Portrait's Disadvantage vs. Landscape (Computer Monitor Viewing)

I’m talking about the framing here, Portrait (vertical) vs. Landscape (horizontal). I really feel like web viewing is biased against portrait framing, because the monitor can only display a smaller picture. When viewed side by side against landscape framing, some of my vertically framed photos, although just as good as the horizontally framed photos, just seem to lack drama and impact because of the size advantage of the horizontal framing on computer monitors.

Do you guys do anything to correct that? Do any of you size your landscape framed photos smaller so they appear as the same size as the portrait ones when viewed on a monitor?

banpreso wrote in post #10077235
I’m talking about the framing here, Portrait (vertical) vs. Landscape (horizontal). I really feel like web viewing is biased against portrait framing, because the monitor can only display a smaller picture. When viewed side by side against landscape framing, some of my vertically framed photos, although just as good as the horizontally framed photos, just seem to lack drama and impact because of the size advantage of the horizontal framing on computer monitors.

Do you guys do anything to correct that? Do any of you size your landscape framed photos smaller so they appear as the same size as the portrait ones when viewed on a monitor?

I make prints!

I've never really thought about it though. In fact, now that you bring it up, the slideshow on the front page of my (zenfolio) site is biased EXACTLY the other way. It's a tall rectangle that shows vertical images larger than the horizontals.

I think a well done portrait photos can have just as much or more impact as a horizontal photo, regardless of size. It's all about the composition.

And yes, it's a bit nicer working on (editing) landscape photos due to the size advantage. If I ever do a dual monitor setup I will have the second one turned sideways.

i mean when the portrait framed shot is smalleron screen, it's just harder to see some of the details... it's a unique problem for the digital age, haha

But then when you resize for optimal downloading and on screen viewing down to 800 pixels it flips, the portraits look much bigger than horizontals.

banpreso wrote in post #10082410
i mean when the portrait framed shot is smalleron screen, it's just harder to see some of the details... it's a unique problem for the digital age, haha

The inconvenience of shooting in the portrait format is not unique to digital. We've had to turn 35mm cameras on end to take "portraits" for a hundred years. Televisions and movie screens have always been in landscape format, and the wide-screen only makes it worse (which is why I've clung to 4:3 monitors for my editing). The prime spaces for large wall portraits in the home--over the mantle and over the sofa--are horizontal.

Unfortunately, the binocular viewing of the human eyes presents us with a landscape view of the world, and that's what most visual displays cater to. Well, "unfortunately" is probably the wrong word. I guess back in the ancient past, death from the side was more likely than death from above or below.

banpreso wrote in post #10082410
i mean when the portrait framed shot is smalleron screen, it's just harder to see some of the details... it's a unique problem for the digital age, haha

I just rotate my monitor.

I'm reading this in portrait mode on my iPad

It doesn't need to be that complicated -- just that many compositions "work" better in vertical mode. It's about the photo/composition/subj​ect matter and how you present them, not how big they show up on a monitor. In fact, I've more than once taken a photo in landscape mode and decided it worked better in portrait mode and made the crop for the presentation. It may not print large after cropping a third or so of its pixels off, but it pleased the eye more.