i have spent my day looking at hundreds of bryce images and found that not one person broke out of the 4:3 ratio box. Yes I know, 4:3 is the ratio of your mmonitor, but there is nothing more boring that pictures all the same size and shape, people are doing it because everyone else is doing it. I challenge everyone one who reads this to do something different. try some of the following 2:1 ration with a FOV at 90 to 120. a 3:1 with a FOV 120 to 150 or even your standard 35mm vertical shot 2:3 at 30 degrees. or for those really detailed poser imports try a 10 degree portrait

Bovine from Shanghi and Polarity have cinemascope ratios. I "letter boxed" them so that they would fit nicely in the standard computer screen because I wanted to use them as background images for my computer.

Hi, I too use some of my own pictures as background, which made that default-ratio necessary. There are some artists, who posted pictures of different size and ratio (including me with my volumetrics and I also use different FOVs, depends on the scene). ;-) But I agree, that most pictures here get posted in 4:3, so whats the problem?? Size doesnt matter each times. :-) I always assumed, that the content and the intention behind a scene, is more important than the size (besides of some poor guys, who unintentionally/accidentally posted their thumbnails instead)... ;-P Hubert

Well, my stuff isn't quite 4:3 but they're all the same size. Unfortunately my Polaroid printer doesn't stretch but always remains the same- and the print is small enough that I want to use the full image area. As it happens, I've seen a fair number of images on the web that depart from this ratio. Still, merely changing your canvas dimensions doesn't seem much of a challenge. I would think that would require more arresting imagery. I guess I'm saying that I don't care about the size of the box. It's what's inside that counts...

simply changing the ratio of the canvas isn't what is important, you must corespondingly change the field of view to make it effective. A 3:1 panoramic isn't much of a panoramic if it is only shaved top and botton from your normal pics. I am going to post some pics in a bit to show this example

My two examples were designed with the 3:1 ratio in mind. The black letter box (filling in the rest of the missing area to fit a 4:3 without showing the desktop) was added in post production. I did not shrink down a 4:3 image to make it look difference. Sarah

i am not saying that 4:3 is a bad way to go, and if you are creating it for a desktop image fine, I enjoy your work Caligula, you are one of the few understand the value of changing ratios. My comments were directed mostly to those who look at bryce the same way the take pictures, point and shoot with a fixed lens disposable and what ever is there is there. I have got my aspect ratio tutorial online, no exciting pictures, and i will add some better explanations as time permits.

http://www.geocities.com/bradhartbryce/index.html

BTW for those who I have not answered as to why I don't post pics online, I have an agreement with the galleries that represent me not to post any finished or working gallery pieces online. And most of my stuff goes to galleries.

I use 4/3 most of the time yes. But I also do work in bookcover size when it applies. Most of us create work for the net and that's simply the standard image ratio. were I to get work in some other size, hey, no problem, But you have to realize also, that a standard canvas for paint is also 4/3 ratio, either vertically or horizontally. We basically just stay in that tradition as that particular ratio is both most pleasing to the eye and what most composition is set up for.

actually standard size for paintings is 4:5 hence we have 8:10, 16x20, and 24x30. I don't argue that the standard is 4x3, and don't argue that you can do nice work with that size, but I do say it gets tiresome looking at the same aspect ration and the same field of view. If you work only in 4:3 because it is a job, I understand that as well I work in 2:3 and 4x5 for the same reasons, but I only limit my final work to this form. See Cligula/Sarah's post above she created A 3:1 panorama but enlarged the final canvas to fill the 4:3 ratio. If you like showing your work at full screen size try a 3:1 panorama at 2100x1000 and then cut it into 3 pieces to show. Or just for kicks take a new look at your favorite landscape scene and change the settings to 2:1 and 90 degrees and give it a render. for those who have responded I never meant this topic as an insult as I think some have taken. I enjoy your work immensely and I hope those who read and continue to debate and post here see it only as art philosophy, which was the intention. And to those who have emailed me on this subject, I can't wait to see the work. I wish the fine art community could accept and appreciate the things that appear on the web as much as I do, and would spend big bucks on them. You deserve to hang in galleries too.

No insult taken & none implied, Brad.

I didn't take it as an insult in any way. I just happen to really enjoy the 4/3 aspect lol

No insult taken, besides of your Freudian slip: "you deserve to hang in galleries too". Me or rather my pics? :-)) LOL!! Cheers and Cheeronimo, Hubert

well Hubert, that depends if you were the one who tried to sign me up on about 60 mailing lists . . .