Thoughts on printed image dimensions

Or possibly I should have said how to deal with a problematic capture?

In this article I would like to share a few ideas on certain issues I encounter between the captured image and the eventual print.

So, as photographers we have a creative streak or two. That is often a bit quirky to say the least. Sometimes valid issues and sometimes sentimental quirks and preferences. Dare I say sometimes purely poor planning? These issues, however real or perceived, often have an influence in things. Here are a few thoughts on how it affects my work.

Late afternoon in Elandsrivier.

So for a start I don't particularly care for the 2x3 aspect ratio of images as they come off the camera. I feel that it is too high in terms of the width. As a landscape photographer I rarely shoot my camera in the upright or "portrait" orientation. Well, that was until I started exploring stitched panoramas at least. The idea of stitching is nothing new and it has been around since before digital photography became mainstream. It does require a few techniques to be observed though. It also requires some specific hardware choices in terms of the tripod used.

Having been around camera clubs for a good few years I have also heard about the "Rule of Thirds" once or twice. As good or bad as this "rule" is, it wants to prevent us from having the horizon smack-bang in the centre of the final image. Having a central horizon can often work beautifully but, more often than not, it can lead to very boring images. Well, in club competitions at least. You were warned.

Back to the image above. I got a good few Instagram likes and here-in lies the rub. The off-camera 2x3 image has the horizon visibly off-centre even if it is not on an upper or lower third. But I really do not like landscape images 3 units wide by 2 units high.

Near Nieu-Bethesda in the Karoo

I prefer to print my works in a format of just noticeably off 2 units of measure wide by 1 unit high. Why, you ask? Simply because any easily detectable set of dimensions is often boring right off the bat. This is probably why we watch movies in 16x9. The eye and mind finds this more pleasing. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that the mind can't instantly analyze such an aspect ratio. Also, let's be honest, square is boring.

More importantly, growing up we had a large landscape picture in our home and it was very slightly off 2x1. Paging through family albums, this pastoral image is often seen in the background and I guess that was the start of that idea. Looking at it daily for at least the first 18 years of my life must have made some impression.

Lower portion crop

Now I do find the above crop more pleasing since all the blurred movement of water in the foreground remained in play. There is a good bit of colour in the sky and the horizon is off-centre even if not on the one-third mark.

But...and there is always a but, right?

Upper portion crop.

Considering a crop of the upper portion, I do like the darker blue bit in the upper right-hand side corner. Problem is, sticking to my preferred dimensions and aspect ratio I lose a lot of foreground action. And then there is the very central horizon...oh boy.

Solution? The only one I see here is that of letting the client's preferences dictate when I sell copies of this specific work.

Better planning at the capturing stage? Definitely! And exactly that is the joy of landscape photography. We have a reason to go back and try again.

With all that said I trust some of it made sense and so, until next time, have lots of fun!

Get out there, get it wrong, get it right but get out there and play!

Anton.