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).

Ductape

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
I can't help myself. It seems like all my shots look best to me at 16 x 9. Is this normal.

Z72_2567.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
_DSC3028.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
Honestly, I'm all over the place, from square to 16:9 - all depends on the composition. Still, 16:9/10 - or even narrower as is the case for the first shot below - is a favorite :)

skimmer-coming-at-ya.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


BW-Lurking-Hippo.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


panning-zebra-1.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
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).
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top