[rfkiii]

If I hadn't, I wouldn't be getting constant update emails with you sniping at each other.

What's ironic is your sniping about the sniping. Some of us might call this a lively debate, a characteristic missing from this forum and making it quite boring at times. Without going back and reading this particular exchange post by post to see where I fall in the debate, there needs to be more challenges to statements made in this forum especially regarding digital imaging.

[ffking]

Without going back and reading this particular exchange post by post to see where I fall in the debate, there needs to be more challenges to statements made in this forum especially regarding digital imaging.

Lively debates are a good thing - argument by assertion rather than evidence and ad hominem attacks are bad things - but a couple of simple ground rules about what's not acceptable makes for lively and informative discussions - not that I've personally noticed them to be lacking on these forums, even f they do sometimes spill over into name-calling

[MJSfoto1956]

Since I have been cropping to 9:15 (not a typo), I've grown very fond of the aspect

+1 for 3:5 proportions.
I love printing my photos at 18"x30".
And I agree on it's appropriateness for landscapes.

Michael

[itshimitis]

Since I have been cropping to 9:15 (not a typo), I've grown very fond of the aspect. Both 4:3 and 3:2 now look odd to me for landscape photography. Obviously with this cropping regimen, 4:3 wastes more pixels than 3:2, but having 50 MPs, there are some pixels to burn with either sensor aspect. Because I usually choose a wide angle lens when I hike to cover more compositional possibilities (and lighten my load) while knowing that I can crop to compose, the upside to cropping is that many times, I have extraneous amounts of sky that have to go anyway.

I'll look into the 9:15 ratio. Sounds very interesting...