Alessandro Fanchin Posted July 18, 2008 Share #1 Posted July 18, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am curious to know the opinion of the Forum about the frame of the pictures that everyone prefers, and if there is some explanation about the reasons that pushed to create the 4/3 frame. Personally, I prefer 2/3 (the usual 24x36), and maybe I would like to try larger (panoramic) frames. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Hi Alessandro Fanchin, Take a look here 4/3 or 2/3?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sdai Posted July 18, 2008 Share #2 Posted July 18, 2008 My standard paper size is 8.5x11 so obviously 4:5 is my favorite ... I do a lot of 4x6 postcards as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 18, 2008 Share #3 Posted July 18, 2008 1.41:1 .......a bit narrower then 5:7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasl.se Posted July 18, 2008 Share #4 Posted July 18, 2008 2:3 is too cool for school. I also find both 4:5 and 5:7 more pleasing than 3:4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted July 18, 2008 Share #5 Posted July 18, 2008 I usually crop to suit the subject matter anyway for competition and exhibition work, so the frame size at point of capture is irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milsu Posted July 19, 2008 Share #6 Posted July 19, 2008 I used 4/3 framing earlier on a compact digicam, and found I had too much useless empty space. The pictures somehow fit better in 3/2 frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Fanchin Posted July 20, 2008 Author Share #7 Posted July 20, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I used 4/3 framing earlier on a compact digicam, and found I had too much useless empty space. The pictures somehow fit better in 3/2 frame. I like your point about useless space. Maybe our brain thinks that the space is to be seen and considered in a 3x2 frame, or maybe in a 1,618 ratio frame (the Golden Ratio). Maybe some scientist studying our way of seeing the World could start an experimentation to understand that! Is there anybody in this Forum that knows about any scientific work in this area? Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Fanchin Posted September 16, 2008 Author Share #8 Posted September 16, 2008 I have been thinking and trying about that, and here are my feelings/ideas/conclusions: - When the head is horizontal, I feel like to see in a 24x36 frame or even larger. Like Cinemascope, for example. So, for landscapes, 24x36 or wider is a must. - When the head looks high, for some reason the brain looses control of the sides and the perception is like a vertical 24x36 or even more vertical. - When the head looks down, the perception is similar to the one above. These are nly my personal experiments. Is there anybody else that wants to share his/her opinion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted September 16, 2008 Share #9 Posted September 16, 2008 I used 4/3 framing earlier on a compact digicam, and found I had too much useless empty space. The pictures somehow fit better in 3/2 frame. I guess this is "your" personal view. I'm rather convinced that the 4/3 standard needs a complete mental reorganization. It's something like using a 6x6 frame (and maybe few if not even one could dare say something negative about it). If your personal view is 2x3 then it's just a matter of taste, but if you choose to set your mind in a 4/3 "standard" you should gamble on your ability to make pictures. This may not lead to a successful period of shooting and so you may abandon the 4/3, but if not, once you understand the trick (your trick) that may give you great artistic flair as well. I used 4/3 cameras for a couple of years before the M8 came out, I had to train my mind more than my eyes to think again in a 2/3 dimension. I was attracted by a more "squared" frame after years of 2x3 pictures (film and digital), so I bet on the 4/3, and it was nice. That's just my humble opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_mitchell Posted September 23, 2008 Share #10 Posted September 23, 2008 4:3 is my favourite ratio, except for landscapes which I like much longer. Nothing suits 3:2 to my eye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted September 23, 2008 Share #11 Posted September 23, 2008 At times a subject will call for a particular aspect ratio, I love 16:9, am OK with my C Lux-1 4:3, but most often I am happiest with 3:2. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 23, 2008 Share #12 Posted September 23, 2008 Alessandro, you got the point quoting the Golden Ratio ("Divina Proportione") : I often cut away slices of my 20x30 prints to have 18,5x30... and this looks superpleasant in horizontals, and appealing in CERTAIN verticals (NOT in face portraits). 2/3 is a decent approx of the G.R. and I find natural that is to be preferred over 4/3; but there has been, for me, also a time in which I tried to insist to use 6x6 to enjoy the freedom to cut the way I preferred, starting from the plain square... wouldn't have it been that a) My Rolleiflex was too heavy for a single-lens equipment, Hasselblad was costly, and a 3-4 lens set again too heavy for mountaineering, c) Fell in love with Leica M ... maybe I could have followed that way (which, I think, can be the best if the final product is not a print, but a number of prints to be edited into a magazine). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Fanchin Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share #13 Posted September 23, 2008 Thank you for agreeing with me. Don't you think that the golden ration is the way that our brain sees when the head is horizontal? Try! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 23, 2008 Share #14 Posted September 23, 2008 Thank you for agreeing with me. Don't you think that the golden ration is the way that our brain sees when the head is horizontal? Try! Can be an interesting hipotesis... the phisiology/psichology of seeing is a seriously studied matter, and something about could be worth to study to verify it.... but, in general terms, is almost universally accepted that the Golden Ratio has something that "feels right" to our brain... and this could be put in relation with the fact that a "no stressing - calm" vision embraces such a proportion of space... maybe some self-made experiment could be done: imagine to append some artwork in front of you (picture... but you need some proper images, I guess), find the right distance that allows you to "embrace" it without having to "distract" your brain "spotting around", then try different H/V proportions... (Well... not so easy to be self-made... by the psichological point of view, better to have an "indipendent" people to manage the different sizings, to avoid self-suggestions... by the phisiological point of view, is probably better to have some non-intrusive eye-movement detector...ohohho, too complicated... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Fanchin Posted September 24, 2008 Author Share #15 Posted September 24, 2008 Is there any way to pass this idea to some research center? Or maybe in Solms they have already tried it, in fact the S2 is 2/3? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 24, 2008 Share #16 Posted September 24, 2008 Is there any way to pass this idea to some research center? Or maybe in Solms they have already tried it, in fact the S2 is 2/3? "Padovani gran Dottori"... e tu sei della zona, direi... acchiappa qualche Prof. di Psicologia (è la più antica facoltà di psicologia d'Italia, credo...) ... ce ne sarà qualcuno che si occupa di visione ! Poi, per gli sponsors... si vedrà... Sorry for the idiom, members... an "all-italian" biz... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Fanchin Posted September 24, 2008 Author Share #17 Posted September 24, 2008 The University of Padua was founded in A.D. 1221, by the way. I wasn't thinking about psychologists, but about some neuro-perception-intelligence-consciousness scientist: Like for example Roger Penrose, or the last book of 2 Italian bio-engineers Manzotti and Tagliasco: "L'esperienza - Perché i neuroni non spiegano tutto". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 24, 2008 Share #18 Posted September 24, 2008 I meant... not all Psychology lecturers are only devoted to Freud & C. ... some of them are REAL scientists... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.