Aspect Ratio. 2:3 vs. 4:5 -- Which is better?

Today I did a portrait session and I tried effectively increasing my 5Ds to 80MP by using photo stitching. The final images were 4:5, and that aspect ratio worked out quite well.

Because the GFX100 is closer to 4:5 than it is to 2:3--and I'd like to get it some day--I'm curious now: For portraits, is 4:5 usually better than 2:3?

P.S. I forgot to say that I'd like paper to be excluded from the discussion. My interest is purely aesthetic; assume that any print dimension is available.

Depends on your print sizes, example 4x6 or 8x10? Also you have a third common ratio, 5x7, so what do you do then?

I always shoot more loosely allowing me to crop out any of the 3 most common ratios I would use for the final product. When stitching, due to the effort, I think I would be a bit more surgical though, like you did for a specific ratio, but not when doing a single frame.

It's not a matter of better, but more of which is appropriate for the task at hand. If prints are your end goal then shoot for the ratio of the enlargement you want.

Like most other things photographic, I believe the answer(s) here are subject to the shooter's equipment, goals, preferences, and experiences. I have always thought that 35mm (3:2) is really awkward in portrait orientation. Though it works well for horizontal panoramas. The 645 (4:3) aspect ratio seems more versatile to me as it easily transitions between landscape and portrait orientations. Besides 3:2 and 4:3, the other format I use with any regularity is square (1:1). Of the 3, square format is (to me) the hardest to shoot. Framing is weird after a near lifetime of shooting 35mm film and other 3:2 digital gear. The rule of thirds has no place in square format; it actually looks wrong.

Just a comment on digital vs. film. With film, I try to frame as tightly as I can within the native format. The IQ of film degrades significantly with heavy cropping. Heavy crops will show pronounced grain. Modern digital does not have this problem, mostly. Cropping digital, especially doing so only to change the aspect ratio of the output, is relatively harmless to the result - up to a point. As mentioned above, when shooting digital, frame loosely and you can crop to any aspect ratio you need in the final image.

There is no inherently 'better'! Consider the fact you change the aspect ratio of the shot when you make a print, so you crop off the 'extra' to get to the new aspect ratio. And each time you make a print at a different size, you change to a different new aspect ratio!

1.25:1 (5 x 4", 10 x 8", 20 x 16")
1.27:1 (14 x 11")
1.4:1 (7 x 5")
1.46:1 (19 x 13")
1.5:1 (6 x 4", 12 x 8")

In the film days, certain film formats claimed to be 'better' because less negative was 'trimmed off' when making a print...you hear the marketing 'Ideal Format' from such claims.

And, no matter what aspect ratio your shot was made in camera, you may well find a much better aspect ratio by trimming down the image and making a custom aspect ratio for the output print. For example, recently I took a shot at 1.5:1, but then I made a 20" x 30" final print...3:1 aspect ratio. Starting with 1.5:1 was better than starting with 5:4 or 4:3, but I had to trim off a lot of image with ANY of the three!

If your goal is to shoot mostly portraits, a camera with near 5:4 aspect ratio is better when your output for a client is 10" x 8" print! Using a 1.5:1 camera like dSLR is less ideally suited to this task. But shooting digital, you are not 'wasting film' like in the old days!

I forgot to say that I'd like paper to be excluded from the discussion. My interest is purely aesthetic; assume that any print dimension is available.

icor1031 wrote in post #19005933
I forgot to say that I'd like paper to be excluded from the discussion. My interest is purely aesthetic; assume that any print dimension is available.

If any print dimension is available...that is EVEN STRONGER to the point that the aspect ratio of the image acquired in the camera means even LESS!

icor1031 wrote in post #19005933
I forgot to say that I'd like paper to be excluded from the discussion. My interest is purely aesthetic; assume that any print dimension is available.

Wilt wrote in post #19005975
If any print dimension is available...that is EVEN STRONGER to the point that the aspect ratio of the image acquired in the camera means even LESS!

... when shooting high-MP digital. Cropping off 33% of a 3:2 film frame to get 1:1 is pretty drastic.

Idle thought just buzzed through what is left of my brain.... Am I the only person still shooting film?

PentaxShooter wrote in post #19005978
Am I the only person still shooting film?

Most of the E6 emulsions which I loved are gone; the most color accurate film is no longer offered. Hard to find a quality E6 processing lab with consistency driven by the volume of film being processed. I cannot print Cibachrome (renamed Ilfochrome) any longer. Not much reason to pull out the considerable amount of film gear which I refuse to sell for pennies on the dollar paid.

PentaxShooter wrote in post #19005978
... when shooting high-MP digital. Cropping off 33% of a 3:2 film frame to get 1:1 is pretty drastic.

Idle thought just buzzed through what is left of my brain.... Am I the only person still shooting film?

I considered film, but drum scanners are extinct and flatbeds sucks.

Wilt wrote in post #19005982
Most of the E6 emulsions which I loved are gone; the most color accurate film is no longer offered. Hard to find a quality E6 processing lab with consistency driven by the volume of film being processed. I cannot print Cibachrome (renamed Ilfochrome) any longer. Not much reason to pull out the considerable amount of film gear which I refuse to sell for pennies on the dollar paid.

So, your answer is, YES? Never thought I'd be last. BTW, I shoot film because I like the cameras. I pay TheDarkRoom.com for developing and scanning. Almost forgot to mention this, in 50+ years behind the viewfinder, I've never shot a roll of slide film. Ever.

icor1031 wrote in post #19005983
I considered film, but drum scanners are extinct and flatbeds sucks.

This is kind of obvious, but... neither are required. I tried scanning at home. To me it is about as much fun as the darkroom. Never doing either again.

I just looked through a set of my portrait-oriented portraits, and with every one of them, I thought: this would have been better as 5:4. Pentax, I agree with you...
I really hope I can get a GFX100 soon.

PentaxShooter wrote in post #19005987
So, your answer is, YES? Never thought I'd be last. BTW, I shoot film because I like the cameras. I pay TheDarkRoom.com for developing and scanning. Almost forgot to mention this, in 50+ years behind the viewfinder, I've never shot a roll of slide film. Ever.

No, the answer is 'not in over a decade', for the reasons given.

icor1031 wrote in post #19005992
I just looked through a set of my portrait-oriented portraits, and with every one of them, I thought: this would have been better as 5:4. Pentax, I agree with you...
I really hope I can get a GFX100 soon.

I am a bit confused. GFX100 sensor is (roughly) the same as Pentax 645Z (43.8x32.9) which is 4:3. The Pentax is available for about half the price of the GFX100, but has only half the pixels. Well, that and MF digital is the APSc of medium format. Go all the way, buy a Pentax 645N. You can get 40 of them for the price of a GFX100.

I have considered a 645 D/Z. I can't get past the 1.6x crop factor and its effect on the wide end of my lens collection. My digital is the 80D; at least really wide lenses are available for that format.