Why does Adobe Bridge's filter panel lists DSLR photographs' aspect ratios as 2:3? Everywhere else I have looked, this ratio is named 3:2.

Same thing with 4:3 which is listed as 3:4. There doesn't seem to be much consistency either because some aspect ratios are listed correctly, like 16:9 for instance.


2 Answers 2


The ratio is probably adjusted according to orientation as well. For example, a 3:2 image would be wider than it is tall, where as a 2:3 image would be taller than it is wide. Same goes for 4:3 vs. 3:4. If you had a vertical panorama, you might find the ratio to be 9:16, rather than 16:9.

Having the aspect ratio be corrected for orientation is actually a very useful thing, so count your blessings!

  • \$\begingroup\$ Actually no. All photos are labeled with the same 2:3 aspect ratio, regardless or orientation. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 15, 2012 at 18:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ There is also the possibility its simply different interpretation. I think most people read ratios as width:height, however some simply think about it differently, and see them as height:width. I am not sure if there is a configuration option to change the way Bridge renders ratios, but it may simply be that the developer who implemented it thinks about ratios in the less common way. \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Aug 15, 2012 at 18:22

Height x Width - This is the standard in the Book world, and Fine Art in particular, the dimensions are always listed as H x W. (Reference the Chicago Style Manual.)

Also in wood industry and in the sign companies everything is H x W. The orientation doesn't have any importance.

I know in the Graphics/Computer world we sometimes do not have the image to immediately see, yet we must allow the correct space in the Layout or Design – so that the other convention (W x H) is important.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I understand this, but what puzzles me is the inconsistency in Bridge. Some ratios are listed as Height x Width (3:4) and others as Width x Height (16:9). \$\endgroup\$ Aug 16, 2012 at 13:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ All the ratios which are related to photos are falling in the Book/Fine Art industry. Hence H x W. All the ratios which are related to video are falling in the Video(Computer) category (gee!). Hence W x H. Yes, it is puzzling. Also as a personal opinion, I don't like too much the path which Bridge is following... \$\endgroup\$ Aug 17, 2012 at 6:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ The confusion may come from HxW. For ratios,we should use «Long Dimension:Short Dimension» (LD:SD). In a folder, Bridge shows horizontal images as 4928x3264 & vertical images as 3264x4928. For now there is consistency (W x H). To get the aspect ratio, I divide LD by SD: 4928÷3264=1.5. «W by H» or «H by W» will not always work because these units vary depending on orientation. Ratios need to be read as LD:SD for all images. Bridge uses 2:3 instead of 3:2 regardless of orientation: 2÷3 = 0.66, not 1.5. HxW is orientation. Ratio is independant of size and orientation. Thanks for your input! \$\endgroup\$ Aug 17, 2012 at 14:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, of course. See, in non-digital industries the material (wood, paper etc.) is prepared somewhere else by someone else. There isn't anything like orientation: "Portrait" or "landscape" depends on how the content will be put on it. That's why all workers with which I spoke doesn't say "Height" and "Width" but "long dimension" and "short dimension". Btw, if you think that I've responded correctly you can accept the answer by pressing the check mark. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 18, 2012 at 7:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.