Large format photography is something that never caught on with me. My loss I know. I suppose by the time my interest really kicked in with photography, I was so inundated with 35mm film equipment and wish lists that I never had much time to look into anything else. I had no real exposure to people using large format growing up. As such, the aspect ratios of large-format such as 4:5 and 8:10 were always a bit foreign, despite the prevalence in the framing and matting markets.
Since I tend to compose in the viewfinder, I guess my mind is predominantly thinking in a 2:3 aspect way, unless I am trying something like a panoramic. And in post-exposure development, if I do crop – I tend to gravitate towards maintaining the original aspect unless there is some compelling reason otherwise. I suppose the question of “would this look better in 4×5” doesn’t cross my mind all that much. On quite a few occasions I’ve had to explain to some buyers what happens when you try to fit a 2:3 composition into a 4:5 box. Cropping a 16×24 print to 16×20 can be quite a sacrifice.
However, with the mosquito hell we’ve had around here the past 8 weeks, I am spending a lot more time indoors. And with that time I started exploring the 4:5 aspect ratio for certain images. It’s an interesting ratio for sure. The relationship between height and width is much more subtle than others. But I am genuinely curious if the aspect actually makes the image better in some way. Is there some visual psychology at play that I haven’t explored enough? Or is it just personal preference?
A vertical 4×5 (8×10) is known to be classic for portraiture. So it is understandable why so many wedding photographers would use it – because you weren’t a “serious” wedding photographer if you didn’t use a Hasselblad right? 🙂 But the ratio isn’t foreign to nature and landscape photography either since some guy named Ansel something used it. For some, I’ve read 4:5 feels “more intimate.” So it is pretty clear that the uncommon use of this aspect ratio was purely on me and not dedicating enough thought to it.
Here’s a wildlife portrait where I didn’t originally think of using 4:5:
Here is a version cropped to fit the 4:5 format:
In this case, I do think the crop makes it a bit more intimate. This was a rather easy one of course because there was nothing but the water that was cropped out. The angle of the bear’s head and the eye placement is also more powerful relative to the frame boundary. An image I made over 10 years ago, and I didn’t see this until this week. I also experimented with the landscape at the top of this post and the seal image, both I like better than their original 2×3 versions.
That said, with this playing around I found many that didn’t work as well, most likely because each element in the frame was intentionally there from the original viewfinder. Some 4×5 crops after the fact can look too crowded and suffocating on the subject. While I still really don’t have any desire to get into the gear aspect of large format, I am certainly willing to make the aspect ratio not such a foreign consideration.
Featured Image: Autumn colors near Cantwell, Alaska outside of Denali National Park (c.2009), Photo ID FC9720, Mountains and Molehills Gallery
We could take the question of crop ratio further and ask whether the framing even has to be rectangular. Due to optical limitations, I’ve sometimes ended up with a picture in which details near one corner aren’t sharp but everything else is. That gave me the idea of cropping out the recalcitrant corner and leaving all the sharp parts in a hexagonal frame with all right angles, like the shape of Utah.
Great point Steven. We are kind of “boxed in” (heh) in our formats, our displays, and media. I have seen some custom cut metal prints, but they seemed more of a gimmick than addressing what is best for the image. Certainly our field of vision isn’t so rectangular.
This was interesting to read, since I have always cropped very freely, shaving off a side or two or three or four to make the whole work better, to my eye. I don’t have to consider printing and framing because I don’t shoot professionally and seldom print or frame. It’s always about making the composition work and I find that in the field, the view, whether on a display or through a viewfinder, is too small to for me to ensure I get it right. I try to frame as best as I can but often find myself changing the framing in post.
Sometimes I have changed the aspect in-camera, too. Something we couldn’t do before digital, I suppose, but before digital, I was a very casual photographer and was more interested in drawing, sculpture etc. A friend, Linda Graschoff, has made a number of stunning, very narrow, rectangular photographic compositions, both horizontal and vertical. They often bring Asian art to mind for me. It’s another way to go, I think, no better intrinsically than any other way.
In the case of the bear, I agree with Alex that it’s good to have more space for the bear’s gaze, so the eye can follow it a little and not feel cramped, but then I would probably also take a little off the top, so there’s more weight at the bottom. To each their own!
Thank you for the input on the bear. I may ultimately explore shifting that crop to give more room for the gaze. I appreciate that feedback.
It is an interesting point to consider in an age of when so few photos are actually printed – how much certain “traditional” aspect ratios matter. But even some platforms like IG tend to force their own crop on images (much to the frustration of users) and even the viewing devices also force an aspect ratio. In the end I guess it is just what feels right regardless. 🙂
That forced crop on IG drivers me crazy because I usually don’t like square images. It’s another reason I stopped using IG. That’s a good point about devices, too. Don’t take our freedom away! 😉
I often find 2:3 a bit too “stretched” for verticals and try 4:5 and 3:4 for those regularly. But more and more, I find that in the end, it is about balance of all the elements in a frame more than anything else, and I think whatever one’s camera’s “native” aspect ratio is in the end influences how we see and compose images. I rarely think “4:5 crop!” when I first make a photo. 😀
In the instance of the bear, I like the longer 2:3 better because it gives more direction to the animal’s gaze, and the added context of the extra water in the foreground is beneficial too, at least for me…
Thanks for your comments Alex. I agree, balance within the frame is most important. And that is an interesting choice about the bear’s gaze. Is it better to have more room in the direction of the gaze (as often used with movement direction) or does the frame edge make the gaze more prominent and demand attention when you run out of room?
Personally, I prefer it when there’s room in the image for the gaze to go… but that may be just an acquired thing, who knows? 🙂
I also prefer the photo of the bear in 4:5 due to its intimacy. I find the 16:9 ratio the most dominate choice in my landscape photographs except with vertical where I choose a 4:5/8:10 ratio. Every once in awhile I do look at past images to see what changes I can make with them and the crop is one thing I look at.
It is interesting how many people have mentioned verticals and a preference for 4:5. I probably don’t do 16:9 often enough either. I suppose if I had more of those big open skies like you do I would! 😉
Hey, Mark:
I dabbled in photography with a view camera … for a little while. I had a 4×5 that I built, and later, one that I bought. What attracted me to it was the ability to handle vertical and horizontal issues, what with all of the tilts and swings. At that time, I was photographing mostly nature and architecture. Mind you, the nature almost always had to be missing anything moving. Further, it was very difficult to get under that hot cloth, compose, and take a picture in the summer in Texas. Talk about wanting to rush the shot!
I didn’t stick with it very long because of the difficulty of transporting the camera, the expense of the film and processing, and the general inconvenience. Also, since I grew up with 35 mm, my find tended to want to use 2:3 rather than 4:5 and I found it a bit difficult to compose … in post, I found myself always wanting to crop to 2:3, or even 16:9.
Even now, I keep my current camera in 2:3 format. I’ve tried 4:5 a few times, but it just seemed … “unnatural”. That said, I do prefer the photo of the bear in 4:5. It’s a bit more intimate.
Are you sure you are the real Paul Lester? I thought he disappeared on some far-off expedition somewhere?
One in the same, my friend! Accept no substitutes! 🙂
The lead photo is very pretty, lots of details. I like the 8×10 and often crop that way.
Thank you – I suppose it is hard to go wrong up there. You can turn in any direction and see something photogenic. I know I should try 8×10 more often.
At the end of my film days I was using a Mamiya 7 which is a 6×7 ratio. I really liked that format and still use some variation of it on occasion, especially on vertical images. I’ve considered using a 4×5 ratio as default on my Fuji, but more often than not the 4×6 ratio works just fine. I think a 4/3 ratio is also pretty pleasing and considered that when deciding to switch camera brands. I might have ended up with an Olympus or a Panasonic had I done that but don’t regret my choice. The photos you have used here are a great illustration of the concept. The bear photo works especially well as cropped.
It seems 6×7 would share some of the same subtle qualities between vertical and horizontal that 4×5 does. Maybe it will take more research but now I have some curiosity about the visual psychology of these formats.
I like the 4×5 aspect ratio, especially for portraits, and on occasion, I’ll use it even without owning a Hasselblad. ?
I’ll be exploring it more often for sure!
I’m a fan of 4×5 for my vertical images, regardless of subject and most end up that way. It’s a personal preference; if it looks better 2×3 I’ll leave it but I still tend to give 4×5 a try. For horizontals I may go 16×9 just cuz I like that wide look it gives but mostly I’ll stay with 2×3.
That bear looks very contemplative.