Format used to refer to what kind of camera you used — since each had a native shape. A 4x5 camera used 4 by 5 inch film holders. 35mm was a format, the shape of which was in a ratio of 2 to 3. Hasselblad was famous for its square shape. Today, digital cameras still have sensors that come in ratios of 2:3, 16x9, or square (go Hasselblad!) but since most images are processed in computer, it is very common to crop to a new shape at that time — or to combine multiple shots into panoramas.
Notice how the various shapes don't "play" well together - they create awkward spaces between them — which is one reason I chose squares for this project: they stack well.
Bottom Line: The format you shoot with will favor some subject matter over others.
All of these "formats" were cropped from a single photo: 24mm, f9.5, 1/180
Left
Right
Round is a wonderful shape in general, but seems to come with baggage in photography. I tend to find that round formats, particularly ovals, look old-fashioned and sentimental.
The good old square. If I like square so much, why don't I use a Hasselblad? I tried one back in the film days, but I was too lazy to deal with loading those naked rolls of film in black spools.
And today the Hasselblad system is a bit pricey for many of us.
4 x 5, which is the same shape as 8 x 10 is a good old standard - a rectangle that is not too extreme. 8 x 10 prints nicely on a 8.5 x 11 inch sheet of paper.
In vertical, the 4 x 5 or 8 x 10 shape is usually great for faces.
2 x 3 became a very popular shape because 35mm film cameras settled on it. And many of today's digital cameras have roughly that shape for their sensors. But there is nothing sacred about 2 x 3. Many people find it too horizontal or vertical compared to the older 4 x 5 or 8 x 10 shape.
16 x 9 is the shape of HD TV. It is much wider than even the slide shape of 2 x 3. People seem to like to watch wider movies although some have noted that wider screens and more realism does not mean better movies. I can't see any particular reason to mess with 16 x 9 in still work, unless it is meant to become part of a movie.
Panoramas — some people really like them, and I suppose the pan fans would say that my choice of subject does not show off the pan format very well, and they would be right.
I think that panoramas, like fish eye shots, really work best in very large print format, or maybe on very larger monitors.
But even on a very large monitor there is a lot of wasted space with a pan, whereas in print, nobody minds the wall space that is not taken up with the print.
Vertical pans almost become curiosities, but if Nicole was standing up she would be a nice subject for a vertical panorama.
Round is a wonderful shape in general, but seems to come with baggage in photography. I tend to find that round formats, particularly ovals, look old-fashioned and sentimental.
The good old square. If I like square so much, why don't I use a Hasselblad? I tried one back in the film days, but I was too lazy to deal with loading those naked rolls of film in black spools.
And today the Hasselblad system is a bit pricey for many of us.
4 x 5, which is the same shape as 8 x 10 is a good old standard - a rectangle that is not too extreme. 8 x 10 prints nicely on a 8.5 x 11 inch sheet of paper.
In vertical, the 4 x 5 or 8 x 10 shape is usually great for faces.
2 x 3 became a very popular shape because 35mm film cameras settled on it. And many of today's digital cameras have roughly that shape for their sensors. But there is nothing sacred about 2 x 3. Many people find it too horizontal or vertical compared to the older 4 x 5 or 8 x 10 shape.
16 x 9 is the shape of HD TV. It is much wider than even the slide shape of 2 x 3. People seem to like to watch wider movies although some have noted that wider screens and more realism does not mean better movies. I can't see any particular reason to mess with 16 x 9 in still work, unless it is meant to become part of a movie.
Panoramas — some people really like them, and I suppose the pan fans would say that my choice of subject does not show off the pan format very well, and they would be right.
I think that panoramas, like fish eye shots, really work best in very large print format, or maybe on very larger monitors.
But even on a very large monitor there is a lot of wasted space with a pan, whereas in print, nobody minds the wall space that is not taken up with the print.
Vertical pans almost become curiosities, but if Nicole was standing up she would be a nice subject for a vertical panorama.
