WEX Deals: Sony Summer Cashback - Claim Up To £300

Being Vertically Challenged


miptog 14 3.6k 63 United Kingdom
23 Mar 2012 9:40AM
So many of our portrait photos are taken in a vertical aspect (portrait as opposed to landscape). As we move to the “fusion” of video and photos there is only one aspect, landscape (horizontal). Do you think this will change the way we look and see with our portraits photo today?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed 10 4.6k 1 Scotland
23 Mar 2012 10:10AM
I don't think so.

Indeed, at an inter-club competition this week, the judge commented on the number of "portrait" format landscapes that were entered.
keith selmes 16 7.4k 1 United Kingdom
23 Mar 2012 10:14AM

Quote:As we move to the “fusion” of video and photos
I don't see any fusion. We may be able to do it with the same camera, but they are quite different disciplines. Anyway, my video-still camera offers I think three horizontal (landscape) formats, one vertical (portrait), plus square format.
And I can crop any way I like.
DOGSBODY 11 1.4k 30 England
23 Mar 2012 10:28AM
When people get their first camera they never think to turn it on its side to take portrait pictures. I have been showing my granddaughter how to use a camera and have had to suggest to her several times that the subject that she is photographing would look better as an upright.

When TVs went wide screen I felt that certain scenes were not conducive to the format and that film makers would change their style of shooting accordingly. Even our computer monitors have moved from 4/3 to widescreen and I still wonder if this is a good thing. I still think that it was a marketing ploy by the manufacturers to get us to buy new.

The more serious photographer will always let the subject determine which format we shoot in but I am not so sure about the general public.
lemmy 13 2.8k United Kingdom
23 Mar 2012 11:14AM
16/9 landscape is a rotten shape for portraits, it could hardly be worse.

I have a Lacie 1600x1200 monitor which has the 4/3 ratio because it is designed for editing photos. Actually, it is much better for general use than widescreen I find. For writing or web browsing it is a much more natural shape and swivelled to portrait mode it is great for editing portraits, writing letters or web browsing.

We seem to have had wide screen monitors foisted on us on the assumption that everyone wants to watch DVDs on their computer or laptop, yet I know no-one who uses their desktop or laptop for that purpose. Even the 3:2 of SLRs is an uninstinctive shape, dictated by the fact that when Barnack was looking for film stock for a miniature camera, the only sensible choice was cine film turned sideways. It wasn't chosen for artistic reasons at all.

Generally, 4:3 is a pleasing ratio for photographs, I think.
User_Removed 10 4.6k 1 Scotland
23 Mar 2012 11:38AM

Quote:
The more serious photographer will always let the subject determine which format we shoot in but I am not so sure about the general public.



I'd like to agree with that.

But maybe advancing technology makes us lazy. Digital cameras now have such high Mp sensors (and I mean anything over 10Mp) that you can still get a superlative A3+ print from a "portrait" format crop from a "landscape" format Raw file. (or, of course, vice-versa)

And we 6x6 film users have been doing something similar for generations - deciding the final orientation post-capture..

.
DRicherby 11 269 726 United Kingdom
23 Mar 2012 11:41AM
I like widescreen monitors because they let me have two portrait-format text editors/mail clients/whatever next to each other. I also like them for photo editing because they let me see the whole of a 3:2 or 4:3 photograph, with tool palettes and so on at the side and no wasted space. To be honest, I rather like 16:9 as an aspect ratio for photographs but I shoot very few portraits and I agree that it's usually a terrible aspect ratio for them.

In terms of camera design, square film is optimal, since it uses the greatest possible amount of the image projected by the lens.

Dave.
JackAllTog Plus
11 6.0k 58 United Kingdom
23 Mar 2012 1:38PM
I think the portrait format often adds more drama to a shot than landscape.
In every thing but movies i think the 16:9 is a step backwards.
I feel I need at least a 24 inch 16:9 screen to get the same useful working areas as a 19inch 4:3 format.

As some screens can be rotated round by 90 degrees i'd see my self trying that out when i get a new one.
Carabosse 17 41.4k 270 England
23 Mar 2012 3:00PM

Quote:Digital cameras now have such high Mp sensors (and I mean anything over 10Mp) that you can still get a superlative A3+ print from a "portrait" format crop from a "landscape" format Raw file. (or, of course, vice-versa)


Yes, format is often a decision made in processing these days. You can crop quite significantly and lose little in the way of quality,
lemmy 13 2.8k United Kingdom
23 Mar 2012 3:01PM

Quote:As some screens can be rotated round by 90 degrees i'd see my self trying that out when i get a new one.


It's excellent and the text etc re-orientates itself automatically.
JackAllTog Plus
11 6.0k 58 United Kingdom
23 Mar 2012 3:25PM
Coincidence but I've literally just needed to order a new 24inch business monitor - looks like they are addressing it a little bit.
The one I went for is a Samsung SyncMaster S24A450BW 24" from Misco which now has a resolution of 1920 x 1200 rather than the 1920 x 1080 of the older series.

Ok its only 10% taller but it helps - it will be used in landscape mode for technical documentation..
brian1208 16 11.7k 12 United Kingdom
23 Mar 2012 3:39PM
I've been using the 20" version of that screen Jack and its a cracker. I also like the screen resolution (which is a little lower but the same ratio).

My secondary PC runs a widescreen TV/monitor and its nowhere near as nice to work with

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.