Aspect Ratio:

The aspect ratio of an image is the relationship between its width and its height.  So, for example, an A4 sheet of paper with 8x12 inch dimensions has an aspect ratio of 2:3 (width : height).  For every 2 units of width, there are 3 units of height.  For a photographer these days, aspect ratios are one of the most frustrating things about printing and displaying prints.

Unfortunately, there is no one standard aspect ratio for cameras, printing paper or picture frames.  To complicate things even more, common print sizes and frame sizes differ depending on what part of the world you live in.  In most parts of the world a metric system of measurement is used (cm), but in America the old imperial units of measurement are used (inch).  And just to really, really, really annoy photograph lovers around the world some shops now sell frames measured in units that don’t match the prints available in that country.  So, for example, a retailer in USA might sell frames measured in centimeters which won’t fit American prints which are measured in inches.  Or a retailer in England might sell frames measured in inches which won’t fit European prints which are measured in centimeters.  Unsuspecting customers beware!

To give you an idea of what a complete and utter mess the world of photography has got itself into, I have listed the different aspect ratios for various equipment and print mediums commonly used by photographers.

As you can imagine such a variety of aspect ratios makes it very frustrating for a photographer who wants to sell standard size prints so customers can buy standard sized mats and frames.  Some photographers and artists claim their work looks better in 2:3 ratio.  Others claim that 3:4 is best and others still like to experiment with unusual and non-standard dimensions and ratios. 

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was only one aspect ratio?  Well there isn’t, so what can be done?

As with most things in life, money talks and for that reason it is common practice for photographers to make their images fit standard frame sizes (custom made frames of odd dimensions are extremely expensive).  To make an image fit a standard frame there are two options

• Crop the image (cut away some of the borders to make it fit).
• Have a custom mat made whose outer dimensions snuggly fit the frame and whose inner dimensions exactly surround the image.

(1)  Cropping:

Cropping is the easiest and cheapest of the two options and can be easily done in any photo editing program.  Usually the borders can be cut from an image without losing any important parts of the photograph.  Occasionally however, if an important part of the image lies close to the borders, cropping can ruin a beautiful photograph.  To illustrate just how much of an image is lost because of cropping, I have compared the five most common printing aspect ratios.  Hopefully, this will give you a better idea of the effects of cropping when used to fit frame and mat sizes.

In the examples below the same 4:3 image was cropped four times to fit 3:2, 5:4, 6:5 and 7:5 ratios.

(2)  Custom Weighted Matting:

This process involves cutting a mat with different horizontal and vertical margins widths.  Such a process is useful when an image of a certain aspect ratio (which cannot be cropped as important details of the photograph will be lost) is fitted into a pre-made frame of a different aspect ratio.  As the two aspect ratios don’t match up, a unique mat opening can be cut.  If the widths are large the difference between the horizontal and vertical margins is hard to spot.

The simplistic diagrams below illustrate when custom weighted matting might be used.  The white represents the images you want to display, and the brown represents the mat which you must cut.

Imagine that you have three images with different aspect ratios (4:3, 6:5 and 3:2) and you need to fit them into standard commercial frames of 4:3 aspect ratio.  None of the images can be cropped as doing so will cut out very important details and ruin the images.

All three mats have outer dimensions to fit a standard commercial frame of 4:3 aspect ratio.  The first photograph (4:3) matches the frames aspect ratio (4:3) and therefore all four margins of the mat can be cut equally.  The second photograph (6:5) doesn’t match the frames aspect ratio (4:3), so the vertical margins (left and right) are cut wider than the horizontal margins (top and bottom).  The third photograph (3:2) also doesn’t match the frames aspect ratio (4:3).  This time the horizontal margins (top and bottom) are cut wider than the vertical margins (left and right).  As you can see, the difference between the margins is extremely hard to spot.  This difference can be further disguised by using large margin widths.

To find out more about mats please read the Matting Photographs page.

NOTES:

In an attempt to solve this aspect ratio headache, I generally tend to leave some extra space around the outside of my subject when I shoot.  Afterwards, if I feel this space is not needed it can easily be removed with a small crop.  On some occasions however, this extra room makes it easy to change the aspect ratio of the image for printing.  It allows me to change the photograph proportions to fit the print paper without losing precious elements of the shot.  There is nothing more painful than realising that your beautiful photograph cannot be cropped to fit a desired paper or frame size.

Over the years, in my search for perfection I have upgraded cameras on numerous occasions.  As a result, the photographs displayed on this site have been taken with a variety of different models, which produce images with different aspect ratios.  Some of my older photographs are of 3:4 ratio, while my newer ones are generally 2:3 ratio.  Also, I have cropped some images to 3:4 proportions as it is my favourite ratio to view photographs.  This is entirely a personal choice, and by no means a photography standard.

To help you choose the most appropriate ratio and print size for each individual print, the aspect ratio for each image has been displayed underneath.

Back to Top of Page