I've been wondering this for a while, I think my brain is mush by now, but a simple question.
Why take wide photos if I can just crop 4:3 photos? I understand for wallpapers/films you're bound to a specific aspect ratio (1.77), but for photographs?
I'd just like to know, since my current camera just crops to get different ratios, removing parts of my photo.
16:9 or whatever is a much more common formatting, and if you cut a 4:3 picture down to be wide instead of trimming a wide to be 4:3 you're losing a portion of vertical space from the image, and it always seems the least important bit of the subject matter (aside from in landscapes) is along the sides, with important stuff being framed properly top-to-bottom, such as people's heads.
I wonder what the best aspect is, though, for viewing through a circular lens; ideally I think you'd get the most real-estate from a 1:1 square.
I shoot in 1:1, it's widescreen AND tallscreen.
[editline]12th May 2011[/editline]
Trufax.
[editline]12th May 2011[/editline]
In all seriousness, it's widescreen because your actual vision is slightly wider than it is tall, so it looks more natural.
Well if you don't mind losing the pixels, and you compensate for the cropping while taking the shot, cropping is fine.
But if you just decide to"fuck it" and do it later that's not as good.
The one benefit of cropping like this is you have more freedom to change the vertical framing later on when editing it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
