Question about Panorama Format Ratio

[Luis Argerich]

Hi there,

So far I've been thinking each panorama should have its own format because they really depend on the scene but sometimes it is nice to present a series of panoramas from some location in the same format.I'd like to know if you have a recommendation about such a format 4:1, 5:1 ? 7:2 ? Which one would you use if you want to standarize a series of panoramas? Any particular choice is better to the eyes?

Thanks for the feedback
Luigi

[Ben Rubinstein]

Hi there,

So far I've been thinking each panorama should have its own format because they really depend on the scene but sometimes it is nice to present a series of panoramas from some location in the same format.I'd like to know if you have a recommendation about such a format 4:1, 5:1 ? 7:2 ? Which one would you use if you want to standarize a series of panoramas? Any particular choice is better to the eyes?

Thanks for the feedback
Luigi

Personally I've fallen in love with the 12X6 ratio though it's very much only a short pano. Most of this ongoing series has been shot in that format. www.studio-beni.net/jerusalem/

[fike]

I find that proportionally, somewhere between 3:1 and 4:1 is pleasing.  Much lower and it doesn't really have that strong horizontal feel that is so great in panoramic images.  Much higher than that and you are looking at a thin ribbon of photograph.

[stevenf]

I prefer the 2 1/2 to 1 or 3 to 1.  I have some examples on my site if you are interested - for the most part new images are from a Horseman 617 camera - most of the other pan images are from a Hasselblad XPAN.

Steven

www.friedmanphoto.com

[Luis Argerich]

Thanks for the replies, it is exactly what I needed, feedback based on perception. 3:1 seems to be a nice format. Maybe 2.61:1 is the golden ratio format?

[NikoJorj]

Maybe 2.61:1 is the golden ratio format?

Yes more or less : it's the golden ratio, squared (by definition phi²=1+phi)   .

But I'd rather vote for 2 times the golden ratio (3.23)   with an upper limit of 3 times (4.85, which is the beginning of the thin strip to my taste).
You can always argue that this particular ratio has to adapt itself to the particular location of your particular pano serie.

As we say in French "the right length for the legs is when the feet touch the ground" (Coluche).

[JeffKohn]

I've standardized on a few ratios, because otherwise printing and framing them is just too much of a hassle. My favorite ratio is 2.5:1, this seems most natural for my compositional style, and I find it a pleasing ratio (maybe due in part to watching so many movies that are 2.4:1 widescreen). I also use 3:1 when it fits the composition. Every once in a while I'll use 2:1 but that's not even really a pano to me.

I don't care for ultra-long panos. 3:1 is my limit, as I find that anything wider than that and there really doesn't seem to be a composition. (fike's comment about a  'thin ribbon' is spot-on IMHO). Sometimes I see these uber-long panos of mountain ranges or city skylines that have ratios like 8:1 and to me they're just boring (no offense to anybody who like that kind of image, they're just not my cup 'o tea).

[Roman Racela]

I like 2.5:1 and 3:1.