The other format that I find more genuine and less compromised is the cinematic or semi panoramic one.
The human eyes see naturally into a panoramic or wide screen format. There is a reason films are shot in 16:9 ratio or wider. It looks awesome and feels natural.
For stills, it has an amazing feeling of depth and drama, forcing the shooter to use the whole frame width to tell a story. Rather than the rather ambiguous semi wide 3:2 or semi square 4:3 ratios, the true cinematic super wide commits to a look that is far stronger, but more demanding.
You cannot often lift a super wide from a rectangle (all of these were), but the pixel wastage can be crippling (as can paper wastage).
Rather than the instant, almost invisible comprehension the square offers, the cine-wide makes the viewer look left to right (or right to left depending on the subject).
Comprehension of the space is forced into an exploration dynamic. This is not a glance and hold format like the square, it is a look and explore format.
This “Super-Cine” format can do what normal rectangles fail to do. It can create drama on an epic scale.
Depth can be used, but also the full width can tell a story from end to end.
Extra height in this image dilutes the story the two women on the end add.
The power of the strong graphic elements in this image are again reduced with more height. The image becomes half about the seats and half the negative space above, to no benefit.
The sweeping landscape suddenly emerges from even confined spaces.
There are even opportunities for multiple stories to intermingle. I think the true master of this format (not me) could balance multiple elements, allowing each their own strength, but use them also to support each other to even greater combined effect.
Repetition can also be used in a stronger fashion.