How Aspect Ratio Can Change Everything
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- In this video, we discuss different aspect ratios and how they can affect your photograph's composition. Aspect ratios and how your aspect ratio can change the overall "story" of your photograph is an important topic to talk about. Thanks to digital technology, there is no limit to the aspect ratio we can use for our photos. This can, in my opinion, actually result in an abuse of the crop tool.
As discussed in this video, far too often, I found myself changing the aspect ratio while editing my photos to remove unwanted elements or after noticing the overall composition felt "off." I realized this was a lazy approach and I should be pre-visualizing my aspect ratio while observing my subject and the scene around it/him/her.
Go check out / @thomasheatonphoto
For all business inquiries, reach out to me through my website:
www.judestreic...
Purchase My Presets:
www.hipsterpre...
Subscribe and click the bell icon to get notifications of new uploads!
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Purchase through my Amazon Affiliate link and help support my work:
amzn.to/38vt4Ne
Purchase Polaroid instant film or a camera with my affiliate link:
polaroid.prf.h...
. . . . . . . . . . . .
#photographytipsforbeginners #photographytutorial
Thought provoking! Thanks for taking me along! And yes, Thomas Heston does this very well!
Thanks for joining on the journey!
Good info here Jude. I always struggle with aspect ratio, especially when I decide to print and frame a photo at home. Seems its than when I find nothing ssems to work very well, especially my very limited framing skills. Walk off that turkey now.
It's been a long time since I've done any printing, but I could totally see what you're talking about there! Thanks so much, and yeah, I'm definitely going to need a few hikes to work off last night's desserts! Haha!
Back in the film days, we had to have entire camera systems to do those different aspect ratios. I know, we could still crop. In some cases such as my Mamiya RB 67, I could have different film backs for this body. So I had both the standard 6cm x 7cm and the 6cm x 4.5cm backs. And being that I could rotate these film backs I could horizontal or vertical shots in either aspect ratio. This was still limiting but I did have options and taught me how to view my composition to know which back to install. As mentioned, I still had the option to crop in the darkroom, but learning to envision the shot and shoot it accordingly set a very strong foundation for me that has carried over into my digital work.
I feel like a background in film seems to automatically make you a more conscientious photographer. I've personally experienced exponential growth by not relying on modern technology but shooting fully manual film cameras. I really want to get some extra backs for my Mamiya RZ. I love that camera, but it's such a chonk to pack around. Haha!
Yes, those MF cameras are a chuck, lenses are built like tanks too. You almost need a pack mule when you go on hikes.
It’s been good chatting with another MF film lover. Keep up the good work. 😎
I set a custom button on my Canon R5 where I can change the assist ratio in camera - this helps me when composing the scene when I have an aspect ratio in mind. The only negative with Canon is I wish they offered more choice with the aspect ratios other than 1:1, 4:3, 16:9, 3:2.
That's something I noticed with pretty much all of the full frame and aps-c cameras. They don't have too many aspect ratios to choose from. Does the Canon force you to shoot a jpeg version when you preview aspect ratios? Or can you still shoot RAW? Thanks so much for the comment!
@jude_streicher Aspect ratios are available in RAW and included in the metadata when opening up in Lightroom. The full sensor data is also still available.
Great video bud! Man, I think I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum here. I obsess over aspect ratio probably too much. Just don't go too deep in my videos haha. If I had to pick a couple favorites, it's probably 6x7 and 65x24. But as others have said, there's a time and place for each! One thing though I just can't get behind is... tomatoes. They're gross and I won't buy a sandwich with them on it if I can help it.
Hahaha! Didn't realize you were such an anti-tomato zealot! This changes everything...
I love that the GFX system provides more variety in aspect ratios. I'm really missing mine these days. Glad to see you're enjoying yours!
After more than 50 years shooting film and printing in a darkroom, and considering the subject of the video, I have to conclude that film has trained be not to think in terms of aspect radio, or at least not to the extent I might have. There was a time not so long ago where there was no "digital", feeding a 48 inch strip of 12 inch paper into an inkjet printer. You printed on the materials you could get, which were pre-cut to various sizes. You tended to pre-visualize within the framework of those ratios. Sure, you could spend hundreds of dollars for a roll of photo paper 5 to 36 inches wide and 50 feet long, but very few did that, as printing and processing were a nightmare. While I could today print a high aspect ratio photo in my darkroom, at least with a long side up to 24 inches, it's just not what I see out there in the boonies. My high ratios experience is looking at a few prints made by others, and I think, "Wow, why don't I see those?" The other side of that coin is Jeff Bridges, shooting everything on a Widelux. I think his books and prints are marvelous, but not everything was born in a 6x17 radio either. Good video, food for thought.
Very few of my generation can even understand a non-digital approach to photography. I often think digital first analog second simply for the fact that I've grown up with digital technology. We are so used to the "undo" button and the crop tool. That's why pursuing film has become such a growing passion for me personally. Thank you so much for sharing. my friend!
Hasselblad used to call 1:1 the ultimate aspect ratio, as it's closest to a full image circle.
Personally I like a square, but that can just be my personality ;-)
On a more serious note. I did notice I learnt to see the world differently by sticking to 1:1 for an extended time. And I think it made me a better photographer by doing so.
Next up is 4x5. And one day I might venture into panoramas.
exactly the same for me... Im wandering from 6x6 to 4x5 inches
I think shooting with a Hasselblad in general just makes you a better photographer. ;)
But yeah, seriously, film is great to force you to focus not on the "secondaries" but the primaries of exposure, composition, subject, etc.
4:5 or 4:3 are the aspect ratios I always come back to. 3:2 always feels either too wide or not wide enough and it's usually too tall in portrait orientation. It's that awkward in between ratio but there are some occasions that it works, usually when there are two subjects in the frame. I like square and 16:9 and wider too but I don't naturally see in those ratios. I wish all cameras came with a good set of aspect ratios built in, or even better would be the ability to define a custom set of aspect ratios. One interesting point is that I find street photography looks good in 3:2.. maybe that's because I am used to seeing it in that ratio.
I got really comfortable shooting with a Fuji GFX (4:3) so yeah, that 3:2 always throws me off a bit, even after shooting with it for nearly a year. I am drawn to those wide aspect ratios thanks to my personal interest in filmmaking, I think. But also, I live in an area that has a lot of wide open spaces and sweeping vistas. I wonder how much subject and environment actually shape our photography... hmm.... gonna have to ponder this now. Thanks so much for the comment!
@@JudeStreicherPhoto Yep I think photographers can take a lot of good ideas from film makers! I find myself studying how they compose the scene these days more than actually watching the movie lol
Jude, I really like your 1:3 of the power lines best but I like the 3:2 also because it captures the fence, trail as well as much of the power lines and they each become partial subjects. Any more than the 3 would probably be too many. I also like the 3:2 of the swing, tree and overhanging branch, each of which adds to the overall image (again, 3 subjects). Some of the others included the trash can and the plaque posts which, I feel, are a distraction, being unnatural in the scene. Lastly, the 1:1 of the squirrel in profile is the best and I like it a lot but I myself probably would have gone with the 3:2 there to include a bit more of the fence and put the squirrel at the top left of the 1/3 frame intersection. I tend to favor 3:2, 4:3 either in portrait or landscape since I, like you, learned photography on film before digital was even invented and every frame had to count, as you said, and there was no other choice but the 4:3 unless you wanted to pay for custom processing. Now I tend to stick with 16:9 or 9:16 since that seems to be the common aspect, especially of computer screens. I try to remember to shoot with the option of being able to crop to other aspect ratios in mind in case I want to print them different from the portrait or landscape orientation since you really can't change that in post. With that, I tend to choose the orientation depending on whether my subject is primarily vertical or horizontal in addition to how it looks in the frame of the camera. Mostly though, I stick with 16:9 now and either print that or 4:3 unless the subject matter really doesn't fit either of those. Though, it's completely up the individual photographer since that is the creative part of the art. It's all up to the photographer's interpretation of the story they want to tell. Great work!
Thank you so much! I totally agree that the photographer, as the artist, has to determine their perspective and their approach. Learning on film first definitely makes a difference when shooting digital!
1:1 because im lazy to think about portrait or landscape orientation (one problem removed). My questionning is about the distance to the subject, also down middle up, Mainly where to put my camera
Awesome! Thanks for sharing your method! I actually think that is more like a film photographer's approach! Shooting with a single aspect ratio and using their feet to compose and alter perspective sounds like a really interesting way to go. Not lazy at all!
@@JudeStreicherPhoto I tend to explore and experiment but now I really love the Agfa Isolette III (Solinar lens) with TMax 400 (ID11 developer) it gives me exactly the tones I was looking for, very beautiful transitions between greys and blacks
I don't think I consider the final aspect ratio very often when taking a photo. I still think of "out there" and "in here". Something out there is drawing my eye and I try to find a position and a focal length that purifies whatever that is and includes any element that it bothers me to leave out.
Later when I'm in Photoshop it's a different process. I'm looking at what is in the image an earlier self presented to me. I'm actually seeing things he wasn't conscious of, and looking for how to present them to a viewer. His job was to respect his eye telling him there was something there, mine is to present it.
This sounds pretty much like the process you're trying to progress beyond; I'm content with it.
My most eager and free exploration of photography was back in the sixties with a twin lens reflex with a fixed focal length. It was the affordable camera with a decent negative size. My big concern was finding a position to get the elements I wanted within the square frame. The darkroom experience was a whole different world, projecting the negative with all values reversed and choosing how to frame it. Then watching the two worlds merge as the image emerged in the developing tray under the dim safelight. I guess this set my basic take on the process.
Your approach doesn’t sound basic at all. And it sounds highly effective in the way you’ve described it. I wouldn’t think of the “in here” “out there” and I think that was my issue. I had too many distractions in my frame that forced me to crop out and change aspect ratio to attempt to rescue the image! Thanks so much for the comment and sharing, my friend!
@@JudeStreicherPhoto Here's a technique I've never tried, but what the heck, it's the internet, why not foist it off on a perfect stranger :-).
Before taking the photo you could focus on any elements that seem to be in tension with the impulse that draws you to the scene. Give them their own photographs! That invites them into your consciousness, so you're not just trying to ignore them. Then see if you can either make them a meaningful part of the image, rearrange your position or focal length to capture what you really want, decide to use AI to alter the image, or acknowledge it's just not going to work.
When I was a kid, it bothered me that my grandmother would try to take a photo of my brother from the bleachers, at night, using a flashbulb. No way that light was going to illuminate the field! But she really wanted it to and couldn't resist clicking the shutter. Not every photo that calls out to be taken can be captured by the means at our disposal.
You could always just take your misfit scene anyway, print it, then scribble furiously over the part you dislike with a crayon. Everyone would understand!
Scribbling with a crayon! Haha! That sounds like something a modern artist would do! Love it!!
I like the panoramic shot better, it looks nice and I'm always interested to see the wider context. Square shot not so much, because it`s so simplified in the first second I see everything and it no longer attracts my attention, so I want to see some other photo. But maybe that's just me, I know a lot of people like a simplified shot, it just suits them better.
That’s a great point. Panos do tend to give more to see and think about. While they cut out a lot of the foreground and above ground, they also add so much to the view. I’m also a sucker for a good pano. Haha!
The 1:3 ratio threw me off when I saw the picture as I was expecting it to be skinny and tall.
Did I mix them up or something? Should I have said 3:1? I'm not sure what you mean exactly.