Vertically

Last Tuesday, I instructed my T-MAX agent to scan all the photos I’ve uploaded to Web2 and Web3 (HIVE). The instructions were clear: themes, techniques (black-and-white and color), engagement metrics, and dates. Spanning over 20 years, the results were surprising.

But what caught my attention most was that he gave me two things I hadn’t asked for: the size of the photos in pixels and the formats (horizontal, vertical, square). Regarding size, a true reflection of evolution: from 640x480, to 800x600, then 1600x1200, up to the most recent 1920x1080 pixels.

As for the formats: 92% horizontal, 5% square, and only 3% vertical. I had never thought about that before. To try to balance the percentages, I’m sharing this series of vertical photos for the #monomad contest.

However, this imbalance between formats—which isn’t just mine, but a widespread phenomenon—has several explanations. Our eyes are positioned side by side, which gives us a panoramic view of the world.

We naturally perceive more width than height, so horizontal images seem more “natural” for representing reality.

History is another explanation; early visual media established this horizontal standard. Painting, cinema, television, and later computer monitors adopted horizontal formats. This created a predominant visual habit: we associate the “full image” with the landscape format.

The ergonomics of cameras also play a role; it’s more comfortable to hold them horizontally for greater stability with two hands. The shutter button is positioned for this use, and the grip provides more stability to minimize the risk of camera shake.

Interestingly, with the rise of smartphones in photography, the paradigm seems to be shifting. We naturally hold our phones vertically; vertical images take up more space on the smartphone screen, and platforms have begun to prioritize vertical content. Instagram and TikTok set the tone for many other platforms to follow suit.

_{via Apps from}