Image orientation

<p><br>

</p>

<p >When you look at a printed photograph the size is not dependant on the orientation. An 8x10 is the same size whether it is landscape or portrait. However, today the vast majority of photographic viewing is done on a fixed size landscape oriented computer monitor. The result is that a landscape photo uses all or most of the monitor real estate whereas the portrait oriented photo only uses a bit more than 1/3 of that same real estate. My question for discussion is, do you think the portrait orientation has been devalued by the way we view photos in 2014? Is a portrait oriented photo a missed opportunity to use the entire medium? I am posting two screencaps from my computer as examples. Each is a photo I took while closing up my cottage for this winter. Obviously the subject matter is not overly interesting.</p><div></div>

<p>And now portrait>></p><div></div>

<p>Timely post. I have been taking photographs for well over 50 years. Back in the "old days" of film my favorite orientation was tall verticals. I probably took 8 verticals for every landscape oriented image. With the advent of digital images and large monitors 99% (actually, probably 100%) of my images are viewed on a monitor. It is a rare moment when I even think of a portrait or vertical orientation of an image. With stitching technology my landscape images go even wider. With multiple monitors available I can create a triptych that extends across three large monitors. I was thinking the other day that my vision has morphed from the vertical to the horizontal over the years. I don't know if it was driven by the technology, but probably. </p>

<p>As far as I see it it is especially the square format which is best served by monitor display, as can be seen in our respective portfolios here on Photonet. Due to digital photography I seem to a broken totally away from any standard landscape or portrait format. I use formats which, in my eyes, fit to each individual image composition. I'm not alone doing that, if you talk to professional framers. </p>

<p>It is a consideration. And a keen observation. My eyes tend to adjust pretty readily and I don't find it distracting any more than I find letterbox format movies distracting on my old-style more square TV. People use a variety of monitors with different resolutions, so I'm never sure what others are seeing when they look at my photos, but this is one reason I save my own images for viewing on screen at resolutions so they don't extend to the edges of most monitors either horizontally or vertically. They seem to show more harmoniously overall when there's some space on the monitor on all sides.</p>

<p>To alleviate your concerns, you can always get an iPhone which reorients your photo with a quick turn of the device, so the portrait-oriented photos will no longer be seen against a horizontal format.</p>

<p>Next up, the oddities of working with photos that are formatted or cropped to a square!</p>

<p>As I view this webpage now I see three of our photos at the bottom. Mine is square whereas Fred and Anders have portrait photos. It's just random of course, but may suggest that portrait is not dead.</p>

<p>I found Fred's point about the iPhone interesting. I use an iPad to show photos and will often bring it out in social situations. The iPad can be simply reoriented as necessary.</p>

<p>Anders, counter to your point, maybe square is the format that is least served by monitors as they are never square. I see your point though, square being the compromise.</p>

<p>Maybe what we need is an adjusting elbow holding our computer monitors so they can be reoriented when we are viewing portrait photos.</p>

<p>Phil, I just remembered that my very first Mac in the good ol' days actually had a portrait monitor. I was doing page design for books and magazines and really needed to see an 8-1/2 x 11 page at 100% magnification which was impossible on most smaller, reasonably-priced monitors at the time. So Apple had what they called a portrait monitor and it worked out really well for me. Of course, a few years later I moved up in the world and got a large horizontal monitor so I could see two-page spreads all at once. We never thought of doing that before a certain point in time.</p>

<p>And, yes, those of us who do portraits will likely not be giving up portrait orientation any time soon! Though I've done a fair amount of horizontal portraits, it would be hard to give up the vertical orientation as it says things so differently from landscape orientation.</p>

<p>You mention framing. When I've done square photos, I've usually still chosen a vertical frame and leave the extra space on the bottom. I do have a bunch of things framed in square frames, but they tend to be horizontally-formatted photos and I just thought the look of the square frame worked for my purposes.</p>

<p>To wit, a grouping with square frames . . .</p><div></div>

<p>Although I normally shoot in landscape orientation, about half of the photographs I have framed on my walls are in portrait orientation (no, they are not people shots). I try to keep an open mind about my subject matter, but sometimes I get carried away with the moment and shoot a subject in landscape orientation when I am mentally thinking portrait orientation.</p>

<p>Fred, I do remember that apple monitor. Too bad it didn't catch on.</p>

<p>Your wall (which looks great btw, I saw some of the photos in your portfolio) is a good example of how prints can choose size and format whereas computer monitor viewing is viewing within a pre-determined frame.</p>

<p>Thanks, Phil. I agree about monitor viewing being less controllable in some ways than printing and framing. One thing is, though, that if one creates their own web site, one can impose their own background—horizontal, vertical, square, circle, oval, etc. We will still have the orientation and dimensions of the screen to deal with, but can sort of set up our own environment within that screen to help present our photos the way we want them to be seen and against a background that may help override whatever the shape of the monitor is giving us. But, obviously, with monitor viewing there will be much more that's out of our control and people will inevitably see our photos in a variety of ways despite our best efforts.</p>

<p>I still have that old square Apple monitor and it works, but I would not like to thank about if I uploaded one of my square +/- 255 MB images on it !!<br>

My point on square formats being better served than both landscape and portrait formats can be easily seen by looking at portfolios here on Photonet. The standard space for images is square and neither landscape not portraits fills it out - only square format images do. </p>

<p>A great observation and question, Phil! I'm very interested in how others have responded and will respond. For much of my own work, I would say it doesn't matter. My web proofs are small enough that they are easy enough to show in either orientation. For instance, I have a slide show on my main web page, <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion,com">www.graphic-fusion,com</a>, in which both horizontal and vertical photos are shown in the same square area, at approximately the same size. The major dimension is kept constant, while the minor dimension varies. Aspect ratios such as 4:3 show larger than aspect ratios such as 3:2. But landscape vs. portrait orientation doesn't matter. </p>

<p>Then if you go to my galleries page, <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/gallerysdf.htm">www.graphic-fusion.com/gallerysdf.htm</a>, you'll see that I keep the thumbnails a constant width in a long column, so the portrait orientation photos actually show larger than the landscape. I thought this looked neater than the alternatives, but I may later normalize the major dimensions of the thumbnails, as with the slide show. And then when you go to the individual pages for each photo, they show the same size as in the slide show -- same size, irrespective of portrait or landscape.</p>

<p>This has all worked well for me, but I'll eventually be displaying a new project in which I am not worried about image theft. The object is to be seen/viewed on the web more broadly, and I will have higher resolution, more full-screen images to exhibit. In that case, yes, I have tried to find a landscape-oriented version of every photo in the collection, although I have also taken portrait-oriented photos along the way. The purpose, of course, is to display at as large a size as possible on people's monitors, so as to maximize the visual impact.</p>

<p>So I would say it all depends on size and intent., If the size is not constrained by the monitor, then either will work fine. But if the major dimension of the photo potentially exceeds the minor dimension of the monitor, then portrait orientations are limiting.</p>

<p>Hi Sarah, I had a look at your website, you do very nice work. I take your point that if you get to choose the context in which your photos are presented then the portrait orientation is just as powerful as it has always been. However we often do not. If you deliver a customer 200 wedding photos they will likely make them "full screen" and start clicking. In my very mundane examples with this post both photos are much bigger than the screen. If I had simply taken the second photo in landscape but reduced the focal length somewhat I would have produced the same photo but "with the sides". The only conclusion I draw from this is the same conclusion we have always come to with photography, that is, the medium matters. </p>

<p>Thanks, Phil! Yeah, I pretty much agree with your take -- medium indeed matters.</p>

<p>I shoot in landscape or portrait mode depending on which is best for that photo. The shape of the screen is not a consideration. It's a personal choice.</p>