Yes, but don't you ever crop your photos? Mine all start out at 3:2 but very few are 3:2 by the time I'm finished with them.
Suggestion for different photographic books format
First of all, sorry for my poor English.
The currently available formats for photographic books are square (18x18 cm, 30x30) or almost square (25x20 cm, 20x25, 33x28). This means that the aspect ratio is 1:1 or 5:4. If you have a not occasional approach to photography, probably you have a reflex and the pictures you get have the 3:2 ratio. A square format is more handy because you can use both horizontal and vertical pictures but you'll never have the possibility to have a picture filling the whole page, unless you accept to have it strongly cut, or you have to accept unestethic borders. I suggest 3:2 ratio formats like 13x20 or 20x30 for photographic books.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Usually I don't crop my photos, especially portraits. When I take a picture I don't think only about printing it in a book, I mainly think of exploiting the space at its best and eventually to show it in its original format on websites, prints and books (with borders).
I already printed a couple of books with the available formats, using borders. This time, for a specific project about portraits, I would have liked to avoid borders and almost square formats.
I had a look to some of your books, they are nice, but I rarely see pictures not at a 3:2 ratio. I see very few "almost square" formats and a few "panoramic" pictures, these one probably are cropped ones. Some of your pictures are displayed at full page, overflowing in the next one.
Anyway, I gave a feedback to Blurb, maybe they appreciate it. If you are happy with the currently available formats, I'm glad for you.
I'm not sure which books you looked at, but I just had a quick squiz at my most recently published one, "Where on earth?", and over the first twenty pages or so, more than eighty percent are cropped, and so are not in a 3:2 ratio. I don't even think about the ratio, which is entirely dependednt on the subject matter. Yes, on occasion I make an uncropped full-page photo overflow onto a second page, but more often I do a two-page spread, which requires removing the top or bottom of the original. Usually this doesn't detract from the shot, and often it enhances it. I guess if you're doing books with just portraits in them you might feel differently.
I did a photography tour once where the leader revealed an obsession with Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio. He made all his photos 1:1.618 because he claimed that there was evidence that this is the most pleasing to the eye. He did this not by cropping but by stretching the shorter dimension, thus slightly distorting the image. I could see some merit in his approach for pictures mounted on a wall, but not in a book, where I like to be flexible and crop the photo to suit the subject matter. As you'd have seen, I often place multiple images on a page, and enjoy the flexibility that InDesign offers.
I got inspired by a famous book of Steve McCurry called "Portraits" (http://www.amazon.it/Portraits-Steve-McCurry/dp/071483839X), a photographer I'm not worthy to be compared with. Anyway, I really find difficult to adopt my pictures, exclusively portraits or close-up portraits, to the square format. You use pictures in a different way: sometimes you put many in the same page, sometime you alternate big ones to small ones. It's a nice combination and I have absolutely nothing against it.
But for this specific project I was trying to follow an example I liked and I was not able to get the same final effect. I tried the available formats on screen but, believe me, if you want pictures to completely fill the page with the available format quite often heads are partially cropped and the pictures it's not the same anymore. Moreover, consider that I produce photographic books mainly for my personal satisfaction, so if it's not like I would like it to be, I don't print it.