[TomTextura]

I've tried doing some research but can't seem to find much about what's the conventional wisdom in regards to aspect ratios for panoramas. I would think there's some kind of standard, some formula for deciding on an appealing panoramic aspect ratio. I would certainly think that with mounting and framing there's got to be some standards that are followed. So far, I've just winged it and created my own custom ratios when cropping to a panoramic format but I don't feel very confident about that approach. Panoramas aren't something I do often but when I do I would like to know what the conventional wisdom is so that I can keep it in mind and break from it intentionally rather than unknowingly. Any recommendations about choosing an aspect ratio for panoramic images will be appreciated. Thanks!

[RioRico]

Nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them! Pano cameras may go from 2:1 to 10:1. Some 'common' formats in my database:

* 135-P1 (58x24mm)
* 135-P2 (65x24mm)
* APS-P (30.2x9.5mm)
* 612, 617, 624 (cm)

We can put 135 film carts into MF cameras for "sprocket-hole" panoramas. We can just crop to whatever aspect we like. Let's make up the rules as we go, eh? See the Wikipedia entry for some hints. Have fun!

[TomTextura]

Thanks for the quick reply RioRico. From this and some of your other posts it's clear you know a lot. Now you've got me reading about a bunch of old film formats to better understand things. I thought I was going to be able skip over learning about this stuff but I'm actually glad to take this opportunity to learn about photographic history.

I generally make a point to stick to three formats when processing my pics: 2x3, 4x5, and 1x1. I like the idea of being able to use formats for which there are picture frames readily available. It's rare that I divert from those but it simply can't be avoided with any format I may use for panoramas.

[RioRico]

Now you've got me reading about a bunch of old film formats to better understand things. I thought I was going to be able skip over learning about this stuff but I'm actually glad to take this opportunity to learn about photographic history.

I find photo history absolutely fascinating, and I love trying to replicate some older technologies. (Don't let me get started on actinic light!) I also read the history of display typography, which is where many photo formats derive. Many of our composition and display problems have been dealt with by graphics artisans over the last several centuries.

I generally make a point to stick to three formats when processing my pics: 2x3, 4x5, and 1x1. I like the idea of being able to use formats for which there are picture frames readily available. It's rare that I divert from those but it simply can't be avoided with any format I may use for panoramas.

Ay, that's the rub: pano frames and mattes aren't mass consumer goods. I've seen (but can't name) some suppliers with 2:1 materials.

Hmm, one solution might be to use a frame meant for several 'standard' images matted side-by-side, then trim the matte to display your pano. Another trick: Discount retailers sell motel-room-quality framed+matted panos; replace the shoddy images with your good stuff!

[TomTextura]

There is certainly a wealth of history when it comes to photography. I had to look up actinic light: interesting. Good tip on picking up cheaper already framed panos and then replacing the image!

I guess I'm left with many choices, which can be a good thing but sometimes can be a bit of a diversion as opposed to just plugging in a set standard and running with it. I was hoping to learn about some rule of thumb in regards to panoramas. I have a few images I want to crop down to be panoramas, and I have a mind to go out and capture more scenes well suited to be panoramas so, I wanted to find out if there were any aesthetic principles to bear in mind.

A little off topic but, when I was first looking into getting an ILC I looked at Olympus with their 4:3 systems semi-seriously but I just don't care for that format much compared to the 3:2 one you get with APS-C. I think part of the reason is that 3:2 comes closer to approximating the golden rectangle. I think if I were to ever have a native 4:3 format camera, I would crop most of my pictures during PP, which would be tedious and could present a bit of a challenge at the time of framing the shot before pressing the shutter. I'm surprised that there isn't any native format that matches the golden ratio, at least not as far as I know. Seems like a missed opportunity.

Anyway, do you think that creating custom formats and not paying attention to one of the more common formats for panoramas, like those mentioned in post #2, is a bad idea? I suppose in this age of mostly viewing photos on screens, it may not matter a whole lot.

[RioRico]

There is certainly a wealth of history when it comes to photography. I had to look up actinic light: interesting.

You'll find a great series of fascinating articles here: LensRentals.com – History of Photography. I also recommend browsing a Focal Encyclopedia of Photography -- there are a few versions, and some can be found as torrents.

I was hoping to learn about some rule of thumb in regards to panoramas. I have a few images I want to crop down to be panoramas, and I have a mind to go out and capture more scenes well suited to be panoramas so, I wanted to find out if there were any aesthetic principles to bear in mind.

I think most pano-shooters and panographers develop their/our own rules. There aren't many hints here in classical graphics or display typography. [Panography: assembling images by overlaying small prints.] I tend to just go for prime ratios: 2:1, 5:2, 3:1, 7:2, etc. But that's numerology.

A little off topic but, when I was first looking into getting an ILC I looked at Olympus with their 4:3 systems semi-seriously but I just don't care for that format much compared to the 3:2 one you get with APS-C. I think part of the reason is that 3:2 comes closer to approximating the golden rectangle. I think if I were to ever have a native 4:3 format camera, I would crop most of my pictures during PP, which would be tedious and could present a bit of a challenge at the time of framing the shot before pressing the shutter. I'm surprised that there isn't any native format that matches the golden ratio, at least not as far as I know. Seems like a missed opportunity.

4:3 is common with P&S digicams, I think because it fit well on TVs in the pre-HDTV era, often used for slideshow displays. Also, 4:3 is much closer to the common print format of 5:4 than is the 3:2 aspect of most film cams and their descendents, so only minimal crops or distorts are needed. I personally prefer 4:3 in portrait mode and 3:2 in landscape mode for many shots -- though I also crop to whatever seems right. [The 4:3 digicams I've used also let me select 3:2, which save cropping in PP.]

Interestingly, the "golden section" is a fairly recent invention and has never been a common format. I'll try to dig-up a thread from last year that covered this.

Anyway, do you think that creating custom formats and not paying attention to one of the more common formats for panoramas, like those mentioned in post #2, is a bad idea? I suppose in this age of mostly viewing photos on screens, it may not matter a whole lot.

Yes, formats matter much more for prints than for screen displays. I tend towards "whatever works". I'm reminded of an artist friend who painted on whatever canvas or board fragments of any aspects that were handy. Her husband then custom-built frames to fit the works. They sold quite a bit from their little gallery.

[emalvick]

To throw in 2 cents, I typically shoot a panorama to fit in what I want and rarely with an eye to a final product. It is after I've put the panorama together that I start thinking about what I want out of it. In other words, I'll often shoot a panorama that can be up to 20:1 (I"m not sure if that is really what I get, but it is often 360 degrees). For a print, I start looking at two things: 1) I look at what specific frames or mattes are out there for panoramas and 2) what cropping would fit into the format or what my ideal crop would be.

I then often find myself trying some of the ratios I find at different sizes, ultimately leading me to a custom print size and custom frame and matte to make me happy. I'd call it an iterative process. I find it a bit hard to limit myself to specific ratios when shooting panoramas. I like shooting for the maximum so that I can fine tune my composition once I crop. I've never print anything larger than 3:1 just because I think they start to look weird in print format considering that my compositions are usually cylindrical. A friend of mine did a 5:1 of a shot he did using a more flat projection by physically moving himself vertically to stitch together a panorama of a tall cypress tree (i.e. not so much as pivoting the camera about a point but physically keeping it oriented the same way and moving the camera).

There is a lot of room for fun with panoramas... There also tends to be a lot of room for error as I often find.