Panoramic ratios

Amp34

Amp34

Messages
2,859
Edit My Images
Yes
Why is the favoured ratio for panoramic shots 3:1? I assume 3:1 came about as the standard panoramic ratio due to it being half the 3:2 of a 35mm image, or is it a bit more conviluted?

I find that ratio to be way too long, and generally cuts details out in the foreground and background, whereas smaller ones (say 2:1) allow much more detail and interest. I think partly due to what our eye actually sees, when I look around I see (I think) in pretty much 2:1 ratio, and so image wise it is much nicer to look at?

Random question I know, but processing a load of landscape images/panoramics, I have looked at both 3:1 and 2:1 ratios and found in almost every instance 2:1 was superior (to my eye).:p
 
I think it's down to personal choice. It's the same with film directors, some prefer a ratio of 1:1.85 and others 1:2.35 which is the original 'cinemascope' format.

But I would also say it can depend on what you are shooting. For portraits, for example, I like the square 6x6 format and even for landscapes a square format can be pleasing. But personally I find the 35mm ratio about right for most subjects.
 
In my opinion 2.5:1 or 5:2 works well as a panoramic.

I am currently building a camera which takes 6x12cm shots on 120 film. I would prefer 6x15 but I need to work with the numbers already on the backing paper which are on a 6cm pitch. This gives me the option of 6x12 or 6x18 (more commonly, 6x17).

With specialist backs for film cameras, these two sizes were the standard and translate to ratios of 2:1 and 3:1. there are also large format film sizes of 4x10", 8x20" and 7x17".

Obviously with digital you can crop or stitch images to whatever shape you want but I consider 2.5:1 to be the most pleasing.

A lot of widescreen movies were made in this format. Actually, 2.4:1 for Panavision and Cinemascope.


Steve.
 
I o quite like square crops for landscapes too, depending on the scene.

Steve 2.5:1 is also a ratio I quite like, it makes it wider than 2:1, but still has plenty of foreground over 3:1. I was also interested in what medium and large format ratios were like, so they also shoot 2:1 as standard i seems? The problem is with "odd sizes" it can be quite difficult to get photos printed in a lot of print shops, as well as framing, but if you stick to 3:1 it is easy to find places to print and frame.

I'd be interested to know why multitude of large format ratios appeared as well, just different brands having different preferences or something deeper? :)
 
The three large format sizes I quoted are all around 2.5:1

4x10" and 8x20" are exactly 2.5:1 and 7x17" is close at 2.43:1


Steve.
 
I mostly shoot Pans in portrait orientation this give a far better coverage of foreground and sky. As to the ratio I use what ever the subject takes.
Some times taking two or more rows with a longer lens is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top