What's the point of portrait?

steve

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 2:58:42 AM2/7/03

to

As someone who grew up on 35mm photography, I got used to to mixing my
shots - landscape and portrait. With digicams, that doesn't seem to make
sense, since most of the output is viewed on a landscape PC or TV screen,
where the image size is constrained by the vertical dimension of the screen
anyway. I can always crop away the extraneous material at the sides, if I
need to.

So I have decided never to take portrait shots, EXCEPT for:

1. Where I know I will want to make a large portrait print (bigger than
6"x4"), AND want to get the highest resolution my camera will give.

2. Where my wide angle lens isn't wide enough to get the vertical coverage
I need.

Does this logic seem right, and what do others do?

Steve

*** Note: Please remove socks before replying ***

Kinon

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 9:41:38 AM2/7/03

to

I don't follow your logic. Compose the shot, and use horizontal or vertical
based on what suits the composition. If you rotate the picture, it will
display properly on a TV, but with black borders on either side. But I don't
try to force a composition simply based on an arbitrary decision not to
shoot verticals.

"steve" <steve.wei...@ntlworldsocks.com> wrote in message
news:%VO0a.1795$VQ4....@newsfep4-gui.server.ntli.net...

Me

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 11:06:11 AM2/7/03

to

In article <DzP0a.2700$c6....@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com>,
"Kinon" <fu...@bout.it> wrote:

> I don't follow your logic. Compose the shot, and use horizontal or vertical
> based on what suits the composition. If you rotate the picture, it will
> display properly on a TV, but with black borders on either side. But I don't
> try to force a composition simply based on an arbitrary decision not to
> shoot verticals.

I agree. Each shot needs to be composed, based on the situation for that
shot. Portrait shots can certainly be displayed on a monitor in full,
but you have to scroll up and down to view the entire image. You also
can always proportionally reduce the size of a portrait shot in order to
fit them entirely on one screen and many printers can certainly
reproduce portrait shots quite well if they accept the proper size paper.

nospam

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 10:53:46 AM2/7/03

to

"steve" <steve.wei...@ntlworldsocks.com> wrote:

>So I have decided never to take portrait shots, EXCEPT for:

>1. Where I know I will want to make a large portrait print (bigger than
>6"x4"), AND want to get the highest resolution my camera will give.

>2. Where my wide angle lens isn't wide enough to get the vertical coverage
>I need.

>Does this logic seem right, and what do others do?

Fine if you think photography is just logic.

Andrew McDonald

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 12:08:53 PM2/7/03

to

steve wrote:
> As someone who grew up on 35mm photography, I got used to to mixing my
> shots - landscape and portrait. With digicams, that doesn't seem to make
> sense, since most of the output is viewed on a landscape PC or TV screen,
> where the image size is constrained by the vertical dimension of the screen
> anyway. I can always crop away the extraneous material at the sides, if I
> need to.

You are losing potential vertical resolution when you do this. My D100
is 3000x2000. If I shot every picture in landscape mode and then
cropped to portrait, my maximum vertical resolution would be only 2000
pixels instead of 3000. That's a 1/3rd loss of data. Unacceptable. On
a 4:3 camera the loss is only 1/4th of the data but any loss is bad.

Shoot according to the situation, don't let the "display" affect how you
take the picture. The display may be your computer or TV but it could
also be an 8x10 portrait. You will want those extra pixels at that point.

And how hard is it to rotate the camera anyway, really?

HRosita

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 12:12:27 PM2/7/03

to

Steve Wrote:

>As someone who grew up on 35mm photography, I got used to to mixing my
>shots - landscape and portrait.

The same applies to digital. If you look at the developed film the portrait
image is on it's side just like it is on digital.
Just rotate and you will have what you need. When printing you print either
"portrait" or "landscape" depending on the orientation.

>Does this logic seem right, and what do others do?

No, it is "illogical"
Rosita

HRosita

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 12:13:21 PM2/7/03

to

>steve wrote:
>So I have decided never to take portrait shots, EXCEPT for:

As the saying goes,

Never is a long time
Rosita

Steve Michelson

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 12:58:51 PM2/7/03

to

Is there software to rotate a JPEG image 90 degrees without going through a
decompression/recompression cycle?

"Andrew McDonald" <and...@tes.spam> wrote in message
news:FKR0a.4227$1q2.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

Andrew McDonald

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 1:38:44 PM2/7/03

to

Steve Michelson wrote:
> Is there software to rotate a JPEG image 90 degrees without going through a
> decompression/recompression cycle?

I use a program called PIE (Picture Information Extractor) to do
lossless rotation but there are probably others. I am not sure if
IrfanView will do this.

PIE can be found at www.picmeta.com but is probably a bit expensive for
just rotating if something is out there for free.

Terje Mathisen

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 1:51:00 PM2/7/03

to

Steve Michelson wrote:
> Is there software to rotate a JPEG image 90 degrees without going through a
> decompression/recompression cycle?

Yes, by rearranging the DCT factors (AFAIK), IrfanView (free!) and a few
other programs can rotate JPEGs.

It can even do so in batch mode, which means that you just have to
select all the portrait images, then rotate them together.

Terje

--
- <Terje.M...@hda.hydro.com>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Bit Bucket

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 2:09:30 PM2/7/03

to

Good luck, Steve. Sounds kinda goofy to me. I prefer to assure that I have
the best possible resolution should I want a large print or similar
requirements later. Now, if you crop 3:4 to the opposite orientation, you
only get 75% of the resolution. Your argument that you can always crop for
vertical prints applies to vertical shots on a screen as well. I'm sure the
resolution hit can be taken better there than on a print. Don't work so
hard at being so lazy. ;-)

--
Visit Terry and the Pixels at
http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleedawson/

"steve" <steve.wei...@ntlworldsocks.com> wrote in message
news:%VO0a.1795$VQ4....@newsfep4-gui.server.ntli.net...

Tony Spadaro

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 2:12:17 PM2/7/03

to

How logical -- do be sure never to let anything uncomprehensible like
composition or aesthetics enter into your photography, it might make it
harder to create mediocrity.

--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html

"steve" <steve.wei...@ntlworldsocks.com> wrote in message
news:%VO0a.1795$VQ4....@newsfep4-gui.server.ntli.net...

Lewis Sellers

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 2:17:44 PM2/7/03

to

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 07:58:42 -0000, "steve"
<steve.wei...@ntlworldsocks.com> wrote:

>As someone who grew up on 35mm photography, I got used to to mixing my
>shots - landscape and portrait. With digicams, that doesn't seem to make
>sense, since most of the output is viewed on a landscape PC or TV screen,
>where the image size is constrained by the vertical dimension of the screen
>anyway. I can always crop away the extraneous material at the sides, if I
>need to.

Understandable, but some of us do have those neat new LCD displays
that you can physically rotate 90 degrees. I suppose they were
primarily meant to make reading docs/books easier, but they can allow
viewing of portait's in proper aspect.

The way LCD's are starting to catch on/drop in price... well, maybe a
few years down the road they might not be all that uncommon. So, just
shoot it like it needs to be shot and leave the rest to the future. :)

Markeau

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 2:50:54 PM2/7/03

to

http://jpegclub.org/losslessapps.html

"Steve Michelson" <njch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b20s4r$848$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 7:02:41 PM2/7/03

to

"steve" <steve.wei...@ntlworldsocks.com> writes:

Makes no sense to me. When my pictures are viewed on line, they're
rarely full-screen, so verticals are generally possible. And some
pictures simply look better vertical; I don't want to cut myself off
from those possibilities.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

Frankhartx

unread,

Feb 7, 2003, 11:42:57 PM2/7/03

to

>From: "steve" steve.wei...@ntlworldsocks.com

>shots - landscape and portrait. With digicams, that doesn't seem to make
>sense, since most of the output is viewed on a landscape PC or TV screen,
>where the image size is constrained by the vertical dimension of the screen

>So I have decided never to take portrait shots, EXCEPT for:

Are you serious or is this some kind of put on?

Steve Michelson

unread,

Feb 8, 2003, 9:08:50 AM2/8/03

to

Thanks! I'll check this out.

"Terje Mathisen" <terje.m...@hda.hydro.com> wrote in message
news:b20v6j$jd7$1...@vkhdsu24.hda.hydro.com...

Engineer Scott

unread,

Feb 8, 2003, 4:32:52 PM2/8/03

to

Why don't modern camera's have a sensor built in to detect when you've
rotated the camera and save "Portrait" or "Landscape" in the exif
header? These could then automatically be rotated by smart software.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

scotty

unread,

Feb 9, 2003, 12:10:42 AM2/9/03

to

Your line of reasoning implies we need 6mp cameras for screen display. In
fact, printing is as popular as ever. Even verticals.

Tom P.

"steve" <steve.wei...@ntlworldsocks.com> wrote in message
news:%VO0a.1795$VQ4....@newsfep4-gui.server.ntli.net...