4:3 or 3:2 Ratio which do you prefer?

[bmccoy]

Both the FZ7 and FZ30 have this option, I think some of the more P/S types may also have it as wellwith the extended zoom feature. I was thinking about it today and realized that if I ultimately want to print my best images out then why not just use 3:2 from the get go?? If I shoot @ 6mp on my FZ7 and then print the image I just end up cropping it back at least to the 5mp size of the 3:2 ratio any way.

Conventional wisdom seems to be shoot at the highest quality and largest size you can. But now I'm thinking that just using 5mp 3:2 would save me one step in pp, if I frame the picture right the fist time. Some times I have wanted all the detail on the four edges, and didn't want to crop for a print.

Does anyone else see any additionalpros or cons to using the highest resolution 3:2 setting as your "standard" images size?

-Brett

[LadyhawkVA]

I've wondered about this myself. If you prefer standard-sized prints, a 3:2 ratio makes sense. If you like 8x10s, a 4:3 ratio is closer but still not right on.

I have an FZ20, so the vast majority of my shots are done in 4:3 ratio. I occasionally use the 16:9 HD, but not often. As far as I know, my camera does not have a 3:2 option.

I've read in other forums, particularly from those who do lots of action and sports photos, that it's sometimes a good idea to shoot a little bit wide and then crop later. I can see how this makes sense for them. When things are moving fast you just want to make sure to get it all in.

My most recent thinking on this matter is that I try to compose as closely to the final product as possible. In other words, I try to determine beforehand if this photo will be a 4x6, 8x10, whatever. That way, I hope to minimize the amount of detail I will have to crop later. Still, I almost always expect to crop. Since that's the case, I always shoot at maximum resolution and quality.

I also experiment by trying a variety of crops on a copy of my original photo. Sometimes I find a 5x7 or another ratio (say, 10x13) works better than either a 3:2 or 5:4 ratio. I frequently also find myself drawn to square crops.

I guess the beauty of digital is that I can try so many options and adapt them for a variety of purposes. I still wonder, though, why digital camera makers decided to adopt a 4:3 ratio. Hmmmm....

- Evie
http://stray-thoughts--ruminations.blogspot.com

[bmccoy]

LadyhawkVA wrote:

.....I also experiment by trying a variety of crops on a copy of my original photo. Sometimes I find a 5x7 or another ratio (say, 10x13) works better than either a 3:2 or 5:4 ratio. I frequently also find myself drawn to square crops.

I guess the beauty of digital is that I can try so many options and adapt them for a variety of purposes. I still wonder, though, why digital camera makers decided to adopt a 4:3 ratio. Hmmmm....

- Evie
http://stray-thoughts--ruminations.blogspot.com

I'm pretty sure the 4:3 is a result of "standard" CRT resolutions. 640x480, 1024x768 etc. all 4:3 ratio. If your making screen savers and wallpaper that is just fine. But if your going print then you have to crop.

As you pointed out, final print size is the biggest factor. 3:2 just makes standard 4x6 quick and easy. At that size you will not need much pp work.

-Brett

[bmccoy]

Well I don't know if this will help me or not but I just ran some number in excel to see how some of the ratio and print sizes match up. Looks like I just need to mix and match.

Digital Camera: Prints:
Ratio Decimal Size Decimal
4:3 1.33 3.25x5 1.54
3:2 1.50 4x6 1.50
16:9 1.78 5x7 1.40
8x10 1.25
10x13 1.30
10x15 1.50
11.25x14.25 1.27
12x16 1.33
16x20 1.25
16x24 1.50
18x24 1.33


-Brett

[tclune]

I have an FZ20, which produces 2560x1920 pixel images. Assuming square pixels, this is a 4:3 ratio. However, Snapfish offers to print your images as either 4x6 or 4x5.33 at the same price. The idea is that 4x6 would have a white edge on left and right in landscape mode. At first, I opted for the4x5.33 with no border. However, I tried 4x6 and got no border, either. Furthermore, the4x5.33 images had some of the picture cropped off at left and right. While this makes no sense to me, I now only get 4x6 for snapshot-size images from SnapFish.

[bmccoy]

tclune wrote:

I have an FZ20, which produces 2560x1920 pixel images. Assuming square pixels, this is a 4:3 ratio. However, Snapfish offers to print your images as either 4x6 or 4x5.33 at the same price. The idea is that 4x6 would have a white edge on left and right in landscape mode. At first, I opted for the4x5.33 with no border. However, I tried 4x6 and got no border, either. Furthermore, the4x5.33 images had some of the picture cropped off at left and right. While this makes no sense to me, I now only get 4x6 for snapshot-size images from SnapFish.

when I upload and print with Winkflash an image that is 4:3 they give me the option to set the crop; top, bottom, centered or none. To avoid white borders I have always selected the crop position that seemed to fit the image best. This was all on 4x6 size with 3mp images to date.

-Brett

[genece]

bmccoy wrote:

Both the FZ7 and FZ30 have this option, I think some of the more P/S types may also have it as wellwith the extended zoom feature. I was thinking about it today and realized that if I ultimately want to print my best images out then why not just use 3:2 from the get go?? If I shoot @ 6mp on my FZ7 and then print the image I just end up cropping it back at least to the 5mp size of the 3:2 ratio any way.

If you have a very good photo editor there are ways to resize a photo to whatever ratio (size)you want without giving up the most detail the camera can provide

Conventional wisdom seems to be shoot at the highest quality and largest size you can. But now I'm thinking that just using 5mp 3:2 would save me one step in pp, if I frame the picture right the fist time. Some times I have wanted all the detail on the four edges, and didn't want to crop for a print.

That size would be sufficient for 4 X 6 but what if you want a larger print..I suggest you experiment to get control over your pictures rather than leaving some printer do that for you. They have a tendency to chop off part of a picture that may have been important to you.

Does anyone else see any additionalpros or cons to using the highest resolution 3:2 setting as your "standard" images size?

-Brett

There have been some that claim the focus is not as accurate in 3/2 ratio but I have not seen that.

[bmccoy]

genece wrote:

bmccoy wrote:

Gene, even with a very good editor, Photoshop or others I would not change the aspect ratio. Resize sure, but if you change the ratio then you change the proportions of everything in the image and it is no longer accurate to real life.

As for the image size on my FZ7 the difference in pixels from 6mp 4:3 to 5mp 3:2 is really only 653,312 total pixels. I don't think that will make much difference regardless of print size. Thanks for your comments.

-Brett

[LadyhawkVA]

Brett's advice is good. You want to be careful about changing the ratio, especially in photos that feature people. Changing the ratio is a real good way to make people fatter, enlarge their noses, etc. There are some subjects, rocks, water, stuff like that for which the ratio is less important. But if you are shooting people, animals, etc., your viewers expect to see certain proportions that make sense. And your models are less likely to revile you if you show them in a flattering light (maybe making them look thinner is a good thing :G).

[fmoore]

IMO, it's generally best to shoot the largest size, highest resolution you can.Memory is cheap with high speed 2gb sd cards going for under $50, and you can always crop and frame later if need be. I use 8.5x11 Epson heavyweight matte paper. A 9.5 x 7.125 (4:3 ratio) fitsreal nice.However, if you knew you would be doing nothing but 4x6 prints, it would bebetter for real-time framing purposes and less time consuming to go to 3:2. So it is a nice option to have.