Final output format - what crop are you using now - moving to 16x9

For a little over the last year I have completely changed how I crop in post. Over 90% of what I produce is now consumed on a back lit 16x9 format TV/Monitor.... essentially on large monitors in the lobby of the group I shoot for. As such, I have completely abandoned traditional 11x14, 8x10 and 13x19 that I used to shoot for. Almost everything I do now is either 16x9 or 1x1. I am wondering how many others are making the shift away from the traditional formats.

I always keep the original and then save out various aspect ratios that I need as new files. 16x9 is pretty much a traditional format, it was proposed over 3 decades ago, and has been common for around a decade. I use 5x7, 8x10, 13x19 most commonly but do print larger than this.

I don't see why there is any shifting needed, cropping tools in processing software are so easy to use to create whatever aspect ratio you need, provided you have shot the scene wide enough to allow that. Shoot too tight and you lose availability of some aspect ratios.

Croasdail wrote in post #18676398
For a little over the last year I have completely changed how I crop in post. Over 90% of what I produce is now consumed on a back lit 16x9 format TV/Monitor.... essentially on large monitors in the lobby of the group I shoot for. As such, I have completely abandoned traditional 11x14, 8x10 and 13x19 that I used to shoot for. Almost everything I do now is either 16x9 or 1x1. I am wondering how many others are making the shift away from the traditional formats.

I don't make one Grand Decision about how I will crop images going into the future. . I crop on an image-by-image basis and on a final output basis. . This is what I have always done.

I will say, however, that with horizontally oriented images, for slideshows that I watch myself, and for images that I post online, I often crop to 16:9 because it matches the aspect ratio of many computer monitors. . Also, with horizontally oriented images, there isn't usually much at the very top or the very bottom of the frame that helps the composition, so it is just as well to crop it off.

That 16:9 thing that you are doing almost all the time now, I can see how that works for horizontally oriented images, but what about all of your vertically oriented images? . How does the 16:9 work with those?

I agree with Team Speed that 16:9 is a traditional format.


.

My guess is that you are the only one doing this. If 90% of your work ends up 16x9, you may as well start there.

I crop for usage. Prints get a wide variety of ratios: 4x6, 5x7, 4x5, 1:1, even the seldom used 11x17. My wife hangs photos all over the house, in sets, multi-frames, and individuals. As such I have several different crops of the same photo lying about.

For digital consumption, I pretty much stick to 2x3 and 3x4, with the exception of desktop backgrounds, which are 16x9.

I shoot and store my files in native 3:2. Cropping is done as needed.

PS: My wife uses 13x9, but I think that is a baking dish.

He's not the only one, but I do reserve the 16:9 crops for specific use as opposed to adopting it. Prints are prints for matte and frame, they will (usually) get a different crop than something headed for a flat screen.

I often have reason to put together slide shows that are to be displayed on flat screen TVs, monitors etc. at which point the images are all jpegs cropped to fit the aspect ratio of a common screen, ie: 16:9 or thereabouts.

I think some of my travel galleries on my website have by laziness ended up being populated by exactly such images.

I'm not really tied to any specific ration. I process in the cameras native format and re-size/crop depending on need as the final step.

Your camera aspect ratio is 1.5:1, if typical FF dSLR (36mm x 24mm or 22.5mm x 15mm). Regardless of what your camera has, the print output sizes after capture have always been to fit the 'canned' paper formats, or a custom crop size (ignoring entirely capture size or output to standardized sizes.

1.25:1 (5 x 4", 10 x8", 20 x 16")
1.27:1 (14 x 11")
1.4:1 (7x5")
1.5:1 (6 x 4", 12 x 8")

And then there are all the film format camera sizes which almost all deviate from the 'standardized' print sizes, too (such as)

1.22:1 (RZ67, 68.4mm x 56mm)
1:1 (Hassy, 56mm x 56mm)
1.29:1 (Bronica 645 55mm x 42.5mm)

Along comes digital printers and then they foist new photo sizes

1.29 (11 x 8.5")
1.44:1 (13 x 9")

And then the new monitor aspect ratios

1.77:1 (16:9(
1.6:1 (16:10)

So all a digital photographer can do is to shoot RAW to capture the full dimensions of the sensor, then use RAW conversion program to output different aspect ratio JPG files which FIT THE PRINT to be ordered

I still shoot 3:2 - But how I frame an image now is much different. I actually shoot a little looser so that I don't have to make awkward choices later on on the top and bottom of the image. I don't want to shoot 16x9 yet.... too old to force my brain completely in that direction. But I do make sure that my image will crop down to 4K dimensions with out clipping the image later.

The other thing I have noticed I have changed is I don't necessarily center images either. I like the extra width to lead the image. For football it has been great.

And as mentioned, printing 16x9 is still a bit of an issue. No issue trimming a 11x17 or 13x19 down, but its still not a traditional frame size so then matting comes into play. Anyway, I was just curious who else is going that direction. I have to say seeing my images of 65" 4K monitors in my clients lobby is kinds cool. Brought some fun back into it.

Wilt you forgot probably the most common aspect ratio for papers in the world, well at least outside of the USA. The 1:Sqrt(2) format of the ISO A series papers. Just for interest the base size is A0 and has an area of exactly 1m². Each successive number in the series halves the area, so the very common A4 is 1/8m². Being based on using area and a common ratio is why the A series dimensions often seem so odd.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18677717
Wilt you forgot probably the most common aspect ratio for papers in the world, well at least outside of the USA. The 1:Sqrt(2) format of the ISO A series papers. Just for interest the base size is A0 and has an area of exactly 1m². Each successive number in the series halves the area, so the very common A4 is 1/8m². Being based on using area and a common ratio is why the A series dimensions often seem so odd.

Alan

Actually, I need to thank you for educating me! In spite of decades of involvement in photographic forums, this is the first time that anyone from your side of the pond has stated anything about photographic paper sizes (and I had become quite sensititized to the fact that International standards existed, in the early 1980s!) While I knew of 'A1', 'A2', paper sizes, I had never heard anyone comment about the aspect ratio expressed as such..

Wilt another "interesting fact" about the A series is that every time the number get larger the width you start at becomes the new length. Similarly of course when you reduce the number the length becomes the new width. The aspect ratio of 1:Sqrt(2) is picked since it is the only ratio that allows you to halve the area, and maintain the ratio every time.

To ten significant figures the dimensions of a sheet of A0 paper are 1.189207115m × 0.840896415m. Oh and I was wrong in my last post, A4 is 1/16m² not 1/8m². To the same level of accuracy the sizes for A4 are 0.297301778m × 0.210224103, although rounding to 297mm × 210mm is the accepted norm.

The A series is certainly not a standard photographic print size in the UK, and back when I was first into photography the standard photographic papers from Ilford, Kodak, and Kentmere etc were in imperial sizes: 6×4, 5×7, 10×8, 16×12 etc. The A sizes became pretty much standard for document printing, and notepads etc especially the A4 size. I think probably because most computer printers are sold in relation to the largest A series paper you can use over this side of the pond, add customization to the size and A4 and A3 have become incredibly popular for photo printing. UK still uses a lot of 6×4 and 5×7 for small size prints.

Here in the UK we quickly accepted A4 and A3 as standard sizes for papers of all sorts. Smaller sizes have been more patchy regarding acceptance here. You would need to find someone from continental western europe to cover how great the penetration of the smaller A5/A6 sizes are, compared to older paper sizes.

Oh and I print just about everything at 16×12 these days. I go with that size as the lab I use only charges £1.15 (inc VAT @ 20%) each on Fuji Crystal Archive Gloss/Luster, and the same for A3 actually. I pick the 16×12 since I can get cheap 20×16 frames complete with glazing and a mount that is cut for 16×12 prints for under £10. I like the even 2" mat border better than trying to fit an A3 in the same frame. Bought locally a mat would cost £10 alone. In bulk I can get the mats down to £2 each though.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18678160
Wilt another "interesting fact" about the A series is that every time the number get larger the width you start at becomes the new length. Similarly of course when you reduce the number the length becomes the new width. The aspect ratio of 1:Sqrt(2) is picked since it is the only ratio that allows you to halve the area, and maintain the ratio every time.

To ten significant figures the dimensions of a sheet of A0 paper are 1.189207115m × 0.840896415m. Oh and I was wrong in my last post, A4 is 1/16m² not 1/8m². To the same level of accuracy the sizes for A4 are 0.297301778m × 0.210224103, although rounding to 297mm × 210mm is the accepted norm.

The A series is certainly not a standard photographic print size in the UK, and back when I was first into photography the standard photographic papers from Ilford, Kodak, and Kentmere etc were in imperial sizes: 6×4, 5×7, 10×8, 16×12 etc. The A sizes became pretty much standard for document printing, and notepads etc especially the A4 size. I think probably because most computer printers are sold in relation to the largest A series paper you can use over this side of the pond, add customization to the size and A4 and A3 have become incredibly popular for photo printing. UK still uses a lot of 6×4 and 5×7 for small size prints.

Here in the UK we quickly accepted A4 and A3 as standard sizes for papers of all sorts. Smaller sizes have been more patchy regarding acceptance here. You would need to find someone from continental western europe to cover how great the penetration of the smaller A5/A6 sizes are, compared to older paper sizes.

Oh and I print just about everything at 16×12 these days. I go with that size as the lab I use only charges £1.15 (inc VAT @ 20%) each on Fuji Crystal Archive Gloss/Luster, and the same for A3 actually. I pick the 16×12 since I can get cheap 20×16 frames complete with glazing and a mount that is cut for 16×12 prints for under £10. I like the even 2" mat border better than trying to fit an A3 in the same frame. Bought locally a mat would cost £10 alone. In bulk I can get the mats down to £2 each though.

Alan

Your description of 'limited acceptance' of some sizes along with 'quick acceptance' of other size in the UK reminds me of the UK oddity of speeds in km/h but distances in miles, as well.

Wilt wrote in post #18678234
Your description of 'limited acceptance' of some sizes along with 'quick acceptance' of other size in the UK reminds me of the UK oddity of speeds in km/h but distances in miles, as well.

Oh no we have most definitely kept mph for all speed limits. Where limits have been imposed by the EU, such as for various classes of HGVs those limits will be converted to mph and then rounded to the closest integer value. So we have 52 or 56 mph limits for big trucks, which is 80 or 90 Kmh in the rest of the EU. All distances on all road signs provided by any level of government agency must also be in miles, yards, or feet. Many local councils do use meters on local signage for pedestrians, although it is technically illegal. We did have at one time a some people who would go out where they could and change them to imperial units.

In other weights and measures we for many years got by with a dual system, of using both. Then the EU got involved, and seemed to decide that we were not serious enough about falling in line. At that point the imperial was to be obliterated. The only thing that was left was selling beer in pubs by the pint. Still just about all prepackaged food that is produced in the UK, and a fair bit that is packages directly for us, still comes in 456g packages. The most metricated produce seems to be drinks, all of the packaging for those is simply just made in metric units.

Oddly ny school year was the first to only be taught both the metric system and the then new decimalised money system. Then rest of the Common Market as it then was, insisted on that if we were to be allowed to join. I suspect the French had a hand in it myself, it's hard to wipe out a 1000 years of history in 70 years. The original RAF radar system was after all designed to protect us from the French, not the Germans. That was 1936! I still though have a reasonable grasp of the imperial system, from use if not education. Lots of pre-existing infrastructure was after all built using the imperial system, and didn't vanish overnight. Even though we still by law use miles and mph and even mpg for driving it is most definitely not taught in our schools. So to many they are just relatively meaningless numbers now.

Deleted comments about the EU and it's political system as it is probably too close to politics for POTN.

Alan

We silly, behind the times, antiquated Americans are still using the English system. Why? Ignorance!
We like telling the world what to do but dare we get in line with the rest of the world........
I remember as a kid learning the Metric system and how simple it was in the mid 1970's as the U.S. and Canada were going to change by 1980. The Canadians did in 1976.... As for their neighbors to the South.....
Let's hope by 2080..............

So the use of one completely valid system over another is ignorance? I don't think so. It is preference and tradition, nothing more. One could argue for conformity, but then the costs of changing everything for the sake of conformity has to be identified, costed, and then funded. Until there is a bonafide advantage to switch everything that supersedes the costs, it won't likely happen big bang.

It will be a very slow and methodical move, with funding and effort occurring over 2-3 decades. Quite frankly, simply labeling the lack of effort to convert as being due to ignorance, is really just another form of ignorance. I certainly think there are better things to spend money on nationally than something like this effort, personally.