize FG/BG when they're not so great. If trying to crop out FG/BG in a typical 2x3 format sometimes you end up too tight side to side. I've found that I like 2x1 format for landscapes. Also I shoot a good bit of marine wildlife such as sea otters swimmng, seals on rocks, etc, that lend themselves to longer formats.
 

brachypelma44

Well-known member
For the type of images I sell online (wildlife, landscape, macro) I use 16:9 exclusively. I just really like it for nature images. <shrug>

For more casual photography of the many animals on our farm and some of the woven products that my wife crafts, I often go to 4:5 or 1:1. Instagram loves 1:1, and she is active on it. For whatever reason, 1:1 works really well compositionally for a lot of things, and it's probably my second favorite aspect ratio.
 
Last edited:

RH Alberta

Active member
Supporting Member
I can't help myself. It seems like all my shots look best to me at 16 x 9. Is this normal.
It's normal to me. 16 x 9 is my first choice most of the time when processing a wildlife photo. However, if it feels like it's just not working I'll go with an alternative. I think the main reason I usually do this is because most of my photos only end up in my personal screensaver slideshow (fills the entire screen with image). And also for the reasons others have explained above. If I'm planning to print a photo I'll consider all the aspect ratios equally as to what works best. For some reason, I almost always change the aspect ratio to 4 x 5 for portrait orientated photos. The native aspect ratio usually just looks too tall and narrow otherwise.
 
I really enjoy the 16:9 format. While my shooting is predominantly landscapes, I find scenes regularly looks better in a 16:9 ratio versus the 6:4.
 

gaknott

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Like a lot of others have already stated, I tend to use the ratio that gives the best detail for the subject. I do use the 16:9 a lot especially if it is a grouping of critters that are spread out but in the same focal plane. (Flock of birds, pelicans sitting on a log, etc).
 

fotogrob

Active member
I prefer the 16:9 format as well for the reasons above. I use many of them on my desktop--especially the birds like herons and eagles with wide wingspans
 

RichF

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I like 16x9 but also 2x1. Depends upon the image. When I print I pay more attention to axial ratios. This occasionally means stretching or compressing an image
 

Andrew Lamberson

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I need to pay more attention to this for my images on my website. I seldom print and image so I am free to do any size I want. I would agree that the 16:9 can tell a better story than the "standard" print sizes.
 

Neil Laubenthal

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Most of mine end up on the blog so I rarely shoot portrait. In addition…most of the ones on the blog end up in my rotating desktop picture folder and the laptop is 16x10 so that's my preferred crop.
 
Top