Had a walk in Brussels, our capital. the weather was fine and the camera was by my side.
I was here together with my daughter to see an exposition.
While taking some random photos, I was starting to think, they would look nice in 16:9. Now this is a discussion among photographers, would you stay with your sensor format or go for a wider look. Some cityscapes look good in 16:9. And is something I do from time to time.
I did not take them straight into 16:9 but in the format of my sensor 3:2, and cropped them in edit.
Is this something you like or not, would like to know your opinion on this subject. So let me know where you stand.
This was a very interesting post for me. I have never used 16:9 on my camera. I actually had to go look as to where that setting is, which obviouslly was located where the DX setting is ( which I use on occassion when I want more zoom than what the lens I am carrying at the time provides. For me to fully understand what the difference is between my regular setting and a 16:9, I have to actually use both settings and compare. But going back to your question, as far as I am concerned, your photos at a wider setting are really nice because they give me a better view of what the city looks like. A much more detailed perspective. Especially the photo of the garden, #3 one gets a very nice feeling of the whole area.
ReplyDeleteYou can get rid of too much sky or foreground. Got you digging in your menus of the camera😀
DeleteNice photos as always, Peter! Re16:9 - well it is supposed to be a cinematic size. I think it works very well for large cityscape like what you are posting, wide landscape to show the wide wide fields and or to show certaine perspective. I did used it quite a lot when in the now unheard of Photoblog but not in FB. I like it but it does not work all the time with certain photos.
ReplyDeleteI think 16:9 wider view is suitable for cities and streets. And this post shows a wonderful presentation. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDelete