# Why 3:2 aspect ratio?



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

I understand the 3:2 aspect ratio is there because it's the legacy of the film days. I understand you're supposed to crop shots to this native ratio to imply "Well, that's straight out of camera, look what a great photog I am". As long as you don't crop 1:1 to make it appear even more medium format "pro". What I don't understand and was not able to find an explanation for:

_Is there any inherent visual advantage of this 3:2 aspect ratio in relation to human vision?_

Film makes use of much wider formats which seem to be more compatible with the way we see. This seems to make sense, because 3:2 landscape often feels a bit narrow, while esp. 3:2 portrait feels very tall and often awkward to me.

Thanks for any explanations from competent photogs around here!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 26, 2014)

> Thanks for any explanations from competent photogs around here!



Until any of them show up, perhaps I can contribute.

The 3:2 format is pretty close to the "Golden Rectangle" ratio which many like to use in their composition.

The real reason may be tradition. Oskar Barnack decided to use it in the early 20th century and it just kept going. Many photographers shoot 3:2 unless there is a compelling reason not to. It is a good default ratio. 

You are right in that 3:2 in portrait does look awkward for many subjects. 

Check out http://digital-photography-school.com/aspect-ratio-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/


----------



## zim (Sep 26, 2014)

So I guess that it's not because that's the only shape Patterson dev and fit trays came in then? ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> > Thanks for any explanations from competent photogs around here!
> 
> 
> Until any of them show up, perhaps I can contribute.



 this part was not there to deprecate comment from amateurs, but simply to avoid a "asprect ratio doesn't matter as long as your sensor has high dynamic range" discussion



AcutancePhotography said:


> Check out http://digital-photography-school.com/aspect-ratio-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/



Thanks for explanation with the golden ratio and the link, the article happens to agree with my impression that 3:2 portrait can be difficult to fill. And it agrees that aspect ratio matters a lot for composition... that makes me even keener to get as much input on this issue as possible.


----------



## jhpeterson (Sep 26, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Film makes use of much wider formats which seem to be more compatible with the way we see. This seems to make sense, because 3:2 landscape often feels a bit narrow, while esp. 3:2 portrait feels very tall and often awkward to me.


+1 
I most definitely agree. 
I've never liked the proportions of other formats; they're "ideal" for just who? Maybe why I like the 3:2 ratio is that it comes closest to the classical Golden Rectangle. (Although I have no formal art training, my studies in science and mathematics have taught me that some equations are more harmonious than others.)
Like the OP, I find 3:2 is, if anything, not wide enough in landscape, yet too tall in portrait. Perhaps this has to do with how we see, our physiology of vision and the connection between our two eyes and brain.


----------



## TeT (Sep 26, 2014)

Tradition.

That said... I use 3:2 crop on my eBay & images and they look better and are have marginally better results than my non 3:2 cropped listings. (also it might just be my personal preference)


----------



## LDS (Sep 26, 2014)

It's also versatile enough if you need to crop it to other formats.

Anyway many other old photo formats were not 3:2. I.e. 6x6, 6x7, 4"x5", 9x12, 18x24... but what was important was the aspect ratio of the final delivered image (which but slides could be different from the "sensor" ratio).

I believe often which format to adopt was a compromise among what could be achieved with available film sizes, lenses, camera body designs (in turn dependeding on the manufacturing processes and materials available) and artistic needs. Also, in the past, not all cameras made rectangular/square images.

Don't know if from a manufacturing perspective there are preferences in building sensors with a given aspect ration compared to another.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

TeT said:


> That said... I use 3:2 crop on my eBay & images and they look better and are have marginally better results than my non 3:2 cropped listings. (also it might just be my personal preference)



Interesting - if that's not a statistical error, maybe the reason is what I wrote in the op: Because of the tradition the native 3:2 looks "uncooked" and honest, while anything apart from the "pro" 1:1 implies tinkering and editing?

I just tried to crop a couple of wildlife shots that really wouldn't fit into 3:2 landscape to 4:5, this aspect ratio is even included in Lightroom. On the one hand, it results in much better composition, on the other hand it looks, well, "cropped" and if something's missing.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 26, 2014)

I'd say for 80% of my shots I dont really crop, especially not my landscape and astro shots. But, for my action stuff where I cant always get the perfect composition on the fly, as a video/film person, I often find myself cropping to ratios of 16:9 in my landscape shots. Just feels more natural. And yeah, the portrait 3:2 really throws me off, so I tend to crop more 1:1 for those shots.

I generally let the rule of thirds determine my crop, if I centered someone in 3:2, and they hit the thirds in a 1:1 crop, Id rather go 1:1 than follow the tradition


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 26, 2014)

Hopefully someone can provide a scientific answer. It seems to me that photogs have struggled with this forever. Who says 3:2 is ideal? Many though 6x7 MF was ideal because it printed on 8x10 with less cropping than other formats. Of course, why was 8x10 so perfect? 6x7 didn't match 5x7 nearly as well. In fact, just review all the old photo paper sizes and the aspect ratios aren't consistent. Old CRT TV's were roughly 4:3. 'Blad users always shot square and cropped later. 

Looking at a live landscape one tends to scan the horizon, hence it makes sense a wider aspect ratio "feels" more "right" and a panoramic shot is even more satisfying. I agree 3:2 feels "wrong" for a headshot, but it's pretty good for a full body one or two shot.

It's possible perceptions of what is right may change over time. 16:9 has displaced 4:3 for TV. The smartphone screen dimensions may well define the "right" aspect ration for the next generation.


----------



## dppaskewitz (Sep 26, 2014)

old-pr-pix said:


> In fact, just review all the old photo paper sizes and the aspect ratios aren't consistent.



And it isn't just "old" photo paper sizes. Beyond 4X6, larger paper sizes don't seem to come in the 2X3 aspect ratio (at least standard paper from, for example, Epson). And what about pre-made frames and mats? 5X7 and 8X10. Sure, other dimensions are available, but one would think that paper/frame/mat manufacturers would go out of their way to provide easily usable materials in the 2X3 ratio. We can crop to other aspects, but don't we sometimes actually want to print and frame what we saw when we snapped? Without having mats cut and frames made? (OK, I understand that an enormously small percentage of today's photos are ever printed, but isn't that still sort of the ultimate test of whether we captured something of merit?)


----------



## jhpeterson (Sep 26, 2014)

TeT said:


> Tradition.


-100
Guess there was a reason why I never went to art school. I've never liked trying to get my aesthetics to match some ideal.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 26, 2014)

old-pr-pix said:


> Hopefully someone can provide a scientific answer.



Why must there be a scientific answer. We are talking about human preception. There may not be a scientific answer. 

Is there a scientific answer for what is considered art or beauty?


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 26, 2014)

I think that the 3:2 ratio has been with us since Leica introduced the 35mm film media. I can't remember the reasons behind it, but I do vaguely remember from classes I took something about closeness to the golden ratio, and how pleasing that was to the eye.

Although I do think that "pleasing" is largely due to the fact that this ratio, or very close to it, was most often seen, and that would suggest that much of it is tradition. If we stick to 16:9 ratios on TV- and computer-screens for a number of years, I think we will start to think that ratio is most pleasing to the eye. It might be that sticking to the norm makes it easier for the brain to accept the content, and if we deviate too much from the norm the brain gets occupied with the format instead of content...

Here's how I deliberately used to deviate to get attention:
In the old days of looking for a job, it was common practice to send in a resume and letter in paper form. I did just like everyone else, but I knew that I would compete with a large number of other applicants and I wanted to raise my chance of getting noticed in that large pile of papers. Here we use A4 as the standard letter size, and I insisted on using the American Letter size on a slightly thicker/heavier paper sort. It meant that my resume always stuck out in that pile (5mm wider). No matter how much they tried to line the papers up I was there, and I refused to be invisible in that crowd. It's like having an itch: How long can you avoid scratching it?

To sum my thoughts up
I think that much of the reasons today for using 3:2 is that we are used to it, and we know it won't be questioned for the wrong reasons. We are playing it safe - for our own sake and the presumed viewers/buyers sake.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 26, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> In the old days of looking for a job, it was common practice to send in a resume and letter in paper form. I did just like everyone else, but I knew that I would compete with a large number of other applicants and I wanted to raise my chance of getting noticed in that large pile of papers. Here we use A4 as the standard letter size, and I insisted on using the American Letter size on a slightly thicker/heavier paper sort. It meant that my resume always stuck out in that pile (5mm wider). No matter how much they tried to line the papers up I was there, and I refused to be invisible in that crowd. It's like having an itch: How long can you avoid scratching it?



As a hiring manager for my last three employees, your resume would get special attention. Perhaps not the type you intended. We also got resumes on coloured paper. They also got special attention.

What is on your resume should make you stand out, not what your resume is on.


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 26, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> As a hiring manager for my last three employees, your resume would get special attention. Perhaps not the type you intended. We also got resumes on coloured paper. They also got special attention.
> 
> What is on your resume should make you stand out, not what your resume is on.



*nods* It was a risk, but I tried to make sure I had the necessary and appropriate skills (at that time telecommunications and electronics) to dare to stick out in such a way. If they decided to file me in the big archive under the desk (trash can) at least they would read it before doing so.
But, you're right, content is more important, than format.
*goes away to toss out my box of old pink coloured papers with handpainted unicorns on*


----------



## jhpeterson (Sep 26, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully someone can provide a scientific answer.
> ...


There usually is. As we better understand the makeup of the human brain's, we discover that what we perceive as beauty is almost always based on certain rules of Nature. That shouldn't detract from our enjoying it, but rather help us to come back to that place more often.


----------



## Slyham (Sep 26, 2014)

This conversation brings up a question I have had for a while. Why not have a square or a cross shaped sensor?

Let me explain. Say you are camping near a lake. First you take a picture of the lake during a sunrise. You set the camera to landscape at 16:9, or whatever you want, and only the pixels in that ratio is used in taking the shot. Next your child wakes up and is sticking her head out the tent door. So you switch to portrait 4:5 and you can hold the camera in the same comfortable position as you do in landscape and take the picture. The day goes on with different shots with different ratios. 

Obviously this would only work with a mirrorless camera and you could not have a lens hood with pedals.

I think some of the advantages would be you get to hold the camera "normally" for portrait shots, you only use the pixels you want (thus keeping the size of files to a minimum), there is less cropping in post, etc.

What do you all think? Stupid idea or does it have some merit?


----------



## tcmatthews (Sep 26, 2014)

Slyham said:


> This conversation brings up a question I have had for a while. Why not have a square or a cross shaped sensor?
> 
> Let me explain. Say you are camping near a lake. First you take a picture of the lake during a sunrise. You set the camera to landscape at 16:9, or whatever you want, and only the pixels in that ratio is used in taking the shot. Next your child wakes up and is sticking her head out the tent door. So you switch to portrait 4:5 and you can hold the camera in the same comfortable position as you do in landscape and take the picture. The day goes on with different shots with different ratios.
> 
> ...



I would rather crop in post instead of doing all of the adjustment while taking the pictures. You can already change the aspect ratio in the camera if you wish and use Live View. But I have never really seen the point. It is fairly quick to crop in post. A square shaped sensor could be interesting but there is no reason for a cross shape sensor just turn you camera.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 26, 2014)

I doubt there anything scientific or special about the 3:2 ratio. In fact, it is not a ratio that is used in artist canvas sizes. Artists have been using different ratios for years. Most standard size canvases are 3:4 (9 x 12, 12 x 16, 18 x 24, 36 x 48) or 4:5 (8 x 10, 16 x 20, 24 x 30). There are other standard sizes that don't fit either ratio. In general, using the best ratio for your particular composition has been the artist's method and now thanks to the ease of digital cropping, photographers have no reason not to do the same (aside from trying to use standard size frames, of course).


----------



## rcarca (Sep 26, 2014)

I have always thought that there is something magical about 10x8 for portraits. Maybe because of the old large format photographs, but in a darkroom that was always my favourite. I also like the A sizes (which is the golden ratio...) why approximate the golden ratio when you can use the real thing??? But then 3x2 is just "accepted" because of 6x4 prints straight from 35mm film. Hey: go with what you like!!! I have also started doing a lot of square crops. 

But then when it comes to putting something on the wall, a 10x15 inch print in a 500x400mm card looks fantastic. Why the cross over of units between imperial and metric??? Goodness only knows! But they results look awesome!

Richard


----------



## dak723 (Sep 26, 2014)

Slyham said:


> This conversation brings up a question I have had for a while. Why not have a square or a cross shaped sensor?
> 
> Let me explain. Say you are camping near a lake. First you take a picture of the lake during a sunrise. You set the camera to landscape at 16:9, or whatever you want, and only the pixels in that ratio is used in taking the shot. Next your child wakes up and is sticking her head out the tent door. So you switch to portrait 4:5 and you can hold the camera in the same comfortable position as you do in landscape and take the picture. The day goes on with different shots with different ratios.
> 
> ...



The Olympus OM-D EM-1 mirrorless camera does not have a square or cross-shaped sensor, of course, but it does basically what you want (including portrait 3:4 without rotating the camera). If you shoot RAW, it will use all the pixels of its entire 4:3 sensor image, but JPGs are cropped as you specify. 

So, yes, I would say your idea has merit!


----------



## monkey44 (Sep 26, 2014)

I suspect it emerged from the 'artistic visual' perceptions and appreciation and evolved into standardization more for manufacturing convenience (printing and frames) than any other reason ... and it allows variation in the 'idea of view'... you can turn it 'landscape' or 'portrait' for at least some kind of variation beyond square ... 

Because we make our own frames and mats, etc -- we do not require that standard size image or frame. But, interesting enough, most of our clients will order one of the standard sizes, even when we lift those restrictions. I'm never sure whether it's an artistic choice or a 'trained' choice when that happens.

We find the most often variation tho, is wider and shorter landscapes, when the image stretches along the horizon to a much greater degree than a 3:2 ratio ... as with a real wide shot, after a long horizontal crop can emerge as a 4x24 or a 6x24 image ... 

I've always thought it odd that 35mm frame mathematically ups to 8x12, and most often the image choice fits in an 8x10 ...never could figure that out, unless that's a hold-over from the "poof and flash days" of medium format cameras, maybe.

My best guess, pleasing to the eye transferred into standardizations for manufacturing stability.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

monkey44 said:


> My best guess, pleasing to the eye transferred into standardizations for manufacturing stability.



There's certainly one thing to be said in favor of shooting in a standard (3:2 or any) format: it reduces complexity. Once you start imagining the scene in a number of maybe 10 different "standard" aspect ratios, you'd never get a shot done. 

Personally, I admit also find it hard to imagine a certain non-3:2 ar in a 3:2 viewfinder w/o a cropping grid. Magic Lantern has the ability to overlay any bitmap you chose in live view, but in the good ol' optical viewfinder you have to imagine for yourself how 4:3 or 5:4 would look like.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 26, 2014)

My semi scientific explanation:
3:2, This is close to the visual field angle of human eye. If you do not move your head an/or your eyes, you will see more width than height. Leica pick this format also based on the movie film at that time. about two movie frame size was used to make 24 X 36 MM
4:3, is carry over from the TV. The image sensor in the early date are round tube. They are small and expensive. So 4:3 was pick to have a larger image area and give in to the human visual field.
8X10, 5X7, 4X5 etc. are for the handling of either glass plate or paper.It is easier to handle something that is close to square than a skinny oblong.
6X6 camera, since those camera are not easy to be turned sideway. a square form will avoid turning. the guy can cropit later to be portrait or landscape.


----------



## mrzero (Sep 26, 2014)

dak723 said:


> Slyham said:
> 
> 
> > This conversation brings up a question I have had for a while. Why not have a square or a cross shaped sensor?
> ...



Genius. I want to take portrait photos without removing my baseball cap. That's got to be worth a few grand more.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 26, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> I think that the 3:2 ratio has been with us since Leica introduced the 35mm film media. I can't remember the reasons behind it, but I do vaguely remember from classes I took something about closeness to the golden ratio, and how pleasing that was to the eye.



The reason Oskar Barnack/Leica chose 8 perf 35mm film is simple. It's just two 4 perf 35mm Motion Picture Frames https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film Nothing magical or mystical.

BTW the REAL Normal Lens for 35mm film is 43mm (diagonal of frame). Leica supplied 50mm lenses, and almost everybody else copied Leica (Pentax made 43mm lenses).

Portrait prints from a Portrait Photographer are 8x10 and 16x20. Mamiya made 6x7 Medium Format cameras because it is about the same ration as 8x10, and therefore required little cropping.

Common picture ratios.
6cmX6cm Medium Format camera = 1:1
6cmX7cm Medium Format camera = 1.17:1
4"X5" camera = 1.2:1
Magazine Page = about 1.29:1
4/3 = 1.33:1
Pre HD TV = 1.33:1
35mm Still Frame = 1.5:1
HDTV = 1.78
Motion Picture = 1.85:1
Wide Screen Motion Picture = 2.35/2.40:1


----------



## LDS (Sep 26, 2014)

old-pr-pix said:


> Hopefully someone can provide a scientific answer.


Maybe there isn't a truly scientific ones. IMHO, in the old days when most photos were made to be sold to be printed on newspapers, magazines and books (or street ads), I guess formats were chosen also for how well the image fit the page frame design with minimal cropping, especially when there was no digital workflow. And the page design was tied to the available paper sizes.


----------



## jhpeterson (Sep 26, 2014)

I'm not sure how anyone else sees, but the 4 x 5, 8 x 10 and even the 4:3 format works best for me as a vertical. If I want a horizontal, I much prefer the 3:2 ratio, or, even better, the 16:9.
I'm convinced there's a physiological component to this latter preference. It's pretty near to what our eyes see.
But, close one, and you have (almost) portrait format.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 26, 2014)

I like 3x2 and 2x3 for lots of landscape and natural images.
the 4x5 ratio looks good for many portraits and other images I will crop to what best suits the overall image balance.

There's a very limited edition skyline panorama I've done that didn't look quite right at 36x12"
Changed it to 36 x 11.25 and viola! masterpiece!
Sometimes it can be that subtle.


----------



## Slyham (Sep 27, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> But this is ot, maybe you should open a new thread for this.



Good point. If you would like to discuss the square or cross shaped sensor topic further...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22995.0


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 27, 2014)

Warning: Climbing on to my soapbox
I cringe when I see the "It's pretty near to what our eyes see" or similar comments. Our eyes see 2 round images that have partial overlap with much more color and detail in the center, and you nose in the middle of it. Our brains turn that into a a 3D image that seems to have even color. 

Our pictures are 2x3 because that was the way film was, and film was that way because it's efficient to make that way. Most books and printed materials are similar for the similar reasons. Whether making paper by hand or in rolls, 2x3ish was most efficient. Thus it looks normal to us. 

If we wanted photos or video to have a view similar you to our eyes, wouldn't we stand close enough to fill our field of vision? Or maybe just have a nose printed in the image.

Climbing down from soapbox

Anyway, why not crop to what looks best for the image for you? 99% of our photos are never going to be printed, or stuck in a frame. Crop freely, or stick with an aspect ratio that feels good to you. Be an artist, not a follower.


----------



## TeT (Sep 27, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > That said... I use 3:2 crop on my eBay & images and they look better and are have marginally better results than my non 3:2 cropped listings. (also it might just be my personal preference)
> ...



It has an honest uncropped look.. I am sure that is the reason behind its appeal.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 27, 2014)

I think Leica had something to do with it but... I'm slowly starting to dislike the 3:2 ratio the more I shoot MF. 4:3 feels and crops much better for my work.


----------



## epsiloneri (Sep 27, 2014)

I often crop to 4:3, in particular for portrait. Landscapes generally get much wider crops.


----------



## canon_guy (Sep 27, 2014)

yes, 3:4 best for portrait shots


----------

