What's your favorite aspect ratio?

[KmH]

I crop for content, not a specific aspect ratio.

I then print on standard size papers larger than the image.
Consequently, I often have my print lab trim away some amount of the excess paper.
By the same token I often leave the excess paper because it aids mounting, matting, and framing the print.

 

[TheUniverse]

Whatever best fits the image.

I once read that the Mona Lisa had been trimmed on left and right edges to fit a frame the owner had available. I generally go for 8x10 or 10x8, and honestly that is because I can use precut mats. But if the image demands something else, it gets it . . . even if it doesn't get matted and framed.

I love the story of the Mona Lisa but this is one aspect I've never heard of until now. However, I'm more than willing to believe it having done a similar thing. I used to buy frames (most often with "art" in them) at auctions. Everybody wondered why but I got myself $100, $200 or more frames for a couple bucks. Then I would strech a canvas to fit the frame...


But, back to the Mona Lisa for a second. Did you know that she only became famous because of getting stolen from Le Louvre?

 

[Derrel]

What...no love for 4:5, aka 8x10, aka 16x 20??? lol

I find that 3:2 can be very tricky many times...it's often not "tall enough" when shooting horizontal images, or it's "too skinny" when shooting vertical shots, like portraits.

4:3 sure looks good for computer screen shots...kinda wish I had a camera that offered 4:3 as a native capture aspect ratio. I've owned a number of square-shooters, TLR and SLR over the decades. The nice thing with square aspect shooting is how the camera itself never needs to be rotated on a tripod, nor in the hands!

 

[nerwin]

What...no love for 4:5, aka 8x10, aka 16x 20??? lol

I find that 3:2 can be very tricky many times...it's often not "tall enough" when shooting horizontal images, or it's "too skinny" when shooting vertical shots, like portraits.

4:3 sure looks good for computer screen shots...kinda wish I had a camera that offered 4:3 as a native capture aspect ratio. I've owned a number of square-shooters, TLR and SLR over the decades. The nice thing with square aspect shooting is how the camera itself never needs to be rotated on a tripod, nor in the hands!

The aspect ratios I picked I think are some of the most common ones. According to lightroom anyways! Haha

 

[ak_]

5:4 (10x8), 14x11, 65:24 (Xpan).

 

[Th0r4z1n3]

If it's just something I'm putting up on my blog I tend to be partial to 16:9 so it will fill the whole screen, but generally whatever I find visualllly appealing.

If it's something I'm printing out I generally go with 14x11 just because it's relatively big/affordable.

 

[wanderer86]

I prefer the 6x6 square of my Hassy, there is just something so classic about it

Sent from my LG-E980 using Tapatalk

 

[KenC]

Whatever works, as many here have said. I do find myself gravitating towards square images or those intermediate between square and the native 3:2 of DSLR's. Sometimes I go in the other direction, sort of panoramic, or at least narrower than 3:2. I don't know why, but I think I have relatively few images that are close to 3:2.