The 16x9 aspect ratio is everywhere, from televisions to smartphones, but it’s rarely a first choice when composing still images. It’s an option on many cameras, yet most people either ignore it or only use it occasionally. There’s a reason to reconsider that.
Coming to you from e6 | Craig Roberts, this insightful video explores why 16x9 might be more useful than you think. While this format is common in video, it has advantages in still photography as well. It effectively crops the standard 3x2 frame, removing distractions from the top and bottom of an image and drawing more attention to the subject. That makes it particularly useful for compositions where a longer, more cinematic look enhances the visual impact. Instead of simply cropping in post, composing with this format in mind helps you refine your approach.
Roberts argues that 16x9 works especially well in landscapes, but its use extends beyond that. Vertical subjects, such as trees in a forest, create dynamic tension in the elongated frame. Careful positioning of elements in the composition is essential, as the shape of the frame changes how viewers scan an image. Horizontal subjects can sometimes feel static, while vertical or diagonal elements introduce energy. Understanding these nuances takes practice, but the results can be compelling.
Beyond landscapes, urban environments offer opportunities to experiment with 16x9. The format lends itself to street photography, architectural shots, and layered scenes where eliminating unnecessary space helps guide the viewer’s focus. Roberts suggests training your eye to see in 16x9, composing intentionally rather than treating it as a cropped version of another format. That approach leads to stronger images that make the most of the frame. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Roberts.
The sensor isn't that size... so it doesn't make sense to actually have the camera shoot in that size. Maybe if we are going to have one of those: "I shoot JPEG and don't edit" discussions first. My meaning is, wouldn't it better just to crop to 16:9 later in post? Assuming the shot supports the crop. Many of my final shots are 16:9.
The idea is that you can visualize in 16:9. A lot of cameras will keep the full file in raw and just keep the crop information in the metadata.
ALEX: How do I know if my Sony cameras do that? Do they?
not sure if that helps but my A7IV does. You set the aspect ration in camera and when you import the RAW in Lightroom Classic it does crop it in 16x9 automatically.
Yes, but I would rather decide the crop on the larger screen in post. Doesn't make sense for me to do that in-camera. My rule is: "You really don't know what your shot looks like until you see it on the larger screen anyway." Seeing it in the rear-LCD only gives you an idea, that "Yeah! Maybe that looks like a great shot."...but then you get home, and you find, "Oh man, it's just a toss-away."
The 16x9 ratio is great for screen viewing. However, here in America, finding frames to match uncropped 16x9 ratio dimensions is challenging, if not impossible.
I have been involved in photography since 1977 and worked professionally in the field for over ten years.
I never understood why frames come in 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, and 20x24 inch sizes, each with slightly different cropping requirements when printing.
Why weren't or aren't frames readily available in sizes where the cropping is the same for each frame? Would that be 5x7, 10x14, and 20x24 as multiples of 2 and 4 from 5x7?
Yes, I know that for darkroom work, there was a jump in logistics for paper over 8x10 inches such as trays and chemistry. With digital, printers like my 13x19 and 16x20 inches are more expensive than 8x10 printers.
For the most part, when making large prints, I use my 48 inch mat cutter and dry mount press to create double or triple mat constructs to the desired window size for the aspect ratio the print requires, to fit standard size frames. Even with 16x9 aspect frames, I would still double or triple mat most photos as I like the look.
For awhile, when stationed in Germany, I was making my own frames to sizes needed for some of my photos.
There is still nothing like seeing a wedding couple's response when you hand them a 20x24 print in a 30x36 or larger frame.
You have to realize that in 2025... Frameing your work is a luxury. Where your work will show best and more often now is the 4K-HDTV large screen. You must see the truth in that now. I also realize that some still believe that "its not a photo until printed..." But I don't think we can still believe that anymore. It's the future now. So designing photos to look best on computer and TV screens, to be shown to audiences at events... or that will sit at desks and scroll from frame to frame... is the future we will live in. Even in the wedding industry, are not couples, less and less caring about having prints? They want to show off the digital items to share with their friends. Maybe one of two, and a photo album, and that will come to end eventually, depending on the couple.
Another thing to consider now when having custom prints made: One of the new rages is to go 'Acrylic or Metal'? For those, they have a borderless art design to them. Thus they don't need framing.
honestly shooting in this format is very unique but I really want to try it with my manual focus lens like my rokinon 85 mm. I did just like 20 minutes ago with my Canon EOS 90D I guess you can call it the kit lens but I didn't buy it as a kit lens 18-135mm. I'm willing to do this test shot over after I switch lenses but it's not bad I use it regularly for group photography landscape I really use the format especially in video because that's about with video is.
l manually focusing in the cold weather it's not easy but it could be done this is the 16:9 with the Rokinon 85mm manual focus on t/stop 2.8