Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Last summer I spent a lot of time editing pictures for a widescreen (normal screen now?) TV slideshow presentation at 16:9.
Then, when I went back to viewing at 3:2 I found the view wasn't as pleasing.

 

The question I pose for you good folks is... 

Is there, or is there likely to be a market for 16:9 images?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while ago I shot of lot pictures of writers and poets doing readings. Many were vertical and 3:2 was too tall - I cropped many to 4:3 or even 5:4. I started composing for that crop in camera (while shooting at 3:2)

So I now take the view that I crop to what works best although for most subjects  (people, urban, travel, sport) I tend to stay close to 3:2 which is how I have been seeing the world for over 40 years!

 

That said I don't see too many 16:9 images in magazines (sometimes across the top of a DPS) or on the web. But if the images works best at that format why not try? You could always crop a 4:3 or 3:2 out of it (or vice versa) and submit it as well. Might just give you an edge ...

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The downside is that it's achieved by cropping, so you lose some short side angle of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can choose the different ratios on my RX10, but if I am using 16:9 and I turn the camera 180 degrees, which I often do, it stays 16:9 vertically... not a pretty sight.
When I first went digital I had been shooting and printing mainly B/W for many years and relished the fast composition opportunities which the digital darkroom gave me... until I wanted to print and my freeform beauties became bespoke (expensive) print or framing sizes.
I did have a sale in December with a square format image, which I don't usually upload, so I might try different options from now on, but shoot at 2:3 with a view to re-composing in post..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point used to be made that a squarer format gave a more striking thumbnail on Alamy search results, and panoramas were lost—they were just a narrow strip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes if I think a scene would work in a wider format I take two versions, one framed with a view to being cropped for a Facebook cover photo (which is around 13:5).

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a newbie, I'm thinking about framing, does anyone take images purely for front covers or compose for allowing text etc as well as a full frame of the subject.. I know i'm thinking well ahead but just wondered what people shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to shoot 2 versions, one wide with plenty of space and one tight of most things, leaving space for text, logo's etc etc.

 

Weirdly my clients often buy the wide one, and then crop it

 

Talk about a waste of expensive pixels!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

York Photographer and arterra, thank you for a speedy reply, sometimes the composition doesn't lend itself to wide without getting unsightly items in, I presume they can be removed in Lightroom ? I am about to embark on the Lightroom learning curve so another challenge awaits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while ago I shot of lot pictures of writers and poets doing readings. Many were vertical and 3:2 was too tall - I cropped many to 4:3 or even 5:4. I started composing for that crop in camera (while shooting at 3:2)

 

So I now take the view that I crop to what works best although for most subjects  (people, urban, travel, sport) I tend to stay close to 3:2 which is how I have been seeing the world for over 40 years!

 

That said I don't see too many 16:9 images in magazines (sometimes across the top of a DPS) or on the web. But if the images works best at that format why not try? You could always crop a 4:3 or 3:2 out of it (or vice versa) and submit it as well. Might just give you an edge ...

 

I have noticed since I posted this that many web sites (esp BBC) are using a wider format (BBC use 16:9) for their images, even from still originals. It may of course be so that layout is consistent alongside HD format video.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16:9 is my favourite format when I seek to produce a cinematic effect as it lends itself ideally to such images. I have a few on Alamy which are yet to sell but I've had some success elsewhere with such renditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16:9 is the HDTV format.  4:3 was the old TV screen. 35mm was/is 3:2. Websites are not standard nor are computer screens, are they? So there are many influences. Richard Avedon used a Rolli 6x6 for most of his fashion work. 

 

A preconceived idea of shape is not my first consideration when shooting. Now that my files are larger and Alamy's requirements are for smaller files, I do more cropping than I used to. I think the bottom line here is to remain flexible, no? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.